Canon RF 200-800mm IS USM Previews / Reviews

Nov 13, 2023
111
222
I think the term "heat haze" is a bit misleading. The actual problem with thermal distortion is temperature gradients. I live on the Oregon coast were it rarely gets hot, but all summer we have temperature inversion (i.e. increasing temperature with increasing altitude). That condition also causes eddy currents of warm and cool air to form lenticular structures in the air. On a casual glance, the air looks perfectly clear, but if you throw an 800mm lens into the mix, the subject will be very distorted. Video really shows up the problem as the subject will wiggle and squirm like a worm, when actually not moving at all. I normally don't save the distorted images, but the below example will give the idea. The first image was shot at 400mm with an R7 and a Tamron 18-400 and the second with an SL2 and an EF800mm f/5.6L with 2x TC. The lenses are in no way comparable, but you can see the the lens is not the limiting factor in the first image. The power wires are wiggly and even the pole is not entirely straight. You can also see the areas of fuzziness, particularly on the dangling arc suppressors. That was a bad air day, but I have seen many worse. The second image shows just how clear the image can be on a good day with a good lens, whereas in the first case, a better lens would have only served to show up the wiggles and fuzz to greater extent. The distortion problem is worst when the air is still and the sun is shining. If there is a breeze blowing, it tends to break up the lenslets that form in the air and clears the image, at least to a degree. For reference, the power pole is about a mile away about 800 ft higher than the camera in an area of often heavy thermal inversion.



View attachment 213638View attachment 213639
Yes, anyone who shoots over water where air and water temperature differ will know exactly what you mean.
 
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
12,476
22,996
Yes, anyone who shoots over water where air and water temperature differ will know exactly what you mean.
I think it's worse when the surface (land or water) is hotter than the air above because the hot air rises causing currents of varying refractive index. Over a cold surface, the air closest to the surface cools down and stays at the bottom and won't cause convection currents so much. Heat haze isn't to be confused with haze, which is caused by particles in the air, but refers to change in refractive index and temperature gradients.
 
Upvote 0

Dragon

EF 800L f/5.6, RF 800 f/11
May 29, 2019
1,248
1,764
Oregon
I think it's worse when the surface (land or water) is hotter than the air above because the hot air rises causing currents of varying refractive index. Over a cold surface, the air closest to the surface cools down and stays at the bottom and won't cause convection currents so much. Heat haze isn't to be confused with haze, which is caused by particles in the air, but refers to change in refractive index and temperature gradients.
All mirages of one sort or another (the atmospheric community has a list of mirage types :LOL:) and all detrimental to long distance photography. Hot below is the more documented situation, but there are also mirages over ice in polar regions and where I am, the worst examples occur during inversion conditions (i.e. cold over the ocean and warmer with increasing altitude). The best conditions for shooting whale migration (later this week, BTW) are cloudy days (which are in the forecast, so maybe a few good shots). I find the air to typically be good right after a rain so long as fog doesn't develop because the rain tends to even out the air temperature.
 
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
12,476
22,996
All mirages of one sort or another (the atmospheric community has a list of mirage types :LOL:) and all detrimental to long distance photography. Hot below is the more documented situation, but there are also mirages over ice in polar regions and where I am, the worst examples occur during inversion conditions (i.e. cold over the ocean and warmer with increasing altitude). The best conditions for shooting whale migration (later this week, BTW) are cloudy days (which are in the forecast, so maybe a few good shots). I find the air to typically be good right after a rain so long as fog doesn't develop because the rain tends to even out the air temperature.
I am afraid the proximity of the RF 200-800mm is a classic mirage, with the light rays bent so it appears much closer than reality.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

Dragon

EF 800L f/5.6, RF 800 f/11
May 29, 2019
1,248
1,764
Oregon
I am afraid the proximity of the RF 200-800mm is a classic mirage, with the light rays bent so it appears much closer than reality.
I will survive. The pressure is less now that I have slapped an extension tube on the 800/11. Just a few feet of MFD gain has made a big difference in my specific case.
 
  • Love
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

Dragon

EF 800L f/5.6, RF 800 f/11
May 29, 2019
1,248
1,764
Oregon
The 800/11 is a surprisingly good lens.
Yes it is (and the 600/11 as well). The big deal is that it shows that DO is no longer an expensive approach and also produces very good IQ at low cost. Curious to see what Canon does with DO next. I was actually kind of surprised that the 200-800 was not a DO design.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
I've checked my back tests. On the R5, the RF 2x on the 100-500mm at 600mm outresolves the bare lens at 500mm. At 726mm, it slightly outresolves the lens with the 1.4xTC at 700mm. I conducted a long series of tests with extenders in the past few days and I am having a new 1.4x delivered tomorrow. There's a huge cash back on it just announced. What has surprised me, is that the 1.4x is consistently more impressive when used on the R7. Anyway, if anything interesting turns up in my testing of the new TC, I'll report it.
I am very interested in your findings using the RF 100-500mm with your two 1.4X TC's. Do you notice any differences between the two as regards the IQ you get?
Also very interested in more comparisons with the RF 2.0X TC at similar focal length.

If I look at the Canon MTF charts you provided it looks as you should always expect worse result with the 2.0X TC when compared to the 1.4X at the same focal length ?!
 
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
12,476
22,996
I am very interested in your findings using the RF 100-500mm with your two 1.4X TC's. Do you notice any differences between the two as regards the IQ you get?
Also very interested in more comparisons with the RF 2.0X TC at similar focal length.

If I look at the Canon MTF charts you provided it looks as you should always expect worse result with the 2.0X TC when compared to the 1.4X at the same focal length ?!
I've spent a few days intensively comparing the two 1.4x, and there is very little difference. I am not doing any more!
Photography Life has done an in-depth review of the very sharp Nikon Z 600 PF f/6.3 https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-z-600mm-f-6-3-vr-s The lens is virtually diffraction limited and has an MTF50 of 3300 lw/ph, which drops to 2443 with a 1.4x TC and 2013 with the 2x. The reviewer claims that the extenders do reveal more detail. This parallels what I find with the TCs on the f7.1 and what you see in the TDP site - some increase but nowhere near 1.4x and 2x because of diffraction.

The bare 100-500mm on the R7 resolves at least as well as the lens + 1.4xTC on the R5 in all my testing as before. I am pretty sure the 100-500mm + 1.4x on the R7 will give more reach than the 200-800 on the R5.

Yes, the 1.4x at at the same focal length as the 2x will beat it.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
12,476
22,996
This post might not be popular here. The Sony 1.4x TC bucks the trend. The Sony 200-600mm f/6.3 has very little image degradation with the 1.4x to give an 840mm f/9 that is actually sharper than the RF 200-800mm f/9.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

Dragon

EF 800L f/5.6, RF 800 f/11
May 29, 2019
1,248
1,764
Oregon
This post might not be popular here. The Sony 1.4x TC bucks the trend. The Sony 200-600mm f/6.3 has very little image degradation with the 1.4x to give an 840mm f/9 that is actually sharper than the RF 200-800mm f/9.
Yes it is sharper in that test, but with actual images and the software tools we use, I wonder. The Sony has more CA in the periphery and substantial color aliasing in the center, so the question is what to you really recover after processing? A good example is your RF 100-400. It doesn't look all that good in Bryan's chart, but everybody (including yourself) seems to be happy with the results it produces. I believe Bryan uses JPEGs for his charts and keeps sharpening fairly minimal, but if you look through the Sony lenses, it really looks like the Sony bodies have quite a bit of sharpening that can't be turned off. A comparison with RAW files that were processed similarly through a third party like Adobe would be interesting and somehow I doubt you would see as much of a difference.
 
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
12,476
22,996
Yes it is sharper in that test, but with actual images and the software tools we use, I wonder. The Sony has more CA in the periphery and substantial color aliasing in the center, so the question is what to you really recover after processing? A good example is your RF 100-400. It doesn't look all that good in Bryan's chart, but everybody (including yourself) seems to be happy with the results it produces. I believe Bryan uses JPEGs for his charts and keeps sharpening fairly minimal, but if you look through the Sony lenses, it really looks like the Sony bodies have quite a bit of sharpening that can't be turned off. A comparison with RAW files that were processed similarly through a third party like Adobe would be interesting and somehow I doubt you would see as much of a difference.
He captures in RAW, not jpegs, as he describes here. You get colour aliasing on the Sony A7RIII from the sensor as it lacks an AA-filter. The point is that the Sony extender is superb for some reason.
 
Upvote 0

Dragon

EF 800L f/5.6, RF 800 f/11
May 29, 2019
1,248
1,764
Oregon
He captures in RAW, not jpegs, as he describes here. You get colour aliasing on the Sony A7RIII from the sensor as it lacks an AA-filter. The point is that the Sony extender is superb for some reason.
OK, but three different development chains is not confidence inspiring for cross brand comparisons. DPP does its level best to produce an image that matches the JPEG from the camera. I have no idea what the Nikon ViewNX does, and Capure One is a third party program because Sony no longer has a developer of their own. Seems to me that just using Capture One or Lightroom for all cameras would be the best for comparison purposes. I sent you a PM with a comparison for review.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

koenkooi

CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
3,675
4,283
The Netherlands
OK, but three different development chains is not confidence inspiring for cross brand comparisons. DPP does its level best to produce an image that matches the JPEG from the camera. I have no idea what the Nikon ViewNX does, and Capure One is a third party program because Sony no longer has a developer of their own. Seems to me that just using Capture One or Lightroom for all cameras would be the best for comparison purposes. I sent you a PM with a comparison for review.
One of the issues with that is that both C1 and LR can be very slow to add support for new lenses and bodies, so using the raw converter provided by the manufacturer is the only option. Adobe took about 6 months for the early RF system support.
 
Upvote 0

koenkooi

CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
3,675
4,283
The Netherlands
OK, but three different development chains is not confidence inspiring for cross brand comparisons. DPP does its level best to produce an image that matches the JPEG from the camera. I have no idea what the Nikon ViewNX does, and Capure One is a third party program because Sony no longer has a developer of their own. Seems to me that just using Capture One or Lightroom for all cameras would be the best for comparison purposes. I sent you a PM with a comparison for review.
I agree about using the same RAW converter for everything, even though that has practical issues as I mentioned above.
 
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
12,476
22,996
OK, but three different development chains is not confidence inspiring for cross brand comparisons. DPP does its level best to produce an image that matches the JPEG from the camera. I have no idea what the Nikon ViewNX does, and Capure One is a third party program because Sony no longer has a developer of their own. Seems to me that just using Capture One or Lightroom for all cameras would be the best for comparison purposes. I sent you a PM with a comparison for review.
Using common software is not the solution for comparison. The output from a camera depends on the lens and importantly the sensor as well as other factors.
To compare lenses in absolute terms - use an optical bench, which is independent of camera and software.
To compare whole systems - use the best software with its best settings for your purposes (camera, speed, aperture, body, distance etc), because it is your image that counts.
To compare within a system, like TDP with charts or better still with IMATEST, comparisons of different lenses with or without extenders is best done with the best software for that camera, and the results are internally consistent.

For my purposes, I test using charts and in the field at the different distances and conditions I mostly use and with my different bodies and using my favourite software.
 
Upvote 0

docsmith

CR Pro
Sep 17, 2010
1,251
1,253
I watched it earlier today. Same basic points. He will keep both. He likes both. Biggest difference is that he values the 100-200 mm range to get wildlife landscape images. So he favors the 100-500 in that range. But, going out, it really becomes a toss up. So, if you can get close where 100-500 mm works, go with the 100-500.

If you need reach, he'd prefer a native 800 mm shot over a cropped 500 mm shot to same framing. But, put the 1.4x TC on and IQ is a push. AF with the 100-500 seems a bit better...stickier.

Even more reach, the 200-800 goes where the 100-500 doesn't.

So, while he wasn't this specific:
  • 100-500 works for you: go with the 100-500.
  • 500-800 is needed. Either lens, but he values being able to go to 100-200 as needed.
  • 800-1120 mm, he was less specific, but I believe this is where he'll favor the 200-800.

So, either end there is a preference, in the middle there is solid overlap.

That said, the better contrast/blacks from the 100-500 really has my attention. I am still EF (100-400 II and 500 f/4 II), so I could jump to either.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Upvote 0