Summary of my RF 200-800mm testing

[AlanF]

There is only 1 stop of difference at the long end from your 150-600, so that should be easy to verify. Half the speed or twice the ISO should give you the same exposure.

At 600mm, the 200-800mm opens to f/8 so it is only 2/3rds of a stop slower than the Sigma 150-600mm which is f/6.3.

 

[AlanF]

I will have to do some more tests compared to my sigma 150-600. This morning took a few shots at 600mm (not full sun yet) and so far the pics are darker than the inside of a cow.

Maybe you should not be shoving your lens up a cows rear end. Did you wipe it afterwards? Maybe that's the problem.

 

[Noreaster]

Maybe you should not be shoving your lens up a cows rear end. Did you wipe it afterwards? Maybe that's the problem.

No wonder why my pics are sh!tty

 

[EricN]

I do all my image editing on my phone

Do you use a particular method? I only know how to transfer jpg to the phone. Is there a way to get raw (I saw someone suggested an app that coulddo it, but I was not successful)?

 

[koenkooi]

Do you use a particular method? I only know how to transfer jpg to the phone. Is there a way to get raw (I saw someone suggested an app that coulddo it, but I was not successful)?

In Canon Camera Connect you have a setting that decides between on-the-fly
jpeg conversion and raw transfers.
And there’s always the option to attach a cardreader to your phone

 

[scyrene]

Do you use a particular method? I only know how to transfer jpg to the phone. Is there a way to get raw (I saw someone suggested an app that coulddo it, but I was not successful)?

You can transfer raws via the Canon app, and you can edit them on a phone. However I have tried it each way - SOOC jpeg, raw, and tweaked raw conversion to jpeg (or HEIF?) on the camera and for me under most circumstances the original jpeg was enough. I always shoot raw+jpeg so if I ever do get a computer again I have the best quality files to return to. I can't get such good results as people processing from raw with good quality software, but for my purposes - sharing mostly downsized images online - it is sufficient. It would not suit many people on this forum, but no alternative costs so little

 

[EricN]

In Canon Camera Connect you have a setting that decides between on-the-fly
jpeg conversion and raw transfers.
And there’s always the option to attach a cardreader to your phone

Thanks, I will try the methods!

Is that a new feature for Canon Camera Connect? I had tried in the past but failed to find the way to do it.

The card reader is something I should have thought of... maybe my brain is rotting...

 

[koenkooi]

Thanks, I will try the methods!

Is that a new feature for Canon Camera Connect? I had tried in the past but failed to find the way to do it.

The card reader is something I should have thought of... maybe my brain is rotting...

The setting is not located in the main app settings, but in the settings you can access in the “Images on camera” view.

It has been there for a few years now, but it’s hard to discover.

 

[EricN]

You can transfer raws via the Canon app, and you can edit them on a phone. However I have tried it each way - SOOC jpeg, raw, and tweaked raw conversion to jpeg (or HEIF?) on the camera and for me under most circumstances the original jpeg was enough. I always shoot raw+jpeg so if I ever do get a computer again I have the best quality files to return to. I can't get such good results as people processing from raw with good quality software, but for my purposes - sharing mostly downsized images online - it is sufficient. It would not suit many people on this forum, but no alternative costs so little

If you don't want to adjust the various parameters / preform some processing then print them or sell the files, i agree, straight out of the camera is easiest and great quality. Really we are very lucky. It's become so easy to enjoy.

 

[EricN]

The setting is not located in the main app settings, but in the settings you can access in the “Images on camera” view.

It has been there for a few years now, but it’s hard to discover.

I found it!

 

[EricN]

I found it!

I was able to do it from there. Lightroom is not really better than the default photogallery editing feature that came in my phone. I tried ON1 but it breaks when I attempt to use the lens distortion correction :/
I'll have to try more tomorrow, but anyway, my thanks to you and @scyrene

 

[Klas R]

Today I made an extensive testing of my RF 800/11, RF 100-500 and RF 200-800 lenses side by side.
I moved the tripod between the different setups so that I got exactly the same coverage of my test chart during the whole session.

My results come to no surprise to you that have followed AlanF's all tests. However the more of us coming to closely the similar result when testing our own lenses the more it seems like a fact.

So,

RF 800/11
Sorry to say but both the other lenses provide a clearly sharper picture at their respective long end (500 & 800 mm) at full aperture.
Also already half way out to the corner the 800/11 is significantly more unsharp compared to the other two lenses.
But what can you expect at that bargain price?!

RF 100-500 compared to RF 200-800
I find the 100-500 mm less sharp at the center at 500/7.1 than the 200-800 at 600/8.
The 100-500 + 1.4xTC at 700 mm is rather ok in the center already at f10 and slightly sharper at f11.
The 100-500 + 2.0xTC at 1000 mm is clearly more unsharp at the center compared to what you get with the 1.4xTC at 700mm.

RF 200-800 + TC's
The 200-800 + 2.0xTC: I tested the combination at 1200, 1344, 1415, 1485 and 1600 mm.
My conclusion is that if possible don't pass 1350 mm if you want the sharpest pictures.
I also tested the 200-800 + 1.4xTC at 1120mm. You get f13 and it is almost as sharp as the 200-800 + 2.0xTC at 1200 mm, but that one at f16.

Conclusion
Probably I will sell the 800/11.
I will keep the other two lenses. The RF 100-500 is the perfect travel lens, light and compact!
The 200-800.... I love the possibility to always have 800mm at hand (for all those small sized or distant birds), and the possibility to get all the way up to at least 1350mm when needed.

 

[AUGS]

Has anyone used this lens (200-800) for surfing photography? What is your experience? Surfers are obviously much bigger and slower targets than birds in flight, but walking closer isn't in my repertoire.
I have been taking photos with my 5D4 and EF100-400m2 (sometimes with the x1.4), and realize I'm regularly cropping down to about 600-800mm equivalent focal lengths.
I'm looking to upgrade to an R5m2 when released, so this lens is now on my radar.
(The 100-500 is my other option, especially with more "pixels per duck" from the R5m2).
Any thoughts or references would be greatly appreciated.

(Images for example only: 5D4, 100-400 @ 400, f8, cropped)

 

[Klas R]

I have a question regarding an other topic involving the R5 + RF 200-800mm. In this case not using a TC.
Recently during an excursion I/we had an encounter with a Red-footed Falcon. Initially we were not 100% sure about the identification, so we wanted proof.

The falcon was flying against the sky at quite some distance and flying in the direction from us. But I had no problem knowing where it was using my binoculars, so I knew I was pointing the camera in the correct direction and that the bird was there somewhere on the R5 screen.

The R5 had severe problems to get the bird in focus. I use back-button focusing and have copied the set-up that "Whistling Wings Photography" is using. I.e. Eye-AF using the whole field with one button, Eye-AF using Zone with the second button, and with the third button Spot-AF (no Eye-AF).
Trying all three buttons one at a time I still had these severe problem for the R5 to focus. I tried to focus at 200mm, 500mm and 800mm, same problem. Sometimes it would find the bird and for a moment the bird was possible to glimpse, but in a wink of time it was lost again. The end result: no sharp pictures of the falcon, some blurred pictures, and some where no bird was possible to see at all.

Have you or anybody else out there encountered a similar problem, and in such case do you have a solution?

Looking at the specs on the R5 Mark II I wonder if some of the new stuff can be a solution to my above problem ?

Things like this:

• When compared to previous EOS R camera models, more advanced and powerful AF system including Eye Control AF and new subject tracking technologies

and maybe also:

• Dual Pixel Intelligent AF is based on Accelerated Capture and deep learning, allowing end-users to experience tracking advancements, such as body, joint and head area estimation and focus on people other than the main subject.

 

[justaCanonuser]

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/

Alan, I followed this thread for a while before I got my 200-800, and I really want to thank you for your hard work. It helped me a lot. So far, I am still testing how this zoom works with my R7, what it does well and what not. Overall, I like this zoom and do not regret that I purchased it. Even @ 800mm, it is sharp enough to deliver good results if there is enough light and no haze. I guess I will not add a TC to it, I think this would not really help me in those areas in which I mostly shoot wildlife. But I did not make up my mind finally. Anyway, many thanks again for this very helpful thread!

 

[docsmith]

Thanks for the thread bump.

Just a quick comment after owning the RF 200-800 since it was first released (I received it in the first shipment). I've owned it long enough I can tell you, at least for me, it passes the most important test.

I reach for it. Often. I travel with it. I like the images coming off of it. I reach for my 100-400 II and EF 500 II less often because of this lens. It hasn't completely displaced either, but definitely fills a nice niche in my kit. The images from 800 mm...just look a bit different to me. So, I am happy with the purchase.

The negatives were obvious early on...AF in low light...I still see it now and again. AF hit rate is not as good as some of my other lenses, but is acceptable as a hobbyist. You can talk about the foot too...it's annoying I can't take it off.

 

[justaCanonuser]

I reach for it. Often. I travel with it. I like the images coming off of it. I reach for my 100-400 II and EF 500 II less often because of this lens. It hasn't completely displaced either, but definitely fills a nice niche in my kit. The images from 800 mm...just look a bit different to me. So, I am happy with the purchase.

The negatives were obvious early on...AF in low light...I still see it now and again. AF hit rate is not as good as some of my other lenses, but is acceptable as a hobbyist. You can talk about the foot too...it's annoying I can't take it off.

Same here, I still use my EF 500mm quite often, since it is not always that sunny where I live. But I have so much fun with the 200-800 on a sunny morning or evening that I use that one much more frequently than my Tamron 150-600 G2 that I traded in for the Canon zoom. Which camera do you use? My R7 focuses overall not too badly with that lens, if there is enough light - at least much better than with that Tamron zoom.

 

[Klas R]

I live in Sweden, which is a country like UK that have many grey overcast days. But I don't feel there is a large problem using f9 on the RF 200-800 lens.

In those cases I tend to use ISO 1600-3200 on my R5 using cRAW, and afterwards when necessary use DxO PureRAW or lately also the noisereduction tool in Lightroom on the best pictures. The end result will mostly be very good, also on pictures that I have had to crop quite a lot.

 

[docsmith]

Which camera do you use? My R7 focuses overall not too badly with that lens, if there is enough light - at least much better than with that Tamron zoom.

I use the R5. As you noted, the hit rate and focusing issues are very much related to "enough light." I have had bright days with great hit rates. Dim days are consistently lower hit rate compared to my other lenses, especially the 500 f/4. But even the occasional bright day, I go back and most images are good, but maybe not great in terms of sharpness. It is what it is. It still works and well enough that I take it out even on some dimmer days.

 

[Klas R]

I use the R5. As you noted, the hit rate and focusing issues are very much related to "enough light." I have had bright days with great hit rates. Dim days are consistently lower hit rate compared to my other lenses, especially the 500 f/4. But even the occasional bright day, I go back and most images are good, but maybe not great in terms of sharpness. It is what it is. It still works and well enough that I take it out even on some dimmer days.

It will be very interesting to read the reviews by "Bird-photographers" like Jan Wegener and Whistling wings on the new R5MkII.
I agree with both of you that you at the moment on the most important bird-encounters need to take quite a lot of "Safety-pictures" to be sure that you at least have a few pictures with optimal sharpness.

It is said that the AF has been improved on the MkII. If it is addressing also the above problem, and to quite a high degree, that might be a deal-breaker when thinking about an upgrading (and a very thin wallet afterwards...).