Canon RF 200-800mm IS USM Previews / Reviews

[docsmith]

Duade Paton was just giving his "Awards" for 2023. Guess what is the co-winner for 2023 new Wildlife lens....yep...RF 200-800. He is a fan. Linked to the start of the 200-800 discussion.

If you want the nutshell summary...reach...and price. Combining this with what Jan has said, if you want 100-700 (including 1.4x tc)...the 100-500 seems to be a better lens. But, if you want that 700-1120 mm....the 200-800 is your winner.

I think I will be forever miffed that Canon did not include (if Jan is right) better coatings or a few more high end elements in the 200-800. I would have happily paid more. But nothing else out there is giving this type of reach and the 200-800 is performing very well. Without having held one myself, it seems to be a great tool to have in the kit, if you do photowalks/birds....and I do.

 

[AlanF]

Duade Paton was just giving his "Awards" for 2023. Guess what is the co-winner for 2023 new Wildlife lens....yep...RF 200-800. He is a fan. Linked to the start of the 200-800 discussion.

If you want the nutshell summary...reach...and price. Combining this with what Jan has said, if you want 100-700 (including 1.4x tc)...the 100-500 seems to be a better lens. But, if you want that 700-1120 mm....the 200-800 is your winner.

I think I will be forever miffed that Canon did not include (if Jan is right) better coatings or a few more high end elements in the 200-800. I would have happily paid more. But nothing else out there is giving this type of reach and the 200-800 is performing very well. Without having held one myself, it seems to be a great tool to have in the kit, if you do photowalks/birds....and I do.

I am going to have the opportunity of testing one for myself at the end of next week, and I'll compare it with the 800 f/11 and the 100-500mm with extenders on the R5 and R7 if I am allowed the time. What worries me at this stage is that there are reports that at 800mm it's only slightly better than the 100-500mm + 1.4xTC. I've never thought much of the 1.4x on the 100-500mm and had put it down to that my copy of the TC might not be good. I've now extensively tested my TC against two other copies and it's just as good as them. The 800 f/11 is noticeably better.

 

[Dragon]

I am going to have the opportunity of testing one for myself at the end of next week, and I'll compare it with the 800 f/11 and the 100-500mm with extenders on the R5 and R7 if I am allowed the time. What worries me at this stage is that there are reports that at 800mm it's only slightly better than the 100-500mm + 1.4xTC. I've never thought much of the 1.4x on the 100-500mm and had put it down to that my copy of the TC might not be good. I've now extensively tested my TC against two other copies and it's just as good as them. The 800 f/11 is noticeably better.

Looking forward to your evaluation. From what I have seen so far, it looks like the 200-800 at 800mm is just about on a par with the 800 f/11 but brighter and closer MFD. The periphery looks a bit better and the center is maybe slightly softer at f/9 and at least as good at f/11. The proof is in actual pictures because there is some stuff (both good and bad) that just doesn't show up on test charts. One review said the stabilization is much better than the 800/11 and that would be amazing, because I find the 80/11 to be quite good. That review was also using the 200-800 on a tripod with stabilization on, so it appears that tripod sensing is included as it appears to also be on the 800/11 from my experience. Still no word from B&H on my copy.

 

[docsmith]

@AlanF, I am among those interested in your thoughts. I am not sure when my pre-order will come. Until then, I am just watching videos.

A few more reviews from Wild Alaska and TDP.

First up, Wild Alaska discusses the 100-500 v 200-800

at 39:44, he makes the claim that he prefers the 200-800 over the 100-500 plus 1.4TC. 43:45 outright says he prefers the 200-800 and spends the rest of the time talking about why. Gets down to price and purpose. Sounds like the 200-800 fits his needs better and he has always had an issue with the 100-500 price point (bought and sold it twice).


TDP:

Canon RF 200-800mm F6.3-9 IS USM Lens Review

Is the Canon RF 200-800mm F6.3-9 IS USM Lens right for you? Learn all you need to know in The-Digital-Picture.com's review!

www.the-digital-picture.com

200-800 is a very good to great lens. But, if you want 100-500 and can afford it get the 100-500. It is a better lens, especially in that range. For reach, 200-800. Probably not shocking, the 100-500 w/tc is comparable, but everyone seems to view it as a push or have a slight preference for the 200-800 at the long end. Also, with Bryan, sometimes you look at the nuances. Here, he concludes that serious amateurs and professionals alike will use and like the 200-800. I view that as high praise.

For what it is worth.

 

[neuroanatomist]

...he has always had an issue with the 100-500 price point (bought and sold it twice).

It was so expensive he decided to lose money on it. Twice. Doesn't sound like a very well thought-out plan.

 

[AlanF]

@AlanF, I am among those interested in your thoughts. I am not sure when my pre-order will come. Until then, I am just watching videos.

A few more reviews from Wild Alaska and TDP.

First up, Wild Alaska discusses the 100-500 v 200-800

at 39:44, he makes the claim that he prefers the 200-800 over the 100-500 plus 1.4TC. 43:45 outright says he prefers the 200-800 and spends the rest of the time talking about why. Gets down to price and purpose. Sounds like the 200-800 fits his needs better and he has always had an issue with the 100-500 price point (bought and sold it twice).


TDP:

Canon RF 200-800mm F6.3-9 IS USM Lens Review

Is the Canon RF 200-800mm F6.3-9 IS USM Lens right for you? Learn all you need to know in The-Digital-Picture.com's review!

www.the-digital-picture.com

200-800 is a very good to great lens. But, if you want 100-500 and can afford it get the 100-500. It is a better lens, especially in that range. For reach, 200-800. Probably not shocking, the 100-500 w/tc is comparable, but everyone seems to view it as a push or have a slight preference for the 200-800 at the long end. Also, with Bryan, sometimes you look at the nuances. Here, he concludes that serious amateurs and professionals alike will use and like the 200-800. I view that as high praise.

For what it is worth.

Thanks Doc! Thoughtful review by Bryan. Can't wait to do some limited tests myself on Friday. I'll probably end up buying it but it won't replace the RF 100-500mm as my main lens as the shorter lens is so much better close up for insect work with better magnification and much lower field curvature, and I get good bird pics at th long end. My underlying worry is that so many reviewers have the 100-500mm with 1.4x TC at 700mm on a par with the 800mm albeit a 100mm shorter, and I find the the 100-500mm at 700mm disappointing in comparison with the bare lens. Also for BIF, I don't like going longer than 500mm on FF.

 

[Dragon]

B&H just shipped my 200-800. Scheduled to be here Friday.

 

[sanj]

I could be tempted, but can only afford one- either the 100-500 or this new 200-800 non-L. I too found that SA lady's comments strange since the 200-800 at 800 distance seemed a little soft.
It should be sharper - in theory, since at f/9 the front lens aperture should be 89mm, compared with only 70mm for the100-500. Using the 1.4x makes the 100-500 an f/10. But comparable. I'll have to wait for real world evaluation.
Either combo 100-500+1.4x or 200-800 ought on basic principles give similar results.

I also think contrast can be improved in post, that is often done with landscape anyway. Could be that the missing coatings that L lenses get is responsible for worse contrast, if it is.

Then there is the question of which body. R7 would be in DLA for either combo. R5 would be virtually the same. R6 would not but then has lower resolution.
Difficult Choice for those who can't afford the 600 or 200-500 f/4 coming!

If you do not need focal length beyond 500 regularly, then the 100-500 seems the better lens.

 

[Klas R]

Thanks Doc! Thoughtful review by Bryan. Can't wait to do some limited tests myself on Friday. I'll probably end up buying it but it won't replace the RF 100-500mm as my main lens as the shorter lens is so much better close up for insect work with better magnification and much lower field curvature, and I get good bird pics at th long end. My underlying worry is that so many reviewers have the 100-500mm with 1.4x TC at 700mm on a par with the 800mm albeit a 100mm shorter, and I find the the 100-500mm at 700mm disappointing in comparison with the bare lens. Also for BIF, I don't like going longer than 500mm on FF.

Did you get your hands on the RF 200-800 on previous Friday (or in the weekend)?

We, I think there are many of us, are eagerly waiting on your reflections and verdict!
From my point of view using the lens with the R5 and comparing it with the RF 100-500 + 1.4X TC, as well as the RF 800/11 would be the most interesting part.

 

[AlanF]

Did you get your hands on the RF 200-800 on previous Friday (or in the weekend)?

We, I think there are many of us, are eagerly waiting on your reflections and verdict!
From my point of view using the lens with the R5 and comparing it with the RF 100-500 + 1.4X TC, as well as the RF 800/11 would be the most interesting part.

I've been ploughing through lots of images and I will report, but I have been busy with other deadlines.

 

[scyrene]

I test all my lenses hand held under conditions I use for them in the wild (I don't use a tripod there) and on a tripod for careful comparisons. I use three distances: close to minimum focus distance for my use with insects; and standard distances of mainly 19m and also 12m, all outside in natural light. There is always a Bob Atkins chart Blutacked to a wall so I can nip out and test. I test under gloomy conditions and in bright light. A couple of days ago, I tested the 100-500mm and 800mm/11 with the 1.4x and 2xTCs on a tripod on gloomy light at speeds of 1/125s and 1/400s. I wanted to check the consistency of focus and then resolution of the zoom at 700mm at 16.75m with the 800mm at 19m where both images would be the same size on the sensor. I did 20 shots for each. The results were very disappointing as most shots were affected by shake at the pixel level. Yesterday, I repeated them in reasonable light, not direct sun, and there was excellent consistency, and much better resolution and contrast. I don't like going below 1/1000s hand held in real life. Whatever they say about IS and the charts you see on test sites, you need high shutter speeds to get tack sharp with telephotos - their tests are just for larger visible shake and not for microscale movements that soften and lose contrast.

As for when extenders are useful, it is too easy to make simplistic remarks and also it depends on what you are doing. An extender will always put more pixels on an image, give you a larger image that requires less magnification to view at the same size or the ability to blow up larger. I use an extender to get more resolution, which is not necessarily the same as putting more pixels on the image. That works only if the detail you want to see is just too fine to be resolved without the extender but the extra focal length will just bring it out. Nowadays, you can upresolve a low resolution image with Gigapixel etc to put more Mpx on the image and so if the image with an extender has no more resolution than without, post processing enlargement is just about as good as using an extender. If the bird, in my case, is sufficiently close that the bare lens lens resolves sufficient detail, then the extender is redundant and may make things worse if lowers IQ. For me in most cases, if I can have 1500 px along the length of the bird, the image is good enough and 2500 super sharp. Even as low as 800 px with a sharp lens will get me something good enough for a greetings card. For very long distances, an extender may bring the image within a range I can upresolve it. The same reasoning applies to focal length - a super sharp image at 500mm may give better results than a softer one at 800mm that resolves no more detail.

In a nutshell, I blow hot and cold about longer lenses and extenders as they are advantageous in specific situations and "reach" is only one factor.

I have huge respect for you obviously, and my experience with current postprocessing software is zero, but I have looked at a lot of bird images that have been upresd with "AI" and on a pixel level they look pretty ropey to me most of the time. My experience has always been, it's far better to have a larger image to start with, even if it is softer, and to then shrink it down with sharpening, noise reduction, etc, than to make it bigger, and I am yet to be convinced modern software magic has superseded that.

 

[scyrene]

I am a little surprised that people expect the 200-800 to equal the performance of the 100-500. It's not an L lens, although current pricing makes it a more confusing choice. As an owner of the RF 100-400 and the RF 800 f/11 I still think this new lens is more desirable than the L, simply because it retains my current focal length capabilities, but is slightly brighter, the MFD is quite a bit less, and it has the flexibility of a zoom. I would even take a mild hit on sharpness vs the 800, which I would expect to get rid of if I got the zoom. If Canon had reduced the 100-500's price a few months ago it might be a different story. Clever them.

 

[AlanF]

I have huge respect for you obviously, and my experience with current postprocessing software is zero, but I have looked at a lot of bird images that have been upresd with "AI" and on a pixel level they look pretty ropey to me most of the time. My experience has always been, it's far better to have a larger image to start with, even if it is softer, and to then shrink it down with sharpening, noise reduction, etc, than to make it bigger, and I am yet to be convinced modern software magic has superseded that.

People use upresolving by Gigapixel in Standard and Low Resolution modes, and I can see the artefacts as you do a mile off, as well as when they are oversharpened. I use the new High Fidelity setting in Topaz, which basically increases the resolution without attempting to sharpen or clever interpretation. It's very much artefact-free. I used it in a couple of examples to upresolve 1.6x in my comparisons of 500mm vs 800mm, for example, in the thread just posted. https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...m-vs-rf-800mm-on-r7-and-r5.43183/#post-983103

Edit: I meant increases the number of pixels not resolution -the resolution remains the same but the pixelation goes down.

 

[koenkooi]

People use upresolving by Gigapixel in Standard and Low Resolution modes, and I can see the artefacts as you do a mile off, as well as when they are oversharpened. I use the new High Fidelity setting in Topaz, which basically increases the resolution without attempting to sharpen or clever interpretation. It's very much artefact-free. I used it in a couple of examples to upresolve 1.6x in my comparisons of 500mm vs 800mm, for example, in the thread just posted.

Have you tried Upscayl Desktop yet? It’s on my todo to try, but I haven’t made the time yet to do so.

 

[AlanF]

Have you tried Upscayl Desktop yet? It’s on my todo to try, but I haven’t made the time yet to do so.

Thanks for the heads-up on that. It's cheap at £12.99 so maybe I'll buy it for public service.

 

[scyrene]

People use upresolving by Gigapixel in Standard and Low Resolution modes, and I can see the artefacts as you do a mile off, as well as when they are oversharpened. I use the new High Fidelity setting in Topaz, which basically increases the resolution without attempting to sharpen or clever interpretation. It's very much artefact-free. I used it in a couple of examples to upresolve 1.6x in my comparisons of 500mm vs 800mm, for example, in the thread just posted. https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...m-vs-rf-800mm-on-r7-and-r5.43183/#post-983103

Thanks. I would imagine natural textures (like feathers) are more challenging to the software, do you find that? I don't know the terminology but there's a sort of recursive worminess on close inspection of such images. I see it increasingly on bird photos posted on Twitter.

 

[AlanF]

Thanks. I would imagine natural textures (like feathers) are more challenging to the software, do you find that? I don't know the terminology but there's a sort of recursive worminess on close inspection of such images. I see it increasingly on bird photos posted on Twitter.

I know exactly what you mean by "worminess". The HiFi mode avoids that whereas low resolution gives those artefacts.

 

[koenkooi]

Thanks for the heads-up on that. It's cheap at £12.99 so maybe I'll buy it for public service.

The non-App store version is free-as-in-beer, I haven’t checked if there are differences between those two versions, besides convenience.

 

[AlanF]

The non-App store version is free-as-in-beer, I haven’t checked if there are differences between those two versions, besides convenience.

Tried it briefly - not good with the one bird i tried. There's been a huge amount of regular upgrades with Topaz, and that's what you pay for them to get it right.

 

[Dragon]

Tried it briefly - not good with the one bird i tried. There's been a huge amount of regular upgrades with Topaz, and that's what you pay for them to get it right.

You definitely need Internet bandwidth to keep up with Topaz updates. That said, they have stayed at the front of the curve. LR "enhance" works well to a point, but if detail is really in the mud, both PL and Topaz work better in my experience. I have also found that using either LR "enhance" or PL prime XD if I turn down the slider a bit to let a little noise through and then follow up with a pass from Topaz Denoise I get a more detailed result than just cranking up the slider on either of the first two.