Update on the Canon RF 200-800mm f/6.3-9 IS USM

Canon Rumors Guy

Canon EOS 40D
CR Pro
Jul 20, 2010
10,727
3,120
Canada
www.canonrumors.com
Thursday is a big day for Canon shooters, as Canon will be announcing 3 new lenses and shipping the recently announced RF 10-20mm f/4L IS STM. We have confirmed some information about the Canon RF 200-800mm f/6.3-9 IS USM. Yes, it is USM and not STM, which is great and makes a lot of sense

See full article...
 
  • Like
  • Wow
Reactions: 2 users

H. Jones

Photojournalist
Aug 1, 2014
803
1,637
Really excited to see how this lens turns out, I can totally see myself selling my EF 100-400 and 1.4x teleconverter and picking this up to replace the two.

On a totally different note: am I the only one one that feels like Canon could have easily slapped a red ring on this just for marketing purposes? At $2000, is there really anything Canon has to lose by calling this an L lens? The RF 24-105mm F/4L IS is an L lens, and it isn't particularly special optically.

Would Canon really lose any sales on a $12,000 telephoto like the upcoming 200-500mm F/4L if they put a red ring on this? It's not like the RF 24-105 having a red ring makes someone not buy the 28-70mm F/2L, but I guess Canon felt like a red ring would make them have to price this higher.
 
Jul 21, 2010
30,925
12,613
White lens without a red ring. Color me surprised. Weather sealing? I predicted no, maybe I'm wrong about that, too.

Personally, I'm waffling on this lens. The 100-500L with a 1.4x performs very well and is a 420-700/8-10, which isn't too far off of this lens. Will this lens be smaller or lighter? Doesn't look like it. Optically better? Maybe, but probably not or it would have a red ring.

I'll have a look at the actual specs when it's announced and decide whether to preorder it (alongside the RF 24-105/2.8L).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 users
Upvote 0

H. Jones

Photojournalist
Aug 1, 2014
803
1,637
White lens without a red ring. Color me surprised. Weather sealing? I predicted no, maybe I'm wrong about that, too.

Personally, I'm waffling on this lens. The 100-500L with a 1.4x performs very well and is a 420-700/8-10, which isn't too far off of this lens. Will this lens be smaller or lighter? Doesn't look like it. Optically better? Maybe, but probably not or it would have a red ring.

I'll have a look at the actual specs when it's announced and decide whether to preorder it (alongside the RF 24-105/2.8L).

I think part of the cleverness of this lens is for people like myself, who have been holding onto an adapted EF 100-400 F/4.5-5.6L IS II with a teleconverter on their R5/R3.

Changing to the RF 100-500 + teleconverter means having to buy a $2600 lens plus a $500 teleconverter, which has held me back since most of my paid work(weddings/sports/news/etc) is covered by my RF 70-200 anyway. The 100-400 has been mainly a hobby lens for me in terms of birds/wildlife, or for the occasional news story I can't get close to. So if the 100-400 is getting used by me, it's almost always going to have the teleconverter on it, since if 200 isn't enough I'm probably going to want 560mm anyway.

I'll hazard a guess that when I sell the 100-400 and 1.4x teleconverter, I won't be at much of a loss if this lens comes out at $2,000, which makes this a lot more interesting to me than the incredibly excellent RF 100-500.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
The proof is in the pudding. Will the IQ be comparable to the 100-400? Or the 100-500? If the 100-500 (which I seriously doubt), they will never catch up with demand. But the price and non-L status tell me the IQ might well be a compromise.
The RF 100-400 optically is very nice IMO. Many folks think that its price reflects the image quality, but it punches above its weight.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7 users
Upvote 0

Desiree Vie

CR Pro
Jul 14, 2014
21
39
66
What is the going rate for a kidney? What do I own to sell for this. IF it is WHITE, if it has USM, it may be a no brainer?
Any how, I purchased he 800mm twice before I realized it's value and i want to give this one value before I even know the facts. But... so far, it is sold in my eyes, GAS had once again prevailed. To bad I can not have it in my hands before the end of local high school football season. Take this out with the EF 70-200 and leave the EF 400mm f/2.8 home. BTW, I got was onfield for the last game. I really need time to enjoy what the 400 is capable of, and when/where to use it. I shot 1000+ photos in under 2 hours, and I am not satisfied with the percentage of results I want to show off. The 70-200? 99% of them are fantastic.
 
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
30,925
12,613
The white color has to be just a marketing decision to make people think they're getting an "L" quality lens when they surely aren't.
Quite sneaky of you, Canon.
Reminds me of...

 
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
12,240
22,149
White lens without a red ring. Color me surprised. Weather sealing? I predicted no, maybe I'm wrong about that, too.

Personally, I'm waffling on this lens. The 100-500L with a 1.4x performs very well and is a 420-700/8-10, which isn't too far off of this lens. Will this lens be smaller or lighter? Doesn't look like it. Optically better? Maybe, but probably not or it would have a red ring.

I'll have a look at the actual specs when it's announced and decide whether to preorder it (alongside the RF 24-105/2.8L).
The RF 100-500mm is a very good compromise between size and weight on the one hand and focal length on the other. I may well buy the 200-800mm to complement it for when I want longer focal length if it has good enough IQ and not too heavy. But, I have the feeling that the RF 100-500mm will be significantly better for BIF as 800mm is too long for me for fast flying birds and the IQ of the 100-500 is stellar.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
Upvote 0