Canon RF 200-800mm IS USM Previews / Reviews

[bbasiaga]

Most of the whining is down to "i want big white aperture at consumer prices". So do I of course, but I can evaluate this for what it is. The only way most mortals can get an 800mm zoom. For me, its ideal. The MTF looks slightly better than the 800/11 at 800. That lens has proven to be a good performer IQ wise, and mine is no exception to that. Sounds like the focus and tracking is quite fast on the zoom as well. Pretty exciting to me, for the price. I've got a preorder at one place and am wait listed at another.

-Brian

 

[Loswr]

Most of the whining is down to "i want big white aperture at consumer prices".

Or, ‘I want Sony’s f/6.3 aperture’, nevermind that’s at 600mm. I mean, it’s only a 200mm difference. No real advantage for Canon there (but the Sony 200-600’s extra 100mm and 1/3-stop are so much better than the 100-500 that the latter is unusable).

 

[docsmith]

haha....

This may sound odd, but from my perspective the biggest issue is that Canon may have been too good at hitting their target market with the 200-800. It is simply that I may not be that market. I think the 200-800 is targeted at higher end prosumers. People that are going to buy 1 telephoto lens and will walk around and take photos of birds in parks at mid-day. Photograph their kids playing sports...at mid-day. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. In a way, amazing...excellent. I am glad they have their lens. And before I caught the "L" disease, I would have likely been the target market. As it is, I've pre-ordered this lens.

However, I am well aware I am in a slightly different market. I will consider spending >$10k on a lens. Is the $2k version worth me diverting money from my eventual larger purchase of something like a 200-500 f/4 L or 400 f/2.8 with built in tc? That is my debate.

I walk around parks and photograph for fun, but I do enjoy taking as good of images as possible and I do go on photography dedicated trips. I enjoy the challenge. I do like the higher end gear. So, the biggest flaw in this lens may be the fact that I am not the target market. But no doubt, this is going to be a popular lens. It is perfect for a lot of people I know.

 

[Loswr]

So, the biggest flaw in this lens may be the fact that I am not the target market. But no doubt, this is going to be a popular lens. It is perfect for a lot of people I know.

I see the same flaw in this lens, and for me it’s a big enough flaw that I didn’t preorder it.

 

[AlanF]

People that are going to buy 1 telephoto lens and will walk around and take photos of birds in parks at mid-day.

An 800mm f/9 is actually 2/3rds stop faster than a 500mm f/7.1. It drops 60% more photon per duck in the image, and it is the number of photons that determine the signal/noise and not the iso.

 

[Nemorino]

An 800mm f/9 is actually 1 stop faster than a 500mm f/7.1.

How would it be compared to 600 f/6.3?

 

[Hector1970]

An 800mm f/9 is actually 1 stop faster than a 500mm f/7.1. It drops twice as many photon per duck in the image, and it is the number of photons that determine the signal/noise and not the iso.

This is an interesting statement and I’ve no doubt it’s correct. It seems counterintuitive, but I know pixels on the target counts. Does a 1.4 extension on a 100-500mm do something similar?
In theory would a 200-800mm be better than a 100-500mm with an extender or would it be likely to be close?

 

[Surab]

Do people really care about the fact that it's white but not an L lens? I'm not in the Canon verse but to me it doesn't sound like something that needs to brought up.

 

[AlanF]

This is an interesting statement and I’ve no doubt it’s correct. It seems counterintuitive, but I know pixels on the target counts. Does a 1.4 extension on a 100-500mm do something similar?

No. Extenders make no difference to pixels per duck. The key factor is the area of the lens, which determines the amount of light that passes through and extenders don't change the area.

In theory would a 200-800mm be better than a 100-500mm with an extender or would it be likely to be close?

To be more accurate, an 800/9 has a diameter of 89mm, and a 500/7.1 has 70.4mm (without or with extenders), so the relative areas are 89/70.4 squared = 1.6, which is 2/3rd stop better.

 

[AlanF]

How would it be compared to 600 f/6.3?

Just about the same with rounding errors.

 

[Eriknoteric]

Why Canon does this super slow shutter crap is beyond me i guess $$$$ and they know no matter what they build people will buy it!!! Not even 3rd party companies go beyond F6.3 at 600. The 100-500 would have been a bad as lens if it was a 1-500F4.5-5.6 but here we set at F7.1. I know the guy that had the only one in the USA to test and I talked to him yesterday this is what he told me! (Its extremely versatile, and sharp. Perhaps, not as sharp as the 100-500 at long end, but certainly capable of excellent results. It will be a gift for video!!!! Add the use of any of the AI NR and sharpening software the results will be outstanding. They will not be available for a while…I had the only one in US.). I was hoping for something other than F6.3-F9 why it couldn\'t be F4.5-F8 is flat stupid on canons part IMO, when Sigma can build a F4.5-F6.3 60-600 for the same, money. It should have been something like F6.3@600 F7.1@700 F8@ 800 are close to that. Canon is not building lenses like they use to 300F4, 400F5.6 what happened to lenses like those????? For the wildlife crowd Nikon is killing it again!!!!

I’m curious why no one in North America got to review this lens before launch.

 

[docsmith]

To be more accurate, an 800/9 has a diameter of 89mm, and a 500/7.1 has 70.4mm (without or with extenders), so the relative areas are 89/70.4 squared = 1.6, which is 2/3rd stop better.

Thanks. This is a great point.

It’s a while until I have to decide if I keep my pre-order. But if the glass is good, this will be added to my kit. The positive comments regarding AF speed/accuracy and some images I have seen make me encouraged. Then some comments about softness at the long end have me concerned that I should wait for something down the road.

 

[Dreysi]

Thanks for the links Alan and it has given me pause for thought. I think I will still go through with my pre-order but will hold off selling the 100-500 aand do some more direct comparisons too. I think the main point of concern for me was the longer range shots on the Pangolin review. The various zoo shots on other reviews and the shorter 15-20m range shots looked really good with plenty of detail but that 40m shot really wasn't good compared to 800 F5.6. It isn't going to that close to that expensive lens but it was a very significant difference at that distance.

Good point after your comment i Re-watched. Very strange on the side by side hmmmm. I know the price difference is huge but need more testing at colder temperatures. I would be using this for landscape in the mountains and wildlife and if the sharpness was as poor as on the wilderbeast shot then that's a no go from me homie. Luckily I can afford to wait. Thanks for your comment.

 

[birdman916]

Thanks. This is a great point.

It’s a while until I have to decide if I keep my pre-order. But if the glass is good, this will be added to my kit. The positive comments regarding AF speed/accuracy and some images I have seen make me encouraged. Then some comments about softness at the long end have me concerned that I should wait for something down the road.

I am the same. I’d like a 600 5.6 DO but don’t know if it will come

 

[Dragon]

I've read all the written previews by those who have handled it directly, but I haven't looked at the YouTubes.
I'm a little worried about the sharpness at 800mm, although the 1.6x extra length over the 500 should outweigh it by far - 60% extra reach really boosts the resolution and contrast can be improved in post. I hope to check it out myself by beginning of January if I got my order in earlier enough. The crucial test for me is it against the 100-500mm with 2xTC.

"it delivers sharp results throughout most of the zoom range, although 800mm sharpness and contrast could be a bit better in initial tests."
https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/reviews/canon-rf-200-800mm-f63-9-is-usm-review

"The major deterrent for serious action photography is absolute image quality at the 800mm setting,"
https://www.techradar.com/cameras/camera-lenses/canon-rf-200-800mm-f63-9-is-usm-review

"Nonetheless, the images came out crispy, with plenty of detail and with next to no color aberrations if you disregard color noise of the sensor. Of course, it is not on the same level as the brilliant RF 100-500mm f/4,5-7,1 L IS USM"
https://fstoppers.com/reviews/ultim...eview-new-canon-rf-200-800mm-f63-9-usm-646982

Thanks for the links AlanF. I am not sure I trust the opinions of these reviewers re the acuity at 800mm. The couple of actual image examples are showing subjects at the long end smaller than the subjects at the short end, which says the distance was more than 4x. Concurrently, there is no mention of atmospheric contribution and having spent a lot of time at 800mm and above, I am very cognizant of how rarely conditions allow long shots that fully demonstrate the capability of an 800mm lens. I find that quite often, the 800 f/11 will produce results that are comparable to the EF 800 f/5.6 L and that is not because the 800 f/11 is an equally good lens, but rather that it is better than the air on that day (so to speak) and thus the big L shows little or no gain. If conditions are right, the L wins by a fair bit. The 200-800 MTF curves place it between the two lenses I have, but a bit closer to the 800 f/11, which makes sense with diffraction corrected MTFs. The big deal is that the MFD goes from 19 ft on both primes down to just under 11 ft on the zoom and that results in more magnification of small subjects like my resident hummingbirds. Max magnification on the primes is .14x and on the zoom .2x (at 800mm). All else being equal, that alone was enough to convince me to preorder the lens, but the zoom is also a big deal in many situations.

 

[hollybush]

She is paid by the safari.
She would much rather you rent an RF 800 f/5.6 from them than bring your own RF 200-800.

I got curious, so I checked Pangolin’s web site just now. They do not rent equipment, but “will supply free of charge” stuff like the Canon 90D, Sigma 150-600 and EF 100–400mm II. I’m guessing that would be first-come, first-served, and is mainly meant for partners of photographers tagging along or for people who’ve had an equipment mishap, but for all I know they have a room full of stuff.

 

[AlanF]

Thanks for the links AlanF. I am not sure I trust the opinions of these reviewers re the acuity at 800mm. The couple of actual image examples are showing subjects at the long end smaller than the subjects at the short end, which says the distance was more than 4x. Concurrently, there is no mention of atmospheric contribution and having spent a lot of time at 800mm and above, I am very cognizant of how rarely conditions allow long shots that fully demonstrate the capability of an 800mm lens. I find that quite often, the 800 f/11 will produce results that are comparable to the EF 800 f/5.6 L and that is not because the 800 f/11 is an equally good lens, but rather that it is better than the air on that day (so to speak) and thus the big L shows little or no gain. If conditions are right, the L wins by a fair bit. The 200-800 MTF curves place it between the two lenses I have, but a bit closer to the 800 f/11, which makes sense with diffraction corrected MTFs. The big deal is that the MFD goes from 19 ft on both primes down to just under 11 ft on the zoom and that results in more magnification of small subjects like my resident hummingbirds. Max magnification on the primes is .14x and on the zoom .2x (at 800mm). All else being equal, that alone was enough to convince me to preorder the lens, but the zoom is also a big deal in many situations.

The Pangolin website spends time discussing atmospheric conditions and she shows the 200-800 to be soft where the 800/5.6 is sharp.

Her comments about long distances were very strange. She put the difference between the sharpness of the 800 f/5.6 and the 200-800 f/9 at distance down to atmospheric effects. But how can they be different for 2 lenses? Also, heat haze and shimmer might make shots impossible over 30-35m where she operates, but for much of my time in the UK, it's the least of my worries though not always so. Nikon has been in the habit of optimising lenses for closer distances, and it's all part of the limitations of lens design to get what is the best compromise overall. I am not cancelling my pre-order.

 

[Elgogo]

haha....

This may sound odd, but from my perspective the biggest issue is that Canon may have been too good at hitting their target market with the 200-800. It is simply that I may not be that market. I think the 200-800 is targeted at higher end prosumers. People that are going to buy 1 telephoto lens and will walk around and take photos of birds in parks at mid-day. Photograph their kids playing sports...at mid-day. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. In a way, amazing...excellent. I am glad they have their lens. And before I caught the "L" disease, I would have likely been the target market. As it is, I've pre-ordered this lens.

However, I am well aware I am in a slightly different market. I will consider spending >$10k on a lens. Is the $2k version worth me diverting money from my eventual larger purchase of something like a 200-500 f/4 L or 400 f/2.8 with built in tc? That is my debate.

I walk around parks and photograph for fun, but I do enjoy taking as good of images as possible and I do go on photography dedicated trips. I enjoy the challenge. I do like the higher end gear. So, the biggest flaw in this lens may be the fact that I am not the target market. But no doubt, this is going to be a popular lens. It is perfect for a lot of people I know.

I think I’m in the same boat as you. I am waiting for that 200-500 F4 and not sure if I should spend the money on this lens that could potentially sit on my desk. I have the 400 and 600 prime. I have a sweet tooth for expensive gear , so I’m debating if I should keep my preorder or just cancel it

 

[blackcoffee17]

Most of the whining is down to "i want big white aperture at consumer prices". So do I of course, but I can evaluate this for what it is. The only way most mortals can get an 800mm zoom. For me, its ideal. The MTF looks slightly better than the 800/11 at 800. That lens has proven to be a good performer IQ wise, and mine is no exception to that. Sounds like the focus and tracking is quite fast on the zoom as well. Pretty exciting to me, for the price. I've got a preorder at one place and am wait listed at another.

-Brian

No, i don't want big white aperture at consumer prices. But F6.3 at 500mm or at least 7.1 at 600mm would have been nice.

 

[P-visie]

No, i don't want big white aperture at consumer prices. But F6.3 at 500mm or at least 7.1 at 600mm would have been nice.

The lens is f8 at 500 and 600mm, the difference at 500mm is 2/3 of a stop, the difference at 600mm is 1/3 of a stop. I doubt that this is significant when using the lens. As @AlanF has shown, the R5 is capable of very high ISO values and (very) good image quality with skilled post-processing.