Summary of my RF 200-800mm testing

[docsmith]

You have mislabelled the first two. The real one with the EF 100-400 + 1.4xTC looks a bit soft to me.

Thanks.

The image is from a smaller set, but it was the sharpest out of that set.

 

[dcm]

An addendum. I have posted 3 sets of images birds in 3 different threads which are worth bringing together here. These are comparisons of centre crops of shots taken with the R7 + RF 100-400mm vs R5 + RF 200-800mm of small birds quite far away. The differences are, frankly, incremental for these static shots. However, in the final series of a little owl, I've used the RF 2x on the RF 200-800, and it does make a difference. If you are using an R3, R8, R6 etc, the RF 200-800mm will give you significantly extra range over an RF 100-400 or 100-500mm. But, you can do very well with the R7 or other crop cameras and a small, light cheap lens. (I'll continue to use both the R7 and R5).
Here they are with the smaller image first in each case:

...

I find I like the background blur in the second images more than the first. It was less distracting for me.

 

[AlanF]

I find I like the background blur in the second images more than the first. It was less distracting for me.

Fixed that for you.



Or, instead of blurring background in PS. I turned off sharpening in DxO PL6 and selectively sharpened the bird with Topaz. The lens is really quite sharp. I quite like the PS blurring.

 

[cooldood]

I am sick and tired of waiting on Tony Northrup to tell me to buy or not buy. So should I buy it for my R5?

 

[danfaz]

I am sick and tired of waiting on Tony Northrup to tell me to buy or not buy. So should I buy it for my R5?

Danny Northrup says you should if you don't have an R7+100-500

 

[cooldood]

Danny Northrup says you should if you don't have an R7+100-500

You're not helping LOL

 

[SereneSpeed]

[…]selling the 100-400 II would likely offset the price difference between the 100-500 + 1.4x and the 200-800 and the former would give you as good/better IQ compared to the 100-400 out to 500mm and similar IQ to the 200-800 beyond that, for a similar price.

I have a friend selling a practically unused 100-500, for less than I can get a 200-800 for. It is a pristine lens. I will definitely be selling my 100-400ii if I end up buying a new lens. If the new lens is a 100-500, I’ll be pairing it with a teleconverter.

Thanks for your feedback.

The part comparing the zoom throw is very interesting and something I hadn’t considered. I’m borrowing my friends 100-500 and I can now understand the comments on the ‘better balance’ between it and the 100-400ii. It certainly feels more natural to hold and pan. I’m also used to the quick zoom adjustment of the 100-400ii. The 100-500 feels just like my EF lens.

 

[SereneSpeed]

Basically yes.


The 100-500mm and 200-800mm both at 500mm are very sharp and work well on the R7 as well as on the R5. But, the 100-500mm does seem to have the edge on the R7. The 200-800 at 800mm is not as sharp and there is less advantage of using it on the R7 than the R5. And though I haven't used it myself on the R6 etc, the 800 will be relatively better still.


A higher resolution R5ii will be more like the R7, and 800 wil have less advantage. Even though the resolution may not improve, putting more pixels on small details may remove pixellation and give a better image.

I don't like the 1.4xTC and think it is hardly worth using it in most circumstances. However, I like the RF2x in comparison, and find it works well on the RF 200-800. I've just posted some more images in the Bird Portrait thread with it, and I'll append some more in the next post.


I am an opportunistic photographer while hiking and I am even older than most of the seniors here. I do not like the weight of the RF 200-800 and it's at the very limit for me. I put camo on it this morning and the weight with the R5 is about 3.3kg, and now at the tipping point for me. There's a lot to be said for the R7 with the RF 100-400mm.

Thank you for all the clarification and the detailed reply.

I find it interesting and valuable that you don’t like the results of the 1.4x and prefer the 2x.

I have an 800/11 here from CPS and used beside the 100-500 and 100-400ii with 1.4x, the 800 is resolving noticeably more than either of the zooms. I was hoping that a 1.4x and the 100-500 together, would bring me close to that level of resolving power.

I have read a few of your posts where you debate the usefulness of the 1.4x and I’m wondering if I might get similar results with 1.4x on the 100-500 as I got with the 800? I know in your comparisons, you’ve said that the 800 outresolves the 100-500 with 1.4tc, but I was wondering if it’s a ‘noticeable’ difference in real world use? (I may have missed that in another thread).

Also, do you (or anyone else) have any thoughts on the 2x converter paired with the 100-500?

 

[AlanF]

Thank you for all the clarification and the detailed reply.

I find it interesting and valuable that you don’t like the results of the 1.4x and prefer the 2x.

I have an 800/11 here from CPS and used beside the 100-500 and 100-400ii with 1.4x, the 800 is resolving noticeably more than either of the zooms. I was hoping that a 1.4x and the 100-500 together, would bring me close to that level of resolving power.

I have read a few of your posts where you debate the usefulness of the 1.4x and I’m wondering if I might get similar results with 1.4x on the 100-500 as I got with the 800? I know in your comparisons, you’ve said that the 800 outresolves the 100-500 with 1.4tc, but I was wondering if it’s a ‘noticeable’ difference in real world use? (I may have missed that in another thread).

Also, do you (or anyone else) have any thoughts on the 2x converter paired with the 100-500?

The RF 800/11 does outresolve the RF 100-500 + 1.4xTC. Whether that is enough to matter depends on what you are shooting and how far away it is. The question is whether the 1.4x on the RF 100-500mm makes sufficient difference to make it worthwhile. The 800/11 makes a more noticeable increase inn resolution. I've used the RF 2xTC on the RF 100-500mm far more than the 1.4x. If you nail focus, it outresolves the RF 800/11 on the R5. It works very well with the RF 200-800 on the R5.

 

[AlanF]

Digital Camera World has reviewed the RF 200-800mm https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/reviews/canon-rf-200-800mm-f63-9-is-usm-review and measured MTFs etc. Their lab measurements look OK but I have some quibbles with their image comparisons. They claim they get sharper images at 600mm than 800mm of a Eurasian Robin. My EXIF reader gives a distance of 3.24m for those, which is about the minimum focal distance for the lens at 800mm. Sure enough, the downloaded image has the Robin sitting in a 5700px x 4400px rectangle of the R5 image which is consistent with that, = ridiculously close (at those distances there is very large focus breathing which changes the focal lengths greatly, and image quality is distance dependent as well). My extensive comparisons at distances more representative with telephoto rather than macro use https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/rf-200-800mm-500mm-vs-800mm-etc-with-birds.43235/ show that I get bet better resolution at 800mm with the R5.

My chart measurements agree with their lab tests that the MTF drops from 600mm to 800mm, but the increase in focal length more than compensates for overall resolution. You can see from their charts that the MTF at the centre drops from about 1950 to 1600 units, ie 18%, for a 33% increase in focal length on going from 600-800mm. Their lab tests imply that there is an increase in resolution, contradicting their image test - 18% drop in MTF(50) means about 18% loss in resolution, 33% increase in focal length gives a gain of 33%.

 

[docsmith]

Agreed.

If I was to take an issue with the review...autofocus..."exceptional"? "Super-fast"?

No.

In the big picture any autofocus is amazing, in my opinion. But compared to other Canon's I own and use....I would put the 200-800 in the "pretty good" to "good" category.

 

[AlanF]

Agreed.

If I was to take an issue with the review...autofocus..."exceptional"? "Super-fast"?

No.

In the big picture any autofocus is amazing, in my opinion. But compared to other Canon's I own and use....I would put the 200-800 in the "pretty good" to "good" category.

Agreed too. I think the 200-800 should be left with the zoom at 600mm and zoomed in when required. The AF is not fast at 800mm for flying birds, and it seems slower at acquiring focus in general but it does latch on to eyeAF at longer distances in compensation.

 

[koenkooi]

Ron Bielefeld published with 2 months review of the 200-800:

TL;DW: He very much likes it, to the point where he's planning to sell his 100-500L. Like others here have said, he mentions it being sharpest at 600mm. He finds the IS less responsive to things like panning compared to the 100-500L, it sometimes fights you.

@AlanF the play button in the embedded player is placed slightly too high to cover up the grin, changing the starting point to after the unboxing didn't help either. I tried!

 

[AlanF]

Ron Bielefeld published with 2 months review of the 200-800:

TL;DW: He very much likes it, to the point where he's planning to sell his 100-500L. Like others here have said, he mentions it being sharpest at 600mm. He finds the IS less responsive to things like panning compared to the 100-500L, it sometimes fights you.

@AlanF the play button in the embedded player is placed slightly too high to cover up the grin, changing the starting point to after the unboxing didn't help either. I tried!

In terms of MTF, it is sharpest at 600mm. But, as I wrote a couple of posts back, the extra 200mm of focal length ends up giving you more detail at 800mm on the R5. I've no plans to sell my 100-500mm for a few reasons. I want to try them both for really fast flying birds as I think the 100-500 will win. Also, on the R7, the longer focal lengths don't keep up with the sensor and the 100-500 gets most of what you want. And, for travel, the 100-500mm is so much easier to pack.

 

[neuroanatomist]

And, for travel, the 100-500mm is so much easier to pack.

I don’t like that the zoom throw on the 4x 200-800 is longer than that on the 5x 100-500.

 

[docsmith]

I am glad he likes it so much.

It is not a perfect lens.....but it is very good and very useful. He certain has a nice collection of excellent images using it.

 

[mikekeck]

I ordered the lens from B&H on the day (afternoon, I think) it was announced, and it still has not shipped to me. Has everyone else that ordered from B&H on announcement day received their lens?

 

[GMCPhotographics]

You have mislabelled the first two. The real one with the EF 100-400 + 1.4xTC looks a bit soft to me. It's a luxury having both the 200-800 and 100-500 but I'll keep both

To me, it looks more like a slight mis-focus. I regularly use my EF 100-400IIL + 1.4x TC, fully racked out and it's super sharp. The main issue for me is the reduced AF speed and accuracy.
To put my comments in to some sort of perspective, I also use a EF 400mm f2.8 LIS mk II, which is known to be a one of Canon's sharpest lenses ever made. I also use a R8 and R6ii, whihc both share a very sharp 24mp sensor. Both my EF 400mm f2.8 LIS II, native, with a 1.4x or a 2x TC seem to still out resolving the Sensor on my two camera bodies. My EF 100-400mm f5.6 LIS II with or without a 1.4x TC are also out resolving my camera sensors. So between my 400 prime and my 100-400 zoom, wide open with say a 1.4x TC...there is no sharpness difference between these two optics. However on a R5, or a R7 which has a far higher pixel density, you might see more of a difference. On my R6ii, I get exceptional sharpness with either lens.

DocSmith, The comparision between the EF 100-400 f5.6 LIS II and the RF 100-500LIS are well documented.
There are slight benefits and deficiencies with both lenses. The EF lens is brighter natively, but less focal length. A good copy of the EF lens is slightly sharper (even with a 1.4x TC on the EF lens), but this is marginal and propbaly would not be seen in real world photos. The EF lens is reputedly slightly more robust and old skool build. However, the RF lens is lighter (due to it's newer build construction). It's hood is way better than the EF version, which seems to not work as well when reversed. The Rf lens gets a longer focal length at the long end for a reduced aperture rating. The Rf lens has a removable tripod collar (The EF's removable foot is an appaling design and prone of issues). The RF has a superior AF and IS system. At MFD, there is little between them and they both focus breath substantially. The Rf lens can capture samll erratic moving bugs way better than the EF version...it's AF just isn't in the same league. For many, the RF lens is the slightly better option, however if you already ahve a great copy of the EF version, one questions the rationale of side grading to the RF version. the SH value of the Ef version is plummeting into bargain status and the RF version is generally only available new and it's eye wateringly expensive.

AlanF, Your sharpness observations of your RF 200-800 LIS at 800mm are in line with what I've observed, reading the MFT charts. I think that the RF 200-800 LIS is an ideal partner on a R6ii. It's lover pixel density will allow this lens to shine and will be more than sharp enough for 100% crops with that combo.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

I think next year when I visit my parent's in Sri Lanka, I may well side grade my EF 100-400 II L for the RF 100-500LIS. If only for it's slightly more compact size (adapter and 1.4x TC) and it's reduced walk-abouts weight. I don't need a tripod collar on this lens because it's more than hand holdable as-is.
As for the new RF 200-800mm, it's a great lens and looks like a perfect solution for a lot of guys. It's just not for me because I already ahve a EF 400mm f2.8 LIS II and with a 2x TC, it's superior in every way.
It's brighter and sharper.
Sure, it's a bit heavier and a bit larger in diameter...but if I'm already going to use a Big lens, the 400/2.8 isn't that much bigger of heavier. I can still hand hold it for a long time or I can easily mono pod or tripod it.

 

[koenkooi]

[...]DocSmith, The comparision between the EF 100-400 f5.6 LIS II and the RF 100-500LIS are well documented.
There are slight benefits and deficiencies with both lenses. The EF lens is brighter natively, [...]

Both lenses have the same physical aperture, 70mm, what makes you believe the EF one is brighter? If it's the aperture value reported in the EXIF, that is unrealiable. You can get it to show a 'brighter' value just by telling your camera to use 1/8 stops instead of 1/3 stops. Like the focal length on zooms, the reported aperture value needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

And please tell me you don't mean 'f/5.6 is brighter than f/7.1'.....