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

 

[pablofu]

I have read the whole thread, and I am on the fence. I own an R6 Mark II, and I mainly shoot rocket launches (5 to 7 miles away, and mainly at night, but keep in mind rockets are bright when flying), and from time to time birds (I actually love this more and more).
I have rented the 100-500 many times and I love it, I am planning to rent the 200-800 soon. I have heard rumors of a new coming lens 200-500 f/4.
I take planes with the geat to shoot some rockets.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts!!!

 

[docsmith]

Regarding the 200-500 f/4....can't buy a rumor. Not for sale. Always best to buy what is available at the time you need something. New stuff is always coming out, it is easy to have a regret here or there.

Between the 100-500 and 200-800. I've rented the former and own the later. I think you are doing the right thing in renting both. My initial thought would lean toward the 100-500L. It is much more of an all-around lens. Size/weight lets it travel and be used a bit better. Faster AF and the 100-200 focal length adds versatility. The IQ on the 200-800 likely peaks at ~600 mm. That said, a number of us have concluded the 200-800 is still better if you want/need 800 mm. IMO, if 500 is excellent, will be more flexible, and likely use it in a larger variety of instances, without knowing more, I would lean that direction. But if you think you will be >500mm most of the time with the lens with a lot of use out at 800 mm, then the 200-800 may be a better lens dedicated to that niche.

Two very good lenses.

 

[pablofu]

Regarding the 200-500 f/4....can't buy a rumor. Not for sale. Always best to buy what is available at the time you need something. New stuff is always coming out, it is easy to have a regret here or there.

Between the 100-500 and 200-800. I've rented the former and own the later. I think you are doing the right thing in renting both. My initial thought would lean toward the 100-500L. It is much more of an all-around lens. Size/weight lets it travel and be used a bit better. Faster AF and the 100-200 focal length adds versatility. The IQ on the 200-800 likely peaks at ~600 mm. That said, a number of us have concluded the 200-800 is still better if you want/need 800 mm. IMO, if 500 is excellent, will be more flexible, and likely use it in a larger variety of instances, without knowing more, I would lean that direction. But if you think you will be >500mm most of the time with the lens with a lot of use out at 800 mm, then the 200-800 may be a better lens dedicated to that niche.

Two very good lenses.

Thank you

 

[AlanF]

Regarding the 200-500 f/4....can't buy a rumor. Not for sale. Always best to buy what is available at the time you need something. New stuff is always coming out, it is easy to have a regret here or there.

Between the 100-500 and 200-800. I've rented the former and own the later. I think you are doing the right thing in renting both. My initial thought would lean toward the 100-500L. It is much more of an all-around lens. Size/weight lets it travel and be used a bit better. Faster AF and the 100-200 focal length adds versatility. The IQ on the 200-800 likely peaks at ~600 mm. That said, a number of us have concluded the 200-800 is still better if you want/need 800 mm. IMO, if 500 is excellent, will be more flexible, and likely use it in a larger variety of instances, without knowing more, I would lean that direction. But if you think you will be >500mm most of the time with the lens with a lot of use out at 800 mm, then the 200-800 may be a better lens dedicated to that niche.

Two very good lenses.

Sums up my opinion. I am glad to have both. For insect work, birds in flight and travel, the RF 100-500mm is one of the best lenses out there. For heavy cropping of small birds images etc, the RF 200-800mm wins out, but the RF 2xTC on the 100-500mm is pretty formidable. The RF 200-800mm's AF is significantly improved on the R5ii and now is a competent BIF lens at 800mm and zoomed back to 500mm pretty close to the 100-500mm.

 

[ruzun]

I have had the Canon R5, R5 Mark ii, 800mm f/11, 200-800mm f/9 and 100-500mm f/7.1 since their respective releases, along with a 1.4 TC. I mostly shoot small birds and wildlife. I found I almost never used the 800mm f/11 after a while, I was always using the 100-500mm with the 1.4 TC instead. It just gave visually better results despite the slightly shorter focal length. Once I got the 200-800mm f/9 I began using it more and more. Comparing real world photos of small songbirds in the same light I almost always get better results using the 200-800 vs the 100-500 with the 1.4. The 200-800mm isn't a great lens, if you can approach your subject closer the 100-500 with no TC is significantly better. But in the field and in real world use since you can rarely approach small wildlife close enough to avoid a lot of cropping with the 500, the 800 gives me better results even when I zoom all the way in to 800.

I also noticed the 200-800 does not take the 1.4tc very well, its useful for id shots of distant subjects really only, and its useful for video of distant subjects but not much else.

If 500mm is enough, the 100-500 is a lot better. If 200 is enough, the 70-200 f/2.8's are a lot better than the 100-500. But additional cropping you wind up doing with the 500 means your results will almost always be worse than if you had used the 200-800.

Anyway my real world experience with these 3 lenses mirrors your measurements and observations. Thanks so much for the analysis!

 

[AlanF]

I have had the Canon R5, R5 Mark ii, 800mm f/11, 200-800mm f/9 and 100-500mm f/7.1 since their respective releases, along with a 1.4 TC. I mostly shoot small birds and wildlife. I found I almost never used the 800mm f/11 after a while, I was always using the 100-500mm with the 1.4 TC instead. It just gave visually better results despite the slightly shorter focal length. Once I got the 200-800mm f/9 I began using it more and more. Comparing real world photos of small songbirds in the same light I almost always get better results using the 200-800 vs the 100-500 with the 1.4. The 200-800mm isn't a great lens, if you can approach your subject closer the 100-500 with no TC is significantly better. But in the field and in real world use since you can rarely approach small wildlife close enough to avoid a lot of cropping with the 500, the 800 gives me better results even when I zoom all the way in to 800.

I also noticed the 200-800 does not take the 1.4tc very well, its useful for id shots of distant subjects really only, and its useful for video of distant subjects but not much else.

If 500mm is enough, the 100-500 is a lot better. If 200 is enough, the 70-200 f/2.8's are a lot better than the 100-500. But additional cropping you wind up doing with the 500 means your results will almost always be worse than if you had used the 200-800.

Anyway my real world experience with these 3 lenses mirrors your measurements and observations. Thanks so much for the analysis!

As you say, our experience is very much in agreement. I would add that the 200-800mm zoomed out to 500mm is as sharp as the 100-500 at 500mm. I'm very happy to have both lenses. When I'm mainly shooting birds, I'll take the RF 200-800mm with me, when it's insects and birds it's the RF 100-500mm. Or for when I travel abroad, the RF 100-500mm is so much easier to pack in carry on luggage. I have found the R5ii has really improved the AF of the 00-800mm, in both speed and consistency. Have you noticed the same?

 

[Klas R]

I live in a country (Sweden) with challenging light conditions, especially in wintertime. Something I believe you have to some extent also in UK. This means that when using my RF 200-800 I mainly need to use f9. This means that I in the morning/afternoon need to crank up the ISO to 6400, sometimes even higher to get an acceptable speed (for handholding).

I was initially sure I would upgrade from my R5 to the R5MkII as soon as I could get my hands on the new one.
However, I have seen several articles about a marked difference in noise levels at high ISO's between the two models, the R5MkII being the one with the problem. This has made me uncertain and to decide to keep my trusty old R5 for the time being.

What is your observations regarding this issue, after having used the R5 and R5MkII for some time by now?
What have you experienced at ISO 6400 or higher?
Is this a no-brainer when using DxO PureRAW or Adobes newly introduced Noise reduction possibilities in LrC/Ps in the post processing?

 

[AlanF]

I live in a country (Sweden) with challenging light conditions, especially in wintertime. Something I believe you have to some extent also in UK. This means that when using my RF 200-800 I mainly need to use f9. This means that I in the morning/afternoon need to crank up the ISO to 6400, sometimes even higher to get an acceptable speed (for handholding).

I was initially sure I would upgrade from my R5 to the R5MkII as soon as I could get my hands on the new one.
However, I have seen several articles about a marked difference in noise levels at high ISO's between the two models, the R5MkII being the one with the problem. This has made me uncertain and to decide to keep my trusty old R5 for the time being.

What is your observations regarding this issue, after having used the R5 and R5MkII for some time by now?
What have you experienced at ISO 6400 or higher?
Is this a no-brainer when using DxO PureRAW or Adobes newly introduced Noise reduction possibilities in LrC/Ps in the post processing?

I haven’t done any real tests but I haven’t come across any problems so far. I use DxO PL.

 

[Klas R]

I haven’t done any real tests but I haven’t come across any problems so far. I use DxO PL.

Anyone else made some observations regarding the above matter?

 

[P-visie]

Anyone else made some observations regarding the above matter?

I have no problems with the R5 Mk II at high ISO levels, I usually use ISO 3200 as the maximum ISO. The noise levels of the R5 Mk II are comparable with the noise levels of the R5. I use LR (classic) with the Denoise feature for ISO 3200.

This was taken with the R5 Mk II and 200-800mm at 3200 ISO. I applied LR Denoise in post processing.