Summary of my RF 200-800mm testing

[koenkooi]

It will be very interesting to read the reviews by "Bird-photographers" like Jan Wegener and Whistling wings on the new R5MkII […]

Jan has an R5II with him on his current trip, but it will take a few weeks for him to return and compile the review. It’s the review I’m most looking forward to, since he isn’t using it to review the camera, he’s trying to take the pictures he wants.
And like you say, @rbielefeld will likely do a usage based review in the near future in the Florida heat.
For short trips, I’m curious what Duade Patton thinks about it, his habit of going out in the morning matches how I would use it in my free time.

 

[justaCanonuser]

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.

Same experience with my R7 and my EF 500mm vs the RF 200-800mm - I guess the R7's AF performance breaks even a tad more down when it is getting dim. That said, I did expect that when I bought this zoom, and I am not disappointed. In bright light, the R7's AF performs OK with the 200-800mm, even @ 800mm, like this BIF example (cropped):

 

[Deleted member 7828]

Thanks for sharing and doing these comparisons, it's very insightful.

As someone with the EF 100-400 II, I passed on the RF 100-500 - but this 200-800 is certainly more tempting. I've been looking for reach beyond 400mm for quite a while now. Wonder how it will do on the original R...

 

[Klas R]

Today I have seen the first video testing & commenting the R5MkII along with the RF 200-800 mm by a well known birdphotographer. It is made by Duade Paton, and its not really a review, rather a first test: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNlsLvtRi64.

Although Duade does have some problems with the camera, I think these are the type of problems that will be fixed in a later software release.
Duade starts of in light conditions where he needs to push the ISO up to 6400. But from what I can see this does not pose severe problems, rather the contrary, he gets excellent shots. The AF seems to cooperate in a nice way.

So from what I can conclude the R5MkII seems to work excellent together with the RF 200-800 mm in all types of light.

 

[AlanF]

I've now taken a series of shots of perched and flying birds with the lens on the R5 Mark II. My preliminary conclusions are that the AF at 800mm has distinctly improved relative to being on the R5, with much higher consistency of accurate AF for both perched and for tracking in flight as well as speed of acquisition. Interestingly, the RF 800mm f/11 has a larger focussing area on the R5 Mark II.

 

[koenkooi]

I've now taken a series of shots of perched and flying birds with the lens on the R5 Mark II. My preliminary conclusions are that the AF at 800mm has distinctly improved relative to being on the R5, with much higher consistency of accurate AF for both perched and for tracking in flight as well as speed of acquisition. Interestingly, the RF 800mm f/11 has a larger focussing area on the R5 Mark II.

I think the larger area started with the R6II/R8, but I don’t first hand experience with that lens.

 

[AlanF]

I've now taken a series of shots of perched and flying birds with the lens on the R5 Mark II. My preliminary conclusions are that the AF at 800mm has distinctly improved relative to being on the R5, with much higher consistency of accurate AF for both perched and for tracking in flight as well as speed of acquisition. Interestingly, the RF 800mm f/11 has a larger focussing area on the R5 Mark II.

I've confirmed a real improvement for AF for BIF at 800mm on the R5ii. It latches on to the eye at distances the R5 does not and maintains tack sharp focus.

 

[AlanF]

Not RF 200-800mm, but usefully related. The RF 100-500mm works very well with the 2xTC on the R5 and has excellent IQ but the AF is erratic. The AF on the R5ii at 1000mm is very consistent and so makes the shorter zoom even more competitive against its larger sibling for long focal lengths.

 

[Klas R]

Not RF 200-800mm, but usefully related. The RF 100-500mm works very well with the 2xTC on the R5 and has excellent IQ but the AF is erratic. The AF on the R5ii at 1000mm is very consistent and so makes the shorter zoom even more competitive against its larger sibling for long focal lengths.

Very interesting and useful information!

When testing my lenses with my TC's I found that the RF 200-800mm delivers OK sharpness with the 2xTC up to around 1350mm. Have you also tried this combination with the R5ii with satisfactory result (AF etc)?, and was there a clear difference when compared to the R5 combination?

 

[AlanF]

Very interesting and useful information!

When testing my lenses with my TC's I found that the RF 200-800mm delivers OK sharpness with the 2xTC up to around 1350mm. Have you also tried this combination with the R5ii with satisfactory result (AF etc)?, and was there a clear difference when compared to the R5 combination?

I did a lot of tests with the R5 at end of Jan beginning of Feb. On black and white charts, the longer focal lengths did give small increases in resolution in the 800-1600mm range and the extra pixels brought out some features that were too pixellated at 800mm (I posted the charts earlier at the beginning of the thread). However, if I looked at the even more boring brick wall on which my charts are pasted, the longer focal lengths blurred the subtle shades of reddish brown and the greys of the mortar, presumably because of the loss of contrst.. The 100-500mm at 1000mm was the best. I'll check out the R5ii when I have time. I've never been happy with the RF 1.4x, and I have tried 3 copies