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 for its focal range. The lens will also have a tripod collar and it looks like a black lens hood will be included. Will Canon offer a $300 white hood? I'm only half kidding.

You can see in the amazing quality image above, that the RF 200-800mm f/6.3-9 IS USM will come in Canon's pretty white paint.

The excitement surrounding this rumored lens has been palatable for a lot of shooters. If you're into this lens, get ready to preorder it in the first minute, because I think they're going to be extremely popular.

When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Here's how it works.

Go to discussion...

182 comments

  1. 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.
    • 1
  2. 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).
    • 0
  3. 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.
    • 0
  4. 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.
    I have no doubt there's a market for this lens – it will be pretty popular, I suspect.
    • 1
  5. 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.
    • 0
  6. For folks who don't have an RF wildlife zoom lens yet, this would be the one to get. This might be that "middle ground" lens folks have been asking for between the RF 100-400 and RF 100-500.
    • 0
  7. 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.
    • 0
  8. 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.
    • 0
  9. 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.
    • 0
  10. 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...

    • 0
  11. 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.
    • 0
  12. I see only one black ring. Trombone zoom like the original EF100-400/ 4.5-5.6?
    The control ring and the focus ring are white. The zoom ring is black. It’s obvious in that high quality screen grab.
    • 0

Leave a comment

Please log in to your forum account to comment