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

[SnowMiku]

I was actually thinking the other day if I got the RF 800mm f/11, I would find it hard to find the bird in the viewfinder with the field of view. A 200mm-800mm would make it a lot easier for me. I wonder what the aperture will be at 300mm, 400mm, and 500mm?

 

[Fischer]

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.

If they ever make the magic 1.4x extender that allows for full zoom with the 100-500mm it would be an unmatched lens imho.

 

[Marximusprime]

I was actually thinking the other day if I got the RF 800mm f/11, I would find it hard to find the bird in the viewfinder with the field of view. A 200mm-800mm would make it a lot easier for me. I wonder what the aperture will be at 300mm, 400mm, and 500mm?

There's some practice involved, but you get used to it. I pretty regularly have a 2x TC attached to my 500.

 

[AlanF]

I was actually thinking the other day if I got the RF 800mm f/11, I would find it hard to find the bird in the viewfinder with the field of view. A 200mm-800mm would make it a lot easier for me. I wonder what the aperture will be at 300mm, 400mm, and 500mm?

f/6.3 or narrower. I've used 800mm a lot, both in a past life with the 400mm DO II + 2xTC and nowadays with the 800/11 or the 100-500mm at 1000mm. It's easy enough for far off birds but miserable for BIF if they are close or fast flying. The zoom helps against a crowded background for closer ones when the fov is limiting.

 

[john1970]

I was actually thinking the other day if I got the RF 800mm f/11, I would find it hard to find the bird in the viewfinder with the field of view. A 200mm-800mm would make it a lot easier for me. I wonder what the aperture will be at 300mm, 400mm, and 500mm?

You make a very good point and it is one of the main reasons I am changing from fixed lenses to zooms for my super telephoto lenses. I am still waiting for Canon to announce the RF 200-500 mm f4 lens, which hopefully gets announced Q1 2024. I also prefer the zooms because if the animal unexpectedly comes closer I can zoom out and still frame the photo. Overall, I find zooms much more practical than a fixed focal length.

 

[kypr.eos]

I just hope it’s not exclusively a push-pull design.

I can’t see any focal length markings next to what is presumably the zoom ring, except if this is just due to this specific lens being a pre-production model

 

[eosuser1234]

Making the lens white, means the product designers are taking into account the elements. Hopefully this is weather sealed and just without an flourite element thus losing the L designation. It could be a very productive lens for surf photography if weather sealed.

 

[danfaz]

That lens had a green ring, this lens doesn’t seem to have any ring at all.

Correct, but it wasn't officially an L lens.
From what others have said, it is built like one, however.

 

[dbcooper]

something is just not quite right with this lens The interest is understandable considering the lack of mid price long lenses.

Yeah 800mm sounds great, but then most people using these lenses really appreciate weather sealing especially for the price. This is not a studio lens.

I still prefer a 200-600., slightly faster, and weather sealed and smaller

Canon seems to be going for the outrageous rather than common sense. Like amacro lens with a stupid soft focus ring.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Making the lens white, means the product designers are taking into account the elements. Hopefully this is weather sealed and just without an flourite element thus losing the L designation.

I suspect the white paint is a marketing ploy, like the EF 70-300L that was painted white but has no fluorite elements.

 

[bbasiaga]

I wonder if it will have adjustable aperture, or if it will be fixed aperture like the f/11? I would hope adjustable as 6.3 can still be pretty bright in daylight shooting.

Having and loving the EF 100-400 II, plus TC I've never felt like an RF 100-500 was worth the cost to upgrade. But this lens could sit beside my 100-400 nicely. Heavy want...may pre-order. Don't think the wife will be happy. I could sell the 800/11 after a while as well to offset the cost. I like that lens a lot though for its light weight. But a zoom and 2/3 stop aperture would be nice.

Brian

 

[Daniel Lindblom]

This lens looks so odd. It looks like one of the zoom/focus rings are missing. The rubberized surface on the fron part of the lens.

 

[Triceratops]

I hope it's not another Sigma and Tamron under the brand name of Canon in terms of image quality. Sony set the bar really high with their 200-600, I don't know if Canon will be able to exceed or meet the expectations.

 

[neuroanatomist]

This lens looks so odd. It looks like one of the zoom/focus rings are missing. The rubberized surface on the fron part of the lens.

Either the focus ring is white, or the black ring is both focus ring and push-pull zoom grip (which is not how that was done on the 28-300 and 100-400).

 

[eosuser1234]

Imagine a push pull lens without weather sealing. Sounds like it will suck up dust.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

I think a choice between the 100-500L that you already have and another $2K for this is kind of a slam-dunk non-choice. The real market is guys like me who can't spring for the L glass, but would like to have a decent telephoto. For a consumer model, the RF100-400 is a fantastic lens, and I don't regret a single penny of the $650 I paid for it. If this lens is anywhere near that IQ, it's going to be a popular one. $2,000 is a little bit beyond my normal means, but it gives me a lot to think about. I have the RF600, which I just am not happy with for a few reasons. (One being that in practical use, I realize that I should've purchased the 800.) I've been considering selling the 600 and getting the 800. Now I will be thinking about scraping some extra pennies together to get this lens instead. Especially if the IQ makes this a good compliment to the 100-400.

I think the rumored price of this lens is still out of reach of a lot of RF 100-400 owners.
The RF 600 f/11 might not be.
Looking at it the other way, I could see a lot of people who can afford the RF 200-800 also buying the RF 100-400 but then it would be a tough choice deciding between those two or an RF 100-500L + a 1.4TC.
The RF 800 f/11 will still be far more affordable, smaller, and lighter than this lens but will be even more of a niche lens than it is now.

 

[Amingo]

I hope it's not another Sigma and Tamron under the brand name of Canon in terms of image quality. Sony set the bar really high with their 200-600, I don't know if Canon will be able to exceed or meet the expectations.

If IQ is good this will be a perfect replacement / upgrade to my Tamron EF 150-600mm G2 which isn't super sharp on the long end and also the focus is kinda hit or miss.

 

[shadowsports]

I thought the image might be a rendering at first. Neuro's diagrams are helpful. I believe the black ring will be Zoom only.

I guess the programmable button (like the RF 135mm) are going to be a mainstay now. The 24-105 has it too.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

This entire point would be moot if the 100-500 would accept TCs at all focal lengths

It seems like both lenses would make for a nice two-camera setup maybe even with a TC on the 200-800

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Canon openly admitted that they underestimated the demand for the RF 100-300mm f2.8, so they do get it wrong occasionally.

The funny thing is that they always get accused of lying for marketing purposes when they say that demand was higher than they expected.