RF 200-800mm vs RF 100-500mm vs RF 800mm on R7 and R5
- Thread starter AlanF
- Start date
Just FYI, this morning I returned my copy of the RF200-800 mm lens. My copy was soft (sometimes) and other times very good. I also found the huge zoom throw a bit of a pain in the neck. Just not the lens for me and I will be keeping my 100-500 mm L lens.
It is still a lot of lens for the price, but I decided to take my lightweight long-reach (800 mm) bird photography in a different direction; albeit at a more significant cost.
It is still a lot of lens for the price, but I decided to take my lightweight long-reach (800 mm) bird photography in a different direction; albeit at a more significant cost.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Lens arrived at 12.30 this afternoon, just in time for me to photo my charts on my back wall before the sun went down behind the trees. And, fortunately, I have the 200-800mm modules just released by DxO for my favourite PL software. In a nutshell, my copy of the RF 200-800mm bore out in 15 minutes what I found so laboriously from the flagpole rigging and frigging around with DPP4. On the R7, the RF 200-800mm at 800mm is very marginally weaker than the RF 800mm f/11, and at 500mm pretty close to but a tad less than the RF 100-500mm. On the R5, it's reversed. The 200-800mm has the edge on the RF 800/11, and most surprisingly very slightly at 500mm on the RF 100-500mm. I had seen the relative IQs for500mm for the the R5 and flagpole but had decided it was too close to call, but it seems real. The R7 +RF 100-500mm has as good reach and IQ at 500mm as the R5 + RF 200-800mm at 800mm.
My results are different from those of TDP but Bryan did not have the DxO PL software for the RF 200-800mm, which may explain it, or simply copy variation - but I've looked at two copies of the 200-800mm, and my RF 100-500mm is stunning.
My take is that you have the R5 or even more so with the R6 or R3, the RF 200-800mm does give you useful extra reach over the RF 100-500mm. However, if you have an R7 the RF 100-500mm has the same reach as the R5, and the 200-800mm gives only about 10% more. So, I'm keeping the RF 200-800mm for my R5 and I won't use it on the R7.
My results are different from those of TDP but Bryan did not have the DxO PL software for the RF 200-800mm, which may explain it, or simply copy variation - but I've looked at two copies of the 200-800mm, and my RF 100-500mm is stunning.
My take is that you have the R5 or even more so with the R6 or R3, the RF 200-800mm does give you useful extra reach over the RF 100-500mm. However, if you have an R7 the RF 100-500mm has the same reach as the R5, and the 200-800mm gives only about 10% more. So, I'm keeping the RF 200-800mm for my R5 and I won't use it on the R7.
Upvote
0
It was a very bad day for finding local birds to photo as the lake was frozen over and most were a 100m away. The tiny images were good. And I found the AF fast and reliable on the R5 for BIF. Again, nothing was close. Here is a shot of a couple of Cormorants flying in the far distance, and one of a Gull at the extreme right of the frame out of the RF 800mm f/11 focus area and where the lens is meant to be soft. This is a good lens.
Upvote
0
@Dragon and @docsmith suggest that the lens is softer at 800mm and perhaps better used at 650-750mm, give or take, and not much is to be gained by fully zooming in above 700mm. So, to search for the best from my lens I put up three new copies of my favourite Bob Atkins chart and took with the R5 dozens of images at each of different focal lengths 19m away from 400-800mm (417, 515, 619, 647, 670, 709, 737, 770 and 800mm). In a nutshell, the resolution between 647-770mm is pretty constant for the best shots from each, with a modest increase at 800mm. The reproducibility of AF at 800mm was the best, with just about all reaching the values shown here. Its field was also the flattest from left to right. The very best from the RF 100+500mm + 1.4xTC was up there, but the majority had lower resolution, presumably from the AF being not as reproducible. Here are the charts in descending order (numbering a few mm slightly different). They need to be downloaded to get the full resolution.
Upvote
0
It does look softer at 800. Is there anyway to force the zoom ring to stop before the 800 or we'll need to get in the habit to do it ourselves?
Upvote
0
It's easy to set it midway between 600 and 800mm, and the ring can be tightened. I am going to do more field tests. I don't think so far it is soft at 800mm so much as it is not reaching its full potential. If it's hardly better at 800 than 600,mm then a 600mm f/6.3 of similar size as Nikon and Sony have produced would would have been better.
Upvote
0
Poor choice of words on my part - "less crisp," might be better? I don't know, it's about the same weight and price, so if it's best at 750mm, that's still twenty-five percent extra mm with the disadvantage of one stop slower than the other offerings, right?
Off topic: If you've spotted a bird in a tree, five or ten degrees from vertically above you, is there a best stance to avoid losing it if it flies over and behind you?
Off topic: If you've spotted a bird in a tree, five or ten degrees from vertically above you, is there a best stance to avoid losing it if it flies over and behind you?
Upvote
0
Technical jargon "crisp" = acutance, sharpness of transition from black to white edges, and that may be right here. I went out today and took lots of shots of mallards at 700 and 800mm as well as birds on my feeder. I think the lens is fine at 800mm. At the end of the day, I think you are right - we get about a genuine effective increase of resolution of about 25-30% over the RF 100-500mm, and less pixellation.
Can't help you with the second point - all the angles are wrong and all you get is the birds ass as it disappears into the distance.
Upvote
0
A side issue. The supplied hood is a horrible one that is matt black on the outside sprayed onto white plastic. Every touch marks it and the paint scrapes off very easily to have white showing through. The inside is only ribbed and not matt. So, I put on an el cheapo JJC knockoff that I have for the 800/11. It is highly resistant to knocks, and it's difficult to avoid them with a lens of that length on a sling.
Upvote
0
Yes, it's not very appealing from that angle, but I hoped to follow it if it flew towards a better angle. In that situation is it better to keep moving and look for another bird?
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
How are you finding the weight and balance of the 200-800?I just tested my recently purchased copy of the RF 200-800mm on the flagpole and am pleased to say that it is noticeably sharper than the dealers copy. Maybe normal copy variation or perhaps the later batches have improved. Either way, I am happy.
Upvote
0
It's big and heavy. But I have had no problems with 1 hr walks with it on a BlackRapid strap. I sling it so it hangs down my back and keeps me more upright. I can hand hold it reasonably OK as it is about 0.5 kg lighter than the 400mm DO II + 2xTC I used to use. Fortunately, my arm strength is holding up despite my age. BIF is no problem. But, a monopod would help for perched birds.
It fits nicely into my old ThinkTank GlassTaxi, and you can see how I have the BlackRapid attached to both the camera and tripod foot. The tripod is a nice for carrying the camera and lens and it is not a loose fitting one like on the RF 100-500mm, though it does get in the way for packing.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Unfortunately, it seems that there is a quality discrepancy between the copies released on the global photographic market.
The following post was found on the Internet by one of the Canon Board forum members (our Polish forum about photography and Canon equipment):
https://focusonphotography.communit...0-800mm-f-6-3-9-is-usm.255/page-13#post-44744
The following post was found on the Internet by one of the Canon Board forum members (our Polish forum about photography and Canon equipment):
https://focusonphotography.communit...0-800mm-f-6-3-9-is-usm.255/page-13#post-44744
Upvote
0
