Canon RF 300-600mm f/5.6L IS USM, Here We Go Again

[mimbu]

I disagree, my friend has the Sony A1 and the excellent Sony 200-600 and he gets pretty much identical image quality to me with my R6ii and 200-800 his high MP and my extra magnification make for very similar results when he crops in to match my FOV.

Yes, that is what would be expected to happen when the 200-800 doesn't add any additional resolving power beyond about 640mm. You get a bigger image, but no more detail. So when your friend crops his 600mm image to emulate the FOV of your 800mm image, you get roughly the same image quality. It's also why the 200-800 starts looking a little soft as you go further past 600mm. Image gets bigger but no further detail can be resolved.

Ultimately in the end there are no free lunches. Sony did it "right" with their 400-800 but it's bigger, heavier, more expensive, and starts from 400mm. Canon opted instead to make a smaller, lighter, less expensive lens that starts from 200mm but that has come at the cost of optical performance on the long end.

And, if you would like to compare the difference, ask your friend to rent the 400-800 for a few days, then compare the images.

 

[AlanF]

Yes, that is what would be expected to happen when the 200-800 doesn't add any additional resolving power beyond about 640mm. You get a bigger image, but no more detail. So when your friend crops his 600mm image to emulate the FOV of your 800mm image, you get roughly the same image quality. It's also why the 200-800 starts looking a little soft as you go further past 600mm. Image gets bigger but no further detail can be resolved.

Ultimately in the end there are no free lunches. Sony did it "right" with their 400-800 but it's bigger, heavier, more expensive, and starts from 400mm. Canon opted instead to make a smaller, lighter, less expensive lens that starts from 200mm but that has come at the cost of optical performance on the long end.

And, if you would like to compare the difference, ask your friend to rent the 400-800 for a few days, then compare the images.

You have missed the crucial point in @Chig's post that he is comparing a 800mm on a 24 Mpx sensor with a Sony 600mm on a 50 mpx sensor - the Sony system is equivalent to an 866mm on the Canon. So, @Chig's comparison shows that the 200-800 is resolving as well as the equivalent of an 866mm Sony lens.

You have also missed the threads I linked to in my post. I have posted comparison charts of the RF 200-800m at 800mm and 600mm. Here they are again, with a collage of some parts, and the 600mm ones also upscaled with Photoshop, which you claimed would resolve as much detail. You can see the 800mm shots have resolved more than the upscaled 600mm. Best to download the images to see the differences.

Thread 'Summary of my RF 200-800mm testing'

Jan 31, 2024

I have now taken a couple of thousand images with charts and birds in the wild to test the RF 200-800mm on the R5 and some on the R7. This was both from sheer interest and for me to decide whether to keep the lens and if so which lens to use in various circumstances. Much has been posted in two threads: https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/rf-200-800mm-500mm-vs-800mm-etc-with-birds.43235/ and https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...-rf-100-500mm-vs-rf-800mm-on-r7-and-r5.43183/

After another 1000 shots in the past two days, comparing with the RF 800mm f/11...

• AlanF
• Replies: 134
• Forum: Canon Lenses

• 
• 

 

[AlanF]

And, if you would like to compare the difference, ask your friend to rent the 400-800 for a few days, then compare the images.

Another post you missed https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...f-6-3-8-in-february.44323/page-3#post-1021712

There are probably more comparisons, and Sony users have complained that there is copy variation with the 400-800mm with poor copies, but here is T ony N orthrup's.

 

[P-visie]

You have missed the crucial point in @Chig's post that he is comparing a 800mm on a 24 Mpx sensor with a Sony 600mm on a 50 mpx sensor - the Sony system is equivalent to an 866mm on the Canon. So, @Chig's comparison shows that the 200-800 is resolving as well as the equivalent of an 866mm Sony lens.

You have also missed the threads I linked to in my post. I have posted comparison charts of the RF 200-800m at 800mm and 600mm. Here they are again, with a collage of some parts, and the 600mm ones also upscaled with Photoshop, which you claimed would resolve as much detail. You can see the 800mm shots have resolved more than the upscaled 600mm. Best to download the images to see the differences.

Thank you Alan and Chig. Facts will not change @mimbu’s opinion. He is repeating his opinions from earlier posts without having the RF 200-800mm. Anyone who has actually used the RF200-800mm knows that, in the hands of a capable photographer, it is a good lens.

 

[John D P]

Complete garbage - just look at the crops I posted yesterday of the RF 100-500mm vs the EF 600mm f/.4 iii, RF 100-300mm + 2x TC. And also look at Canon's own MTFs and other reviews. The RF 100-500mm is stellar.

Thread 'Quick comparison of RF 100-500mm vs RF 100-300 and 70-200 f/2.8 Z + 2xTC vs EF 600mm f/4 iii vs RF 200-800mm'

Aug 21, 2025

WEX was having a Road Show day today with Canon reps plus gear and I took advantage of it to do some comparisons of telephotos on my R5ii. The store in Cambridge is situated about 70m from the front of Sidney Sussex College that has some good targets for comparison. Here, I have selected crops from the centre of a shield and cockerel, and also dug up some images from a year ago from the RF 200-800mm and RF 800mm f/11 on the R5. With these copies of the lens: the image from the RF 70-200mm f/2.8 + RF 2xTC at 400mm is extremely good, as is the RF 100-500mm at 500mm; the RF 100-300mm f/2.8 +...

• AlanF
• Replies: 32
• Forum: Canon Lenses

• 

 

[John D P]

I have the 100-500 and love it. It's not pro level, but it does have very good image quality.

 

[justaCanonuser]

I would never go on an important nature trip without a back-up body and lens (and back-up everything else). For local use my, 200-800 is treated like any other lens to give it every chance of breaking where I can deal with it best, and test it. On my very first serious bird watching trip, to the Pantanal some 13 years ago, I took just a 7D and an EF 100-400mm (first version). The AF broke on my last day when the camera and lens fell between my legs on to the car mat, lens down, through only about 15-20 cm. Lucky it wasn't the first day. A useful lesson.

Oops, that wasn't funny, I can feel that with you.

Of course I have always backup lenses with me when I travel but I do not carry more than one big lens, max. 2 cameras and extenders and 1-2 short lenses with me when I hike. That's why I prefer a really rugged gear, and Canon never let me down. In Norway, e.g., many years ago I had my old EF 500mm f/4.5 with the original 7D mounted on a tripod in quite stormy weather. When I turned to my backpack to change a battery, I suddenly heard a massive crash behind my back. Unfortunately I didn't recognize beforehand in the grass a deep hole right next to one leg of my tripod, and the wind shifted it right into it. So the tripod toppled over and the combo crashed, fortunately with the 7D as a "buffer" in front, on the sharp edge of a stone. I thought, okay, that's it - but camera and lens survived, the 7D just had a scar. If the camera were broken, I would have had a 5D3 in my backpack, aber a broken super tele lens would have ended my day trip (back then my back-up would have been an EF 400mm f/5.6).

That's only one example for a critical incident, this now 30 years old lens survived sand-salt water storms on shores because I wanted to shoot birds hiding in sand holes in that hell, etc. This year, I finally upgraded to an EF 600mm III, because the mount of the old 500mm is quite worn out and doesn't provide reliable contacts anymore. But I still keep that old club of a lens...

 

[blackcoffee17]

I do not recognise this analysis. What is wrong with the R6? They have more super telephoto options at a wider range of prices than when I started in 2012. ONE lens clearly has design/construction issues in a minority of cases. Previously they were praised for their internal construction by eg Roger(?) who did the teardowns. Your pessimism is overstated.

The original R6 was known for serious overheating issues, even in still mode. It was probably the first unreliable camera from Canon for a very long time.
Then they choose this weird plastic outside material for their RF lenses that feels cheap and gets smudges and dirt stuck to them just by looking at it.

I own the EF-RF adapter that seems to has a much better quality exterior plastic.

 

[blackcoffee17]

I have the 100-500 and love it. It's not pro level, but it does have very good image quality.

What is not pro level on the 100-500?

 

[john1970]

I will likely purchase this lens when and if it is ever released. Not holding my breath on this one. I am also hopefully that a long rumored super telephoto DO lens is eventually announced as well, but that might never happen either.

 

[scyrene]

The original R6 was known for serious overheating issues, even in still mode. It was probably the first unreliable camera from Canon for a very long time.
Then they choose this weird plastic outside material for their RF lenses that feels cheap and gets smudges and dirt stuck to them just by looking at it.

I own the EF-RF adapter that seems to has a much better quality exterior plastic.

Is it? I have used that body for 3 years and it has never overheated. I'm a bit suspicious of "is known for" - how prevalent was it, what were the circumstances, etc. My anecdotal experience differs, so what are (were) the facts? (This is rhetorical).

I agree the lens plastic is more prone to cosmetic damage than in older models.

 

[john1970]

I have the 100-500 and love it. It's not pro level, but it does have very good image quality.

The RF 100-500 mm lens is one of the most versatile zoom lenses IMO. It is a 5x zoom with excellent close focus capability (great for large insects) and lightweight as an all day carry lens. Sure it is not the fastest at 500 mm at f7.1, but still a very useful focal range and f-stop range. Now that I am over 50, I am starting to appreciate lighter weight lenses. I am no longer 30 years old.

 

[Chig]

Oops, that wasn't funny, I can feel that with you.

Of course I have always backup lenses with me when I travel but I do not carry more than one big lens, max. 2 cameras and extenders and 1-2 short lenses with me when I hike. That's why I prefer a really rugged gear, and Canon never let me down. In Norway, e.g., many years ago I had my old EF 500mm f/4.5 with the original 7D mounted on a tripod in quite stormy weather. When I turned to my backpack to change a battery, I suddenly heard a massive crash behind my back. Unfortunately I didn't recognize beforehand in the grass a deep hole right next to one leg of my tripod, and the wind shifted it right into it. So the tripod toppled over and the combo crashed, fortunately with the 7D as a "buffer" in front, on the sharp edge of a stone. I thought, okay, that's it - but camera and lens survived, the 7D just had a scar. If the camera were broken, I would have had a 5D3 in my backpack, aber a broken super tele lens would have ended my day trip (back then my back-up would have been an EF 400mm f/5.6).

That's only one example for a critical incident, this now 30 years old lens survived sand-salt water storms on shores because I wanted to shoot birds hiding in sand holes in that hell, etc. This year, I finally upgraded to an EF 600mm III, because the mount of the old 500mm is quite worn out and doesn't provide reliable contacts anymore. But I still keep that old club of a lens...

You can get the mount replaced on your 500 f/4 and it's not even very expensive I had the mount replaced on my very old EF300 f/2.8

 

[AlanF]

The RF 100-500 mm lens is one of the most versatile zoom lenses IMO. It is a 5x zoom with excellent close focus capability (great for large insects) and lightweight as an all day carry lens. Sure it is not the fastest at 500 mm at f7.1, but still a very useful focal range and f-stop range. Now that I am over 50, I am starting to appreciate lighter weight lenses. I am no longer 30 years old.

When you are another 20 or 30 years older and reached the age of some of us oldies, you will appreciate light weight even more, probably welcome the successor to the RF 100-400mm.

 

[justaCanonuser]

You can get the mount replaced on your 500 f/4 and it's not even very expensive I had the mount replaced on my very old EF300 f/2.8

I know, but it was anyway time to upgrade for me, the EF 600mm III is a much better lens in every respect. But I even thought about doing the replacement on the vintage 500mm by myself, it isn't that complicated.

 

[justaCanonuser]

Something different. CR doesn't allow me to post in the thread to

Canon EOS R7 Mark II is Reportedly in the Wild​

I think that is a technical problem. But if these rumors are coming true that the R7 II's body layout returns to Canon's standard layout, I'ii be really fast with an upgrade.

 

[john1970]

A serious question: How much lighter do people think this lens could be vs. the RF 100-300 mm f2.8+ 2X TC.

The official weights of the RF 100-300 mm f2.8 is 2590 grams and the RF 2x TC is 340 grams for a net official weight of 2930 grams or 6.5 lbs.

I am hoping they are able to shave off 500 grams or 1.1 lbs so the 300-600 mm f5.6 L is 5.4 lbs. Maybe even down to 5 lbs?

 

[SnowMiku]

Something different. CR doesn't allow me to post in the thread to

Canon EOS R7 Mark II is Reportedly in the Wild​

I think that is a technical problem. But if these rumors are coming true that the R7 II's body layout returns to Canon's standard layout, I'ii be really fast with an upgrade.

I've also been getting the same problem for a while now