They are if all your pics are of your gear rather than what you shoot through it...
-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Canon RF 200-800mm IS USM (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Frank van Drogen
- Start date
They are if all your pics are of your gear rather than what you shoot through it...
Dave Williams
Well-known member
Slightly debatable IMO, the only one to compete is the Sigma 300-800 f5.6. Canon wins on minimum focus distance by 5.2m, and less weight ( you need a wheel barrow for the Sigma at 5880gms) and price when new but constant f5.6 is a major plus as well as internal zoom and sharp images make Sigma a decent competitor and it's taken 18 years for someone to match the reach at the long end.
MPB Have a Sigma in stock for less than the expected price of the Canon at just over £2k. In time for Christmas even!!
Last edited:
My thinking is that 200mm is a better starting point than 300mm for finding a subject, especially in clutter.
ApusApus
Well-known member
Undoubtedly, but I think its attractiveness depends on what kit you already have unless you have unlimited pockets! Like Roy C, I have the RF100-500 & the 1.4TC & this combo on my R7 produces phenomenal results! I skipped the EF100-400 models so the RF100-500 was a no brainer but if I had the EF100-400 then I would be seriously tempted!
Shane
stevo
Well-known member
Be wary though some of the old adapted sigma lenses won't autofocus on modern mirrorless cameras.
Dave Williams
Well-known member
Good point Stevo
Dave Williams
Well-known member
Re our wind up merchant contributor, I have owned several big white F4 EF telephoto lenses, was never remotely interested in the 800mm f5.6 , sold my 600 but retained the 500mm f4 in preference when I had both at once. I still have the 500 (they were both Mk2 versions) but it rarely gets used, likewise my Gitzo tripod and Wimberley head. As said that kit has become redundant for most of the time and my go to lens is the RF 100-500 with the R5 which is far more versatile. Not exactly cheap but less than the value of the 500mm f4 .
To be honest, better photographers than I can take superior photos with far less expensive gear than I have. Top end kit isn't the answer to everything.
To be honest, better photographers than I can take superior photos with far less expensive gear than I have. Top end kit isn't the answer to everything.
but if you buy 12 of them, it's not cheap any more
Excellent point, from someone whose reports and photos speak for themselves.
Versatility is a major plus for a birding camera. Birds sometimes flaunt at arms length and then others pop up in the next time zone.
Being lumbered with a big 800mm lens may actually be a handicap.
colincurry
Well-known member
I have the R5, 100-500 and 1.4 tc which give me flexibility and a reach of 700mm. Also greatfor insects. Can't see me spending £2k+ for an extra 100mm. Another much cheaper approach would be to try an R7 but I am finding it hard to justify this. Pretty ancient and responsibilities make it difficult for me to go very far and for a long period. Am fortunate to own what I already have, and the grass is not always greener.
How do you like the TC1.4 on the limited zoom range of the 100-500? I have 100-500 and R7 and have thought about the 1.4x but not sure since it only work from 300-500 on the lens. Do you find the view too "zoomed in" at times?
colincurry
Well-known member
I have the 1.4 tc on my 100-500 and never take it off. If I find I am "too zoomed in" I step backwards - and backwards, till I get what I want.
ApusApus
Well-known member
The combo works very well but the only problem I have really encountered is when photographing birds in the sky for example. The field of view is so narrow at 500mm that if you don't nail the subject in the view finder straight away, then you struggle to work out if you are looking above, below, left or right of it! Normally, you would zoom in until you picked up the subject, re-centre the subject in the view finder and then zoom out but you can only zoom in to 300mm which is a bit restrictive!
Apart from this issue, I don't have a problem with the crossover point between the bare lens and it fitted with the TC1.4 ........................ if you are shooting below 500mm then don't fit the TC as the "cropability" factor of an R7 image is excellent!
Shane
Barred Wobbler
Well-known member
Just seen reports on Youtube from people in the US & Australia who have just received their 200-800 today/yesterday. I wasn't expecting them to start shipping until late next week with reports of 14th December for earliest shipping on some camera shop web pages.
Bully for you Mr.Moneybags, but I guess most people would choose to spend a $100,000 on a life!
Fowl Mouth
Just a guy with dogs
Like many other amateurs, I have been closely following every available breadcrumb on this new offering. I am greatly interested, as I think I'm ready to finally let go of my three old super teles and replace with some new tech to mount on my R7. Also like many others I'm weighing this against the already popular 100-500 L.
Initial youtube vids are somewhat promising, but sadly I haven't seen enough yet to sway me 100%. I'll go on record saying that the f9 max aperture does not scare me, because the R7 seems to have an AF algorithm that is next level compared to older phase style EF bodies, clearly demonstrated by the 600mm and 800mm f11 lenses. Also, I'm certain with proper field technique and subject placement, nice b/g blur should be easy to produce with such a heavily compressed focal length.
I will say, most of the images I've seen at 800mm fall just a slight underwhelming. Something I've struggled to put my finger on. Just a tad lacking in contrast. I think the problem is that all the images are being resized for web, or in particular YouTube, making it hard to judge nominal sharpness. I just noticed The Digital Picture has uploaded some resolution crops for the lens here:
The-Digital-Picture: Canon RF 200-800mm F6.3-9 IS USM Lens Image Quality
Judgement is left for the eye of the beholder. It's entirely possible these are taken with a pre-production example. Bryan doesn't mention this on his site, I just know this is always a possibility with early hard to get lenses. So keep that in mind.
I really need a safari style lens that gives me reach, but also backs down in fl so I can get compressed landscapes, or animals in their environment. My old Sigma 150-500 OS is the best all around lens I've ever used for travel around the world, due to it's excellent range. That lens just doesn't get used anymore because it's not sharp (at all, LOL), and struggles to AF with predictability on the R7. My other lenses are sharp, but they are primes. I'm more of a run and gun shooter most of the time, so I don't prefer to travel with the primes, plus I don't like using two bodies at the same time if I don't have to because of the bulk. Of course I love the 800mm capability of this lens, but I wonder if the price point is just too much of a compromise. But compromise is always the name of the game, and I think it's an important part of the expectation here. I'm eager to see more real world shots with this new super zoom, and hope to have access to SOOC files. But I'm starting to wonder if cropped images from the 100-500 will still be superior to uncropped images with the 200-800. It is an interesting offering for sure. Just thought I'd pass along the link for anyone interested in seeing contrast and sharpness.
Initial youtube vids are somewhat promising, but sadly I haven't seen enough yet to sway me 100%. I'll go on record saying that the f9 max aperture does not scare me, because the R7 seems to have an AF algorithm that is next level compared to older phase style EF bodies, clearly demonstrated by the 600mm and 800mm f11 lenses. Also, I'm certain with proper field technique and subject placement, nice b/g blur should be easy to produce with such a heavily compressed focal length.
I will say, most of the images I've seen at 800mm fall just a slight underwhelming. Something I've struggled to put my finger on. Just a tad lacking in contrast. I think the problem is that all the images are being resized for web, or in particular YouTube, making it hard to judge nominal sharpness. I just noticed The Digital Picture has uploaded some resolution crops for the lens here:
The-Digital-Picture: Canon RF 200-800mm F6.3-9 IS USM Lens Image Quality
Judgement is left for the eye of the beholder. It's entirely possible these are taken with a pre-production example. Bryan doesn't mention this on his site, I just know this is always a possibility with early hard to get lenses. So keep that in mind.
I really need a safari style lens that gives me reach, but also backs down in fl so I can get compressed landscapes, or animals in their environment. My old Sigma 150-500 OS is the best all around lens I've ever used for travel around the world, due to it's excellent range. That lens just doesn't get used anymore because it's not sharp (at all, LOL), and struggles to AF with predictability on the R7. My other lenses are sharp, but they are primes. I'm more of a run and gun shooter most of the time, so I don't prefer to travel with the primes, plus I don't like using two bodies at the same time if I don't have to because of the bulk. Of course I love the 800mm capability of this lens, but I wonder if the price point is just too much of a compromise. But compromise is always the name of the game, and I think it's an important part of the expectation here. I'm eager to see more real world shots with this new super zoom, and hope to have access to SOOC files. But I'm starting to wonder if cropped images from the 100-500 will still be superior to uncropped images with the 200-800. It is an interesting offering for sure. Just thought I'd pass along the link for anyone interested in seeing contrast and sharpness.
Last edited:
