Good to see that you’re giving it another chance. Many other photographers make great pictures and video with this lens and some are even giving up the RF100-500 and are keeping this lens. I will keep my RF200-800 for birding/wildlife and I will also keep my R100-500 for big wildlife and landscape. I¨m convinced they are great lenses both, so I will see what the new cameras can do with these lenses. Thanks for sharing your video. / Greetings from Per Christensen, Denmark
Thanks for the updated review. I got my 200-800 a week ago and have tested it at my local park on ducks and a heron. I got better results with it on the R7 than the R5 but think it was down to brighter light with the R7 test. I only shot at 800mm and with varying ISO’s. Sharpness did seem better at f10. I’m going to keep mine. In bright light it’s good. And comparing it to the 100-500 with the TC it’s probably as sharp or sharper and far more flexible than the TC combo. My only hesitation is how usable it will be in winter with the overall lower light levels we experience here in Scotland.
redbuds and redwing blackbirds. Spring is here! Well, you guys are a couple weeks ahead of us up in SW Ohio but still seeing redbuds, dogwoods and redwings warms the heart.
I actually made this video a couple of weeks ago. The red buds are no longer in bloom now and the Dogwood’s are just finishing up. Thanks for watching, Jeff!
@@PhilThach our redbuds are still blooming but starting to be past their prime and dogwoods are just now coming out. We're a couple weeks behind you all in springtime.
Hey Phil. Nice video as usual, and thanks for taking us along. In my opinion, having never held the 200 to 800, I don’t think regular canon shooters for wildlife like us should have to try that hard to make that type of lens work. If someone is going to have to throttle back and shoot 700 mm at F10 to try to get shots, one might as well shoot the 100 to 500 with 1.4 extender and get a high degree of sharp shots. You also don’t have the ridiculous or the extra weight of the foot. This lens is in need of a redo. Make the foot removable. Add coatings to the lens. Do something about that throw. In the meantime, shoot the 100-500 for the extender. Those are my two cents.
The very fact you’re questioning if you should keep it or not is probably your answer. Get rid of it while it’s hot and you can get all of your money back.
Thanks for sharing this video! I own both the 100-500 and the 200-800 and after having used the 200-800 for a few weeks I'm considering getting rid of my much beloved 100-500. Shooting the exact same subject on the same settings, the shots from the 200-800 at 800mm were significantly sharper than the 100-500 at 500mm and cropped in. Given that most of the birds that I shoot need all the reach they can get, that tips the scales towards the 200-800 for me.
Have you tried it with the lens IS shutoff and a little higher shutter speed? I have a couple of long lenses that the IS seems to soften my images. A little higher ISO crisp shot is better than low ISO soft one.
We have been waiting to get out hands on the 200-800 since November and disappointed to see that you believe it is not capable of sharpness at 800 mm. You are the only you tube photographer we have watched that is not happy with it's sharpness at every level of it's zoom. We usually enjoy your videos, but this one left us thinking you were looking for fault because every photo didn't meet your "chart" sharpness. We are still anxious to get the 200-800 and hope it comes soon.
Thanks again for review ,this lens 200-800 is unbelievable popular in Finland ,queuing list are very long indeed. I guess I am gonna stay with my Rf 800mm stm f11 and shorter rf 600mm f11. The other day I was photographing european great crested grebes in good light with 800mm and sharpness was fantastic again and with my R8 the focus area is big enough even for BIF photos .. Cheers
I had also went with B and H and it went on backorder, then I thought to myself I'll check the Canon website and it was also on backorder, however the very next day Canon notified me it shipped. I got it 3 days later and that was 2 months ago. I'm very happy with it on my R5.
Thank you for your honest reviews, and going thru all the effort to put your videos together. I have been on the fence between the rf 100-500 for the r7 and the 200-800 for the r8. The rf 100-500 paired with the r7 looks like the way to go. I might just pair the 800mm f11 with the r8 later since I own both camera bodies. Thanks again and have a great day.
You must have missed some of my 200-800 videos that came out before this one. I've been less than satisfied with the sharpness of this lens, especially wide open and on the extremely high pixel density R7. But I have found that on the low pixel density R6 Mark II and stopped down to f/10, I'm getting results that are acceptable if not outstanding. I may still sell the lens at some point but for now, I have decided to keep it. As for the 800 f/11, I have owned that lens for years and I'm happy with it.
I returned my 200-800mm after some serious sweating in the field, in great light and high shutter speeds and a mix of apertures. Running it on a R5, alongside a Nikon Z8 with a 500mm PF lens, I found the Nikon set-up to be far superior in keeper rate. I tried holding back from the 800mm extent of the 200-800 a fair bit (typically up to 707mm) and still it let me down. I least I was lucky enough to try and find out for myself
Now that the light has been better in my area, I have been putting the 200-800 through its paces with the R6ii and I have been pleasantly surprised by how sharp images are with the 1.4 converter. I had all but given upon this ones especially with the r7, but I’m keeping it now. I’m curious how it will perform on the R5ii.
R7 + 100-400 RF 5.6-8 or this 200-800 ?? If you mostly like 707mm on FF, than 400 would be around 640mm and they are about almost in same ballpark F-stop and mm - what would your choice be between those two?? I won't even mentioned that R7+100-400 cost about same as only lens 200-800 and is 1/3 of the weight and size :) Thx
Is it worth sending it to Canon to see if the lens is in spec, get Canon on the tele they are usually pretty good while you have the agent on the tele you can get an email for them and send them sample pics as you discuss your settings they are usually pretty good, I know when my R3 gave me focus issues after 1.4.1 update. I was able to send in pics while we talked on the tele..
I would struggle with the idea of having to shoot at f10 to get sharp shots. For fast moving subjects at higher shutter speeds, it wouldn't be an option for me, even with noise reducing software. Thanks for sharing your experience though Phil.
Why did u have a problem with sharpness. I just bought a R6mk2 and using a 100-400ll with a1.4tc and it’s tac sharp. Are your issues the lens? Thanks for a great test
I lived off of Hwy 58 for 7 years. I was not a photographer then. Once I moved to Florida, I realized the abundance of wildlife year round and decided to learn photography. I missed a lot!
I have been shooting with the EF100-400Lii and a x2, there is little difference between that and the Sigma 150-600 and the 1.4 [840mm], but I bought the 200-800 as it is RF mount. Sharpness wise it seems on par with the other options, it just works a little better as a native mount. As I use both mirrorless and DSLR I can juggle a lot. I like to smooth run to 800 and it probably focuses better on the R5, not quite sure whether I needed the retail therapy more than the lens though.
Hey Phil, i saw a video from Duade Paton and i read in the comments that some people fixed the issue when they took off there lens hoods. The black lens hood is very affected from the heat. Did you try to turn it off or could you try it and tell us if that maybe helped?:)
Heat haze is a legitimate problem and it can be caused by the lens hood, especially if you’re shooting from inside a warm car and it’s cold outside. I don’t think that’s my problematic though because my sharpness issues happen inside the house while focusing at a test chart. But again, if you use this lens on a lower resolution camera and shoot at F10, you can achieve some acceptable results as seen in this video.
In the absence of more enthusiasm on your part, I think I will give it a pass. I love my R7 with the RF 100-500, which is usually plenty of reach even for small birds. For occasional use when more reach is needed, I do have the 1.4x TC, which seems to have minimal impact on IQ and AF. So you've persuaded me to stay with this setup. Thanks
having the R7 too with a 100-400 i see that my reach is often not enough so i was thinking about 100-500 or 200-800- hard decision since the 100-500 have more light coming in but its only 100mm more than i got now. worry its not enough. hearing you say that the 100-500 with an x1.4 is great too i can see myself doing that as well. where i live both lenses cost almost same while the 100-500 is slightly cheaper, leaving me with some cash left for the x1.4.
@@cloudpandarism2627 I can't really comment on the RF 200-800, but the image quality of the RF 100-500 is exceptional, which makes it easier to crop. As a result, 500 mm on the long end works well for me. Also, there may be other advantages to the L series e.g. the dual focus motors are fast and accurate, the optical image stabilization works well with the R7 IBIS, and the minimum focus distance is less than 1m at all focal lengths, making for a lovely "pseudo macro". For what it's worth, the minimum focus distance is unchanged with the addition of the TC, and I've enjoyed having this unexpected option. But I think you will be happy with either lens.
@@wellingtoncrescent2480 you right. the 100-500L it is for me. and if i really need more reach i can still slap the 1.4x on without missing too much light.
The lens registers 707 when you are trying to get to 700 it will not register 700 mm in the exif data. So yes, I did turn it by hand but not specifically to 707, I turned it by hand to right around 700 and it always shows 707. I think that was an unusual choice by the people who designed the lens that’s the way they did it.
Maybe you have a bad copy? I remember years ago when the EF 100-400 just came out. Most were thrilled with it, but a handful of photographers were complaining that it just was not sharp. Turned out, some of them weren't. Before you sell it I would send it to Canon to have it checked. I just got mine and it seems quite sharp at 800 f9. I have a friend who got his a month ago and has been shooting it extensively, and he is thrilled to death with the thing. Nearly all the other TH-cam guys and gals are happy as well. Of course, and you know this, a lens that long shines filling the frame with relatively close subjects (small birds are perfect), and not trying to bring in distant subjects (due to atmospheric interference...unless conditions are ideal). Clearly, it does have some drawbacks (f9), but for the price! And the reach!
Great suggestion. I sent mine in last month. Unfortunately, according to Canon, my lens is functioning normally. I can get some pretty sharp shots with it, just not as sharp as I'd like.
If you are not perfectly happy then it has to go otherwise you will just get frustrated when you miss shots. You can compromise but you have other sharp lenses so it wouldn’t really be missed. Keep us subscribers in the loop.
Phil - I love my 200-800 on the R3 and it was great on the R5 as well. I HATED it at first though LOL. I have been looking to rent the R6II to give that a go as a comparison to the R3 - that will be up sometime soon too. 🤗💖
Just received mine and like you, the photos at 800 are soft. Also, the autofocus is much slower than the 800 f11 and it has a hard time finding the subject in trees.
Phil, I think you will start to see diffraction at f10. Some other TH-camrs have indicated this. Stick to f9 for 800mm and re-test. Jan indicated that the lens is lacking some coatings, so it may also be struggling in brighter, higher contrast light.
Thanks for the suggestion but that is not what my own tests revealed. I found that from 700 to 800mm, f/10 was noticeably sharper than f/9 or f/11. However, I would agree with you at 600mm where my testing showed f/9 to be a little better than f/10 or f/11.
@@PhilThach interesting, cos both Jan and Duade found differently. I also had the thought about heat haze. This lens seems to be rather affected by it, especially at 800mm, more so than say, a 100-500 lens would be.
@@davepastern you can find my test chart video about this lens somewhere on the channel and see my results for yourself. I can tell you that since I started shooting at F10, I’ve been much happier with my results from this lens.
@@PhilThach it just doesn't match what quite a few others have been saying about it. I wonder if you have a problematic lens? Also, as I said in another comment, be aware of heat haze - it's a major issue with this lens at 800mm and results in pulsing AF (similar to the AF of the Sigma 150-600c on a RF mount body, especially the R7).
5:45min cheers for giving it another try. those pics are sharp. no doubt about it. meanwhile others are not. if the lens have a problem as some people thought, all photos would be blurry. that means something is going on in between here. i see you often didnt go faster than 800. what happens if you shoot with higher ISO and speed it up to lets say 1/1600? my RF100-400 is forgiving about me having a stroke for finding cool new things to shoot and shake around like somebody with parkinsons. if i imagine this is DOUBLE from 400mm i can imagine that moving the lens even a tiny bit while shooting, maybe 1/800 isnt enough anymore? dont get me wrong i dont say you are terrible taking pictures and shake around. just try to wrap my head around whats happening with this lens since i saw so many other reviews where it performs absolute perfect. best case scenario still would be to have a friend with the same lens nearby and go out for a session together. side by side. swapping it between cams and compare if the one you got is faulty. maybe the stabilizer inside is having issues. or focus is off from factory as we talk before so sometimes you get lucky and have sharp results but sometimes its just slightly off. turn the stabi off and use it on a tripod to see if that changes something would be a good test to confirm that
Conventional wisdom is to use a higher shutter speed and take care of the noise later with software. I prefer to use as slow of a shutter speed as I can get away with and still have shots without motion blur. I might have to shoot a burst of 30 to get 5 without motion blur. My problem with the 200-800, especially wide open and on the unforgivingly high pixel density R7, is the shots without motion blur are still not acceptably sharp. I have discovered over my past two outings that, if I stop down to f/10 and use the less demanding low pixel density R6 Mark II, I can get shots that are sharp enough to share.
Hi Phil, when you want to keep using the R6ii for birds, you certainly should keep the 200-800 ! For the R7, I'd say the 100-500 is probably a better match. While my 100-500 is still out for lens foot investigations (starting to wondering whether they also wanted to see the issue in Japan), I'm having good fun with the 200-800 on my R5. Only for butterflies the 200-800 annoys me because a short MFD can only be combined with zooming out. When birds are rather close you no longer need to crop and can even afford high ISO because bird details are much larger than the noise. When birds are distant like bluethroat yesterday at 30m distance, I still had several pretty decent shots, while my wife with the R7 & RF100-400 hardly got an ok shot. When comparing IQ, you need to look at the 100-500 plus 1.4x, and so far I'd say only for insect macro closer than 4m the 420-700 looks to be a better choice (on full frame). I fell the 200-800 provides better bokeh, and it also seems to render more vibrant colors. Certainly with the red tail of the great spotted woodpecker.
Thank you! I think this lens is better than the 100-500 + 1.4x. I think my main reason to keep it is I'm probably going to buy the R5 Mark II when it comes out.
@@PhilThach Indeed Phil! the past 18 months, I shot over 150k images with the R5 + 100-500, but probably over 50% of them using the 1.4x (which would be less "needed" on the R7). Those shots with extender (or when I was too lazy to pop on the extender) I plan now to use the 200-800 instead, except for macro between 1 & 4 meter distance. The EF 100 macro only wins when the subject doesn't move too much ;-) My R5 doesn't yet have enough milage to justify getting the R5ii soon .. and a few wild rumors even mentioned by the end of the year an R7ii .. with stacked sensor💪. Another reason for me to wait another year before contemplating the R5ii because instead of losing resale value on my R5, I could then keep the R5 for landscapes and waterfalls, while adding a stacked R7ii for birding ..
@@PhilThach .. on the condition it really comes with a stacked sensor (which should help with AF consistency, rolling shutter etc ..), and that it gets a CFxB card and a pre-shooting implementation from the Sony a9iii .. with all that it might afford a $500 price hike.
Hi Phil, thanks for the short test. Despite all the praise for this lens, it seems to be slowly becoming apparent that the sharpness at 800mm is only moderate in places. The only reason to buy this lens is probably if you don't want to take the 600/4 on a trip because it's too heavy. There are comparison sites on the Internet that describe the EF 100-400 L II with 2xIII Extender as sharper at 800mm. However, at f/11. If you stop down the RF to f/10, the distance becomes even smaller. It is really difficult to say whether a purchase would be worthwhile.
It’s why I went with the EF100-400ii as it saved me money, and I could use some speed booster to reduce the focal length since I shoot on the R7. However, I don’t shoot wildlife much but I found other uses for the lens such as motorsport and air shows.
@@mvp_kryptonite You can do it like this. I've said goodbye to saving money on my hobby...as far as reason and common sense still have any place in it. I also like to use the EF 100-400 L2 indoors and at air shows because of its light intensity. It often works very well, depending on the location. The RF 200-800 is a great walking lens during the day, especially with the 1.4 extender. Of course, with the compromises in light intensity. For animals that I specifically seek out in certain places, I almost exclusively use my EF 600/4III on the R6II
@@peterdobson1166 I imagine the 200-800 is a great walking lens, I picked up the 600/11 for fun and it’s literally just that, lightweight and fun. The important thing is we use the tools we have. I’m pondering the R6ii but think I would be better off with the R3. We’ll see
@@mvp_kryptonite Always take what you want. I find the R3 too bulky and too heavy. In my two places of residence, northern Germany and the Versterals, an f/11 lens would not be much fun. But if you live in a sunshine state, it's certainly great
@@peterdobson1166 I’m used to the size and bulk from the DSLR days but in the UK sunshine I guess like German isn’t the best. Apparently we have a poor/wet summer too
I haven't used (or even seen one of these), but my experience with the Canon 800mm f/11 is that 1/800th is too slow. The image stabilization can't keep up with the infinitesimal camera movements. I switched to nothing lower than 1/1600 and got great, sharp results. Want to s😅ell it to me?
I have gotten sharp shots with the 800 F11 as low as one 1/160 of a second. Obviously, that shutter speed is not recommended but possible. I have to go up to 1/1600 to get a short picture with this lens. It’s kind of useless considering that its maximum aperture is F/9. I have learned that if I shoot at f/10 and stay away from using my R7, I can get fairly decent results.
Since this is a 6 month old video, I'm not sure if you kept the lens or not. I guess you have to ask that at $1900, what other lens would you buy to compete with this one considering the reach? Certainly, the 100-500 is better when it comes to sharpness, but how does it compare when you add the 1.4 teleconverter that gives you 700mm? Apples to apples, a new 100-500 and 1.4 teleconverter is $3200. Anyway, good, honest video.
I still have the lens but what I did was buy a Nikon Z8 to go with my Nikkor 180-600. Back to your question I did a test chart comparison and I did not like the 100-500 with the 1.4 extender very much either. The 100-500 by itself is very good. There’s a video of that test chart comparison on the channel somewhere.
Think you perhaps taking your test charts to heart l don't know anybody who is that unhappy with the lens but if you not happy with it you got a good Sony Zoom and Nikon zoom so you well covered.
I have a Z8 but I haven't tried it yet. Hoping to use it to photograph short eared owls soon. Phil, check out Dr. John Campbell's latest video with survey in the title.
I have to agree with those saying you're using too slow a shutter speed. I understand you want to use the same speed as the 800 f/11. But the 800 f/11 is smaller and lighter so you can't expect the same results at the same shutter speed. At least try using a min of 1/2000th a few times and compare those to the 1/800th you're using now.
We will have to agree to disagree. 1/2000 is an in-flight shutter speed. It should not be required for perched birds even at 707mm. Thanks for watching!
@@PhilThach Yes, 1/2000 for birds in flight. Your in flight Osprey is at 1/800. You don't need 1/2000th for perched birds but comparing the 800 f/11 at 1/800 to the 200-800 at 1/800 doesn't account for the bigger size and weight of the 200-800.
Phil, I've been using the 200-800 and R5 since late December now. The R7 and 100-500 has been sitting in the bag, but I use my 600mm EF MK II if light is not good. Just yesterday I had a great egret maybe 30 feet from me and was very impressed with the sharpness of the 200-800. I was able to crop in and get a head shot, and it was still sharp. I think this lens will do well with the R5 MKII, and your shots in this video looked good.
Thanks for sharing. I own the 600mm f4 II lens and the 100-500L. Been using the 600 for years and I can say that every time I take the 100-500 out I’m disappointed. It’s hard to go back to a zoom with a small aperture once you use the bigger lenses. So I’m selling my 100-500L. If i was shooting a lot of big game it would be foolish to sell it but it’s mostly birds and I am continually disappointed every time I take the zoom out. Just my opinion. Like you, I get tired of lugging big gear out all the time and the 200-800 really has me intrigued. I feel that it might be a good second lens. Do you like it? I hate cluttered crappy backgrounds and I am really picky. But I’m sure in some circumstances you can work around that, right? Is f9 that soft compared to the 600mm II or is it still pretty sharp where you can sharpen in post? Lastly I think if we wait a year they might come out with a more professional zoom so maybe waiting longer would be a good idea. Just curious how much you like this lens compared to your 600mm. Seems like most folks are coming from sigma and 800mm f11 lenses and from those lenses this is a big jump. But for us I didn’t think so. Thanks man and also thanks Phil for the video.
@gary_michael_flanagan_wildlife warbler photography past few days has been good with the 200-800. At 800 sometimes it focuses more on branches than I'd like so it helps to zoom out a but. But, I've gotten super sharp images at 800 that look incredible. Canada warbler and Northern Parula looked stunning in good light. Smooth background at f9 is not an issue if enough separation between subject and background.
Thanks for another great video Phil. I love that 200-800 lens and I find it to be fairly sharp on my R5 and R7. I wonder if maybe you got a bad copy? Is it as sharp as my a7CR and the Sony 200-600? No but it's pretty darn good. Also I don't have the amazing 100-500 Canon lens to compare it against so I can see how you might be less than happy with the 200-800. They do say comparison is the robber of joy :-). Cheers.
I don't think I've even heard of this lens. Not sure how I missed the announcement. I knew of the 100-500 and the 600 and 800 f/11 models. Shame if this isn't a great lens. It would be a nice hand-holdable wildlife. I am used to lugging a 400 2.8 and a TC.
Conventional wisdom is to use a higher shutter speed and take care of the noise later with software. I prefer to use as slow of a shutter speed as I can get away with and still have shots without motion blur. I might have to shoot a burst of 30 to get 5 without motion blur. My problem with the 200-800, especially wide open and on the unforgivingly high pixel density R7, is the shots without motion blur are still not acceptably sharp. I have discovered over my past two outings that, if I stop down to f/10 and use the less demanding low pixel density R6 Mark II, I can get shots that are sharp enough to share.
Just sharing. You can join the Canon club (forget what they call it) for $100 year. They will inspect and test the lens. I had an issue with my 100-500 last year. It was dropped onto soft wet grass. Canon did the inspection and turned it around in 7 days. I did it for peace of mind really, and the lens was fine. It’s just an option in case your actual lens has an issue. They may even do it for free with such a new lens.
If I've learned anything about lenses over the years it's that a lens is never sharpest wide open, its always 2-5 stops back. I dont think you are real happy with it so I'd get rid of it while there is still high demand for it
Unfortunately, this lens does not fall into that category because if you stop this lens down 2 to 5 stops, it becomes very unsharp. Wide open is f9, it gets a little better at f10 and then it begins to fall apart at f11.
@@PhilThach that's sad, it could be so much better and the more Fstop options you have the better off we all are being stuck at f/10 only limits it's use case even further. It seems you are too big of a fan of it so I'd still get rid of it while there is large demand for it.
After watching or videos and noticing that you were kind of scratching your head with this lens, I think the answer is clear. I decided to stick with my 100-500 and 1.4x and not buy this lens.
Hey Phil. If you decide to sell your 200-800, I'll buy it. My R6 MKII would love it. The 200-800 I ordered is still on backorder since Nov. last. Might even pay a little extra if you autograph its white snout. Ha.
Not exactly a ringing endorsement, nor a harsh critique. At just north of $2,000 (including tax) I'm not sure I'm going for it based on this video. I've watched other reviews shot with the R5 which has 45 megapixels and results seem consistently good, so maybe it's the sensor? The R6-M2 AF system should be doing as good if not better than the R5 given it's a newer camera, so I wonder what it could be. Most reviews are wide open aperture and at the full 800mm yet the reviewers all seem a lot more excited with their results than I'm seeing here. A used 100-500 is still hovering around $2,200 so that's out of my reach. All of this leaves me back to hoping for Sigma being allowed to make their 150-600mm for the RF mount soon!
Before you decide, I'd suggest you make a few sessions keeping your shutter speed between 1/2000 and 1/4000. After testing the 70 200 with the A6700, I decided to stay at 1/4000 all the time.
If I have to keep my shutter speed that high, it's not worth it to me. I can go MUCH lower than that with the budget 800 f/11 and still bag sharp images.
I find it strange that there is this great disparity of opinions on the lens. Because there are some very experienced wild like photographers that like the lens. I noticed you don’t use high shutter speeds for such a long lens. I can’t shoot at that narrow angle of view unless I’m at 1600th of a second. If you have Topaz Sharpen AI it tells you if the sharpness problem is the lens or camera shake.
If you can tell this much difference of sharpness from you R6 Markii, you should definitely sell or return your 200 800, I think you might get a lemon lens😂😂😂.
Hi Phil, I like your video. I don’t know why you are not shooting at 1600 to 6400 with the R62 and that lens. Your shutter speed is too slow to obtain sharp images. You may have done it already but use higher iso and faster shutter speeds before you make a rash decision about selling the lens.
I understand your point and realize that conventional wisdom suggests using much higher shutter speeds than I do but, I when I shoot with the 800 f/11 I don't have to go to high shutter speeds like you recommend so surely this more expensive lens should be able to match that performance.
@@PhilThach Is there much of a weight differential between the 800 F11 and the 200-800 ? I still would try faster shutter speeds and bump up the Iso to get there. I fully intend to buy one of the RF 200-800 lenses and trade my 100-500 as I will not need or use both.
![⭐️( ลอยกระทง 2024 ) Ver. แดนซ์ Remix BY [ ดีเจกิต รีมิกซ์ ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/rMWOLhgXUHc/mqdefault.jpg)
Good to see that you’re giving it another chance. Many other photographers make great pictures and video with this lens and some are even giving up the RF100-500 and are keeping this lens. I will keep my RF200-800 for birding/wildlife and I will also keep my R100-500 for big wildlife and landscape. I¨m convinced they are great lenses both, so I will see what the new cameras can do with these lenses. Thanks for sharing your video. / Greetings from Per Christensen, Denmark
Thank you!
Really nice shot of the redwing bird. I love the redbud in the background.
Bluebird v. Nice too. I love birds
Thank you!
Thanks for the updated review. I got my 200-800 a week ago and have tested it at my local park on ducks and a heron. I got better results with it on the R7 than the R5 but think it was down to brighter light with the R7 test. I only shot at 800mm and with varying ISO’s. Sharpness did seem better at f10. I’m going to keep mine. In bright light it’s good. And comparing it to the 100-500 with the TC it’s probably as sharp or sharper and far more flexible than the TC combo. My only hesitation is how usable it will be in winter with the overall lower light levels we experience here in Scotland.
redbuds and redwing blackbirds. Spring is here! Well, you guys are a couple weeks ahead of us up in SW Ohio but still seeing redbuds, dogwoods and redwings warms the heart.
I actually made this video a couple of weeks ago. The red buds are no longer in bloom now and the Dogwood’s are just finishing up. Thanks for watching, Jeff!
@@PhilThach our redbuds are still blooming but starting to be past their prime and dogwoods are just now coming out. We're a couple weeks behind you all in springtime.
Hey Phil. Nice video as usual, and thanks for taking us along.
In my opinion, having never held the 200 to 800, I don’t think regular canon shooters for wildlife like us should have to try that hard to make that type of lens work. If someone is going to have to throttle back and shoot 700 mm at F10 to try to get shots, one might as well shoot the 100 to 500 with 1.4 extender and get a high degree of sharp shots. You also don’t have the ridiculous or the extra weight of the foot. This lens is in need of a redo.
Make the foot removable.
Add coatings to the lens.
Do something about that throw.
In the meantime, shoot the 100-500 for the extender. Those are my two cents.
The very fact you’re questioning if you should keep it or not is probably your answer. Get rid of it while it’s hot and you can get all of your money back.
That's a good point.
Yup
Thanks for sharing this video! I own both the 100-500 and the 200-800 and after having used the 200-800 for a few weeks I'm considering getting rid of my much beloved 100-500. Shooting the exact same subject on the same settings, the shots from the 200-800 at 800mm were significantly sharper than the 100-500 at 500mm and cropped in. Given that most of the birds that I shoot need all the reach they can get, that tips the scales towards the 200-800 for me.
Have you tried it with the lens IS shutoff and a little higher shutter speed? I have a couple of long lenses that the IS seems to soften my images. A little higher ISO crisp shot is better than low ISO soft one.
We have been waiting to get out hands on the 200-800 since November and disappointed to see that you believe it is not capable of sharpness at 800 mm. You are the only you tube photographer we have watched that is not happy with it's sharpness at every level of it's zoom. We usually enjoy your videos, but this one left us thinking you were looking for fault because every photo didn't meet your "chart" sharpness. We are still anxious to get the 200-800 and hope it comes soon.
same feeling here. your is gonna be fine. i still think factory messed something up on his lens. could have a thousand reasons.
It seems it struggles to cope with a harsh sunlight? Have you tried to turn off stabilisation and try on tripod?
Thanks again for review ,this lens 200-800 is unbelievable popular in Finland ,queuing list are very long indeed. I guess I am gonna stay with my Rf 800mm stm f11 and shorter rf 600mm f11. The other day I was photographing european great crested grebes in good light with 800mm and sharpness was fantastic again and with my R8 the focus area is big enough even for BIF photos .. Cheers
I'm so happy you gave it ANOTHER chance. It's been 6 months since I ordered mine from B&H and it's still out of stock.
I had also went with B and H and it went on backorder, then I thought to myself I'll check the Canon website and it was also on backorder, however the very next day Canon notified me it shipped. I got it 3 days later and that was 2 months ago. I'm very happy with it on my R5.
Thank you for your honest reviews, and going thru all the effort to put your videos together. I have been on the fence between the rf 100-500 for the r7 and the 200-800 for the r8. The rf 100-500 paired with the r7 looks like the way to go. I might just pair the 800mm f11 with the r8 later since I own both camera bodies. Thanks again and have a great day.
Thank you!
Not sure if you’ll keep the lens, why would you sell it and what would you replace it with, RF 800mm f11 ?
You must have missed some of my 200-800 videos that came out before this one. I've been less than satisfied with the sharpness of this lens, especially wide open and on the extremely high pixel density R7. But I have found that on the low pixel density R6 Mark II and stopped down to f/10, I'm getting results that are acceptable if not outstanding. I may still sell the lens at some point but for now, I have decided to keep it. As for the 800 f/11, I have owned that lens for years and I'm happy with it.
I returned my 200-800mm after some serious sweating in the field, in great light and high shutter speeds and a mix of apertures. Running it on a R5, alongside a Nikon Z8 with a 500mm PF lens, I found the Nikon set-up to be far superior in keeper rate. I tried holding back from the 800mm extent of the 200-800 a fair bit (typically up to 707mm) and still it let me down. I least I was lucky enough to try and find out for myself
Now that the light has been better in my area, I have been putting the 200-800 through its paces with the R6ii and I have been pleasantly surprised by how sharp images are with the 1.4 converter. I had all but given upon this ones especially with the r7, but I’m keeping it now. I’m curious how it will perform on the R5ii.
The R5 Mark II and my intention to buy one is what is making me keep this lens.
I have seen excellent results with the R3 and the 200-800.
Hi, thanks for the video. As a comparison, at 400mm is it sharper than the RF100-400mm? Just something relative that we can compare it with. Thanks
That's a good question and one that I have not measured. I need to do that in the future.
@@PhilThach I have the RF100-400 and are happy with the results. If the 200-800 matches that then I'm happy.
R7 + 100-400 RF 5.6-8 or this 200-800 ??
If you mostly like 707mm on FF, than 400 would be around 640mm and they are about almost in same ballpark F-stop and mm - what would your choice be between those two??
I won't even mentioned that R7+100-400 cost about same as only lens 200-800 and is 1/3 of the weight and size :)
Thx
You make some very good points for the R7 100-400 combo.
Thanks so much for sharing another wonderful video like always Phil 👍
Thank you, Miguel!
Is it worth sending it to Canon to see if the lens is in spec, get Canon on the tele they are usually pretty good while you have the agent on the tele you can get an email for them and send them sample pics as you discuss your settings they are usually pretty good, I know when my R3 gave me focus issues after 1.4.1 update. I was able to send in pics while we talked on the tele..
yep my point exactly now and before. i had canon and sigma lenses slightly off and the cam shop nearby fixed that. later they were perfect.
I would struggle with the idea of having to shoot at f10 to get sharp shots. For fast moving subjects at higher shutter speeds, it wouldn't be an option for me, even with noise reducing software. Thanks for sharing your experience though Phil.
Thank you. Yes, f/9 is bad enough but when you need to stop it down to get sharp images, that is off putting for sure.
I'm still teetering on the 200 to 800mm for my r6 mk.2. Your thoughts phil on the rf 800mm f11 with r6 mk.2? Thanks and as usual great video.
I like the 800 f/11 on the R6 Mark II.
Why did u have a problem with sharpness. I just bought a R6mk2 and using a 100-400ll with a1.4tc and it’s tac sharp. Are your issues the lens? Thanks for a great test
Thank you!
i did some tests and found f10 to be the sharpest setting, too. it is of course quite some struggle when light is a scarce ressource...
I lived off of Hwy 58 for 7 years. I was not a photographer then. Once I moved to Florida, I realized the abundance of wildlife year round and decided to learn photography. I missed a lot!
We love Florida for wildlife!
I have been shooting with the EF100-400Lii and a x2, there is little difference between that and the Sigma 150-600 and the 1.4 [840mm], but I bought the 200-800 as it is RF mount. Sharpness wise it seems on par with the other options, it just works a little better as a native mount. As I use both mirrorless and DSLR I can juggle a lot. I like to smooth run to 800 and it probably focuses better on the R5, not quite sure whether I needed the retail therapy more than the lens though.
Hey Phil, i saw a video from Duade Paton and i read in the comments that some people fixed the issue when they took off there lens hoods. The black lens hood is very affected from the heat. Did you try to turn it off or could you try it and tell us if that maybe helped?:)
Heat haze is a legitimate problem and it can be caused by the lens hood, especially if you’re shooting from inside a warm car and it’s cold outside. I don’t think that’s my problematic though because my sharpness issues happen inside the house while focusing at a test chart. But again, if you use this lens on a lower resolution camera and shoot at F10, you can achieve some acceptable results as seen in this video.
In the absence of more enthusiasm on your part, I think I will give it a pass. I love my R7 with the RF 100-500, which is usually plenty of reach even for small birds. For occasional use when more reach is needed, I do have the 1.4x TC, which seems to have minimal impact on IQ and AF. So you've persuaded me to stay with this setup. Thanks
having the R7 too with a 100-400 i see that my reach is often not enough so i was thinking about 100-500 or 200-800- hard decision since the 100-500 have more light coming in but its only 100mm more than i got now. worry its not enough. hearing you say that the 100-500 with an x1.4 is great too i can see myself doing that as well. where i live both lenses cost almost same while the 100-500 is slightly cheaper, leaving me with some cash left for the x1.4.
@@cloudpandarism2627 I can't really comment on the RF 200-800, but the image quality of the RF 100-500 is exceptional, which makes it easier to crop. As a result, 500 mm on the long end works well for me. Also, there may be other advantages to the L series e.g. the dual focus motors are fast and accurate, the optical image stabilization works well with the R7 IBIS, and the minimum focus distance is less than 1m at all focal lengths, making for a lovely "pseudo macro". For what it's worth, the minimum focus distance is unchanged with the addition of the TC, and I've enjoyed having this unexpected option. But I think you will be happy with either lens.
@@wellingtoncrescent2480 you right. the 100-500L it is for me. and if i really need more reach i can still slap the 1.4x on without missing too much light.
Why you set it to 707 mm? And how did you do that? Turning it "by hand" to 707 mm?
The lens registers 707 when you are trying to get to 700 it will not register 700 mm in the exif data. So yes, I did turn it by hand but not specifically to 707, I turned it by hand to right around 700 and it always shows 707. I think that was an unusual choice by the people who designed the lens that’s the way they did it.
Maybe you have a bad copy? I remember years ago when the EF 100-400 just came out. Most were thrilled with it, but a handful of photographers were complaining that it just was not sharp. Turned out, some of them weren't. Before you sell it I would send it to Canon to have it checked. I just got mine and it seems quite sharp at 800 f9. I have a friend who got his a month ago and has been shooting it extensively, and he is thrilled to death with the thing. Nearly all the other TH-cam guys and gals are happy as well. Of course, and you know this, a lens that long shines filling the frame with relatively close subjects (small birds are perfect), and not trying to bring in distant subjects (due to atmospheric interference...unless conditions are ideal). Clearly, it does have some drawbacks (f9), but for the price! And the reach!
Great suggestion. I sent mine in last month. Unfortunately, according to Canon, my lens is functioning normally. I can get some pretty sharp shots with it, just not as sharp as I'd like.
If you are not perfectly happy then it has to go otherwise you will just get frustrated when you miss shots. You can compromise but you have other sharp lenses so it wouldn’t really be missed. Keep us subscribers in the loop.
This is a very good point.
This tells me what I need to know Appreciate it.
Thank you!
Did you have IS and or IBIS enabled even at 1/800?
Yes.
@@PhilThach Have you tried to turn them off?
Phil - I love my 200-800 on the R3 and it was great on the R5 as well. I HATED it at first though LOL. I have been looking to rent the R6II to give that a go as a comparison to the R3 - that will be up sometime soon too. 🤗💖
You’ll like the R6Ii most likely.
@@PhilThach That is what I am afraid of LOL. I tend to buy it when I like it. 🤗
I think the bluebird was my favorite. Nice shirt as well.
Thank you!
Just received mine and like you, the photos at 800 are soft. Also, the autofocus is much slower than the 800 f11 and it has a hard time finding the subject in trees.
I contacted Canon and returned mine under warranty and it should be repaired within a week, Phil.
Phil, I think you will start to see diffraction at f10. Some other TH-camrs have indicated this. Stick to f9 for 800mm and re-test. Jan indicated that the lens is lacking some coatings, so it may also be struggling in brighter, higher contrast light.
Thanks for the suggestion but that is not what my own tests revealed. I found that from 700 to 800mm, f/10 was noticeably sharper than f/9 or f/11. However, I would agree with you at 600mm where my testing showed f/9 to be a little better than f/10 or f/11.
@@PhilThach interesting, cos both Jan and Duade found differently. I also had the thought about heat haze. This lens seems to be rather affected by it, especially at 800mm, more so than say, a 100-500 lens would be.
@@davepastern you can find my test chart video about this lens somewhere on the channel and see my results for yourself. I can tell you that since I started shooting at F10, I’ve been much happier with my results from this lens.
@@PhilThach it just doesn't match what quite a few others have been saying about it. I wonder if you have a problematic lens? Also, as I said in another comment, be aware of heat haze - it's a major issue with this lens at 800mm and results in pulsing AF (similar to the AF of the Sigma 150-600c on a RF mount body, especially the R7).
5:45min
cheers for giving it another try. those pics are sharp. no doubt about it.
meanwhile others are not.
if the lens have a problem as some people thought, all photos would be blurry. that means something is going on in between here. i see you often didnt go faster than 800. what happens if you shoot with higher ISO and speed it up to lets say 1/1600? my RF100-400 is forgiving about me having a stroke for finding cool new things to shoot and shake around like somebody with parkinsons. if i imagine this is DOUBLE from 400mm i can imagine that moving the lens even a tiny bit while shooting, maybe 1/800 isnt enough anymore?
dont get me wrong i dont say you are terrible taking pictures and shake around. just try to wrap my head around whats happening with this lens since i saw so many other reviews where it performs absolute perfect. best case scenario still would be to have a friend with the same lens nearby and go out for a session together. side by side. swapping it between cams and compare if the one you got is faulty. maybe the stabilizer inside is having issues. or focus is off from factory as we talk before so sometimes you get lucky and have sharp results but sometimes its just slightly off. turn the stabi off and use it on a tripod to see if that changes something would be a good test to confirm that
I would love to see you increase your Sutter speed it seems like it's to slow
Conventional wisdom is to use a higher shutter speed and take care of the noise later with software. I prefer to use as slow of a shutter speed as I can get away with and still have shots without motion blur. I might have to shoot a burst of 30 to get 5 without motion blur. My problem with the 200-800, especially wide open and on the unforgivingly high pixel density R7, is the shots without motion blur are still not acceptably sharp. I have discovered over my past two outings that, if I stop down to f/10 and use the less demanding low pixel density R6 Mark II, I can get shots that are sharp enough to share.
Love your channel. Do you like your R7?
Thank you! I love my R7, just not with this lens.
Hi Phil, when you want to keep using the R6ii for birds, you certainly should keep the 200-800 ! For the R7, I'd say the 100-500 is probably a better match.
While my 100-500 is still out for lens foot investigations (starting to wondering whether they also wanted to see the issue in Japan), I'm having good fun with the 200-800 on my R5. Only for butterflies the 200-800 annoys me because a short MFD can only be combined with zooming out. When birds are rather close you no longer need to crop and can even afford high ISO because bird details are much larger than the noise. When birds are distant like bluethroat yesterday at 30m distance, I still had several pretty decent shots, while my wife with the R7 & RF100-400 hardly got an ok shot.
When comparing IQ, you need to look at the 100-500 plus 1.4x, and so far I'd say only for insect macro closer than 4m the 420-700 looks to be a better choice (on full frame).
I fell the 200-800 provides better bokeh, and it also seems to render more vibrant colors. Certainly with the red tail of the great spotted woodpecker.
Thank you! I think this lens is better than the 100-500 + 1.4x. I think my main reason to keep it is I'm probably going to buy the R5 Mark II when it comes out.
@@PhilThach Indeed Phil! the past 18 months, I shot over 150k images with the R5 + 100-500, but probably over 50% of them using the 1.4x (which would be less "needed" on the R7). Those shots with extender (or when I was too lazy to pop on the extender) I plan now to use the 200-800 instead, except for macro between 1 & 4 meter distance. The EF 100 macro only wins when the subject doesn't move too much ;-)
My R5 doesn't yet have enough milage to justify getting the R5ii soon .. and a few wild rumors even mentioned by the end of the year an R7ii .. with stacked sensor💪. Another reason for me to wait another year before contemplating the R5ii because instead of losing resale value on my R5, I could then keep the R5 for landscapes and waterfalls, while adding a stacked R7ii for birding ..
@@WernerBirdNature That's a good strategy, R7II for birds and R5 for landscapes.
@@PhilThach .. on the condition it really comes with a stacked sensor (which should help with AF consistency, rolling shutter etc ..), and that it gets a CFxB card and a pre-shooting implementation from the Sony a9iii .. with all that it might afford a $500 price hike.
@@WernerBirdNatureI would love the R7ii to be battery grip compatible too
Good testing Phil. You got some nice shots. Do you think you’ll keep it?
Thank you, Adrian! I'm going to wait and see how it works with the R5 Mark II I think.
Hi Phil, thanks for the short test.
Despite all the praise for this lens, it seems to be slowly becoming apparent that the sharpness at 800mm is only moderate in places. The only reason to buy this lens is probably if you don't want to take the 600/4 on a trip because it's too heavy. There are comparison sites on the Internet that describe the EF 100-400 L II with 2xIII Extender as sharper at 800mm. However, at f/11. If you stop down the RF to f/10, the distance becomes even smaller. It is really difficult to say whether a purchase would be worthwhile.
It’s why I went with the EF100-400ii as it saved me money, and I could use some speed booster to reduce the focal length since I shoot on the R7. However, I don’t shoot wildlife much but I found other uses for the lens such as motorsport and air shows.
@@mvp_kryptonite You can do it like this. I've said goodbye to saving money on my hobby...as far as reason and common sense still have any place in it.
I also like to use the EF 100-400 L2 indoors and at air shows because of its light intensity. It often works very well, depending on the location. The RF 200-800 is a great walking lens during the day, especially with the 1.4 extender. Of course, with the compromises in light intensity. For animals that I specifically seek out in certain places, I almost exclusively use my EF 600/4III on the R6II
@@peterdobson1166 I imagine the 200-800 is a great walking lens, I picked up the 600/11 for fun and it’s literally just that, lightweight and fun. The important thing is we use the tools we have. I’m pondering the R6ii but think I would be better off with the R3. We’ll see
@@mvp_kryptonite Always take what you want. I find the R3 too bulky and too heavy. In my two places of residence, northern Germany and the Versterals, an f/11 lens would not be much fun. But if you live in a sunshine state, it's certainly great
@@peterdobson1166 I’m used to the size and bulk from the DSLR days but in the UK sunshine I guess like German isn’t the best. Apparently we have a poor/wet summer too
if you really want to struggle with sharpness and color try a yellow headed blackbird! I never can get the yellow right
I have never seen a yellow headed blackbird, but I just googled a photograph of one and they are beautiful.
I haven't used (or even seen one of these), but my experience with the Canon 800mm f/11 is that 1/800th is too slow. The image stabilization can't keep up with the infinitesimal camera movements. I switched to nothing lower than 1/1600 and got great, sharp results. Want to s😅ell it to me?
I have gotten sharp shots with the 800 F11 as low as one 1/160 of a second. Obviously, that shutter speed is not recommended but possible. I have to go up to 1/1600 to get a short picture with this lens. It’s kind of useless considering that its maximum aperture is F/9. I have learned that if I shoot at f/10 and stay away from using my R7, I can get fairly decent results.
Since this is a 6 month old video, I'm not sure if you kept the lens or not. I guess you have to ask that at $1900, what other lens would you buy to compete with this one considering the reach? Certainly, the 100-500 is better when it comes to sharpness, but how does it compare when you add the 1.4 teleconverter that gives you 700mm? Apples to apples, a new 100-500 and 1.4 teleconverter is $3200. Anyway, good, honest video.
I still have the lens but what I did was buy a Nikon Z8 to go with my Nikkor 180-600. Back to your question I did a test chart comparison and I did not like the 100-500 with the 1.4 extender very much either. The 100-500 by itself is very good. There’s a video of that test chart comparison on the channel somewhere.
@@PhilThach Thanks for the reply!
Think you perhaps taking your test charts to heart l don't know anybody who is that unhappy with the lens but if you not happy with it you got a good Sony Zoom and Nikon zoom so you well covered.
Thank you!
I wonder if Canon will bring a firmware update to correct the sharpness? I'm not sure if they could do this? Good video Phil
Thank you!
Seems unlikely when so many others are happy with the lens. Phil may have a bad copy.
I have a Z8 but I haven't tried it yet. Hoping to use it to photograph short eared owls soon. Phil, check out Dr. John Campbell's latest video with survey in the title.
Had a chance to use this lens last week, and not impressed. 700-800 was just not sharp. For me, that's the whole reason to buy the lens.
It's a little better at f10 but it's no Sony 200-600 for sure!
I have to agree with those saying you're using too slow a shutter speed. I understand you want to use the same speed as the 800 f/11. But the 800 f/11 is smaller and lighter so you can't expect the same results at the same shutter speed. At least try using a min of 1/2000th a few times and compare those to the 1/800th you're using now.
We will have to agree to disagree. 1/2000 is an in-flight shutter speed. It should not be required for perched birds even at 707mm. Thanks for watching!
@@PhilThach Yes, 1/2000 for birds in flight. Your in flight Osprey is at 1/800. You don't need 1/2000th for perched birds but comparing the 800 f/11 at 1/800 to the 200-800 at 1/800 doesn't account for the bigger size and weight of the 200-800.
Phil, I've been using the 200-800 and R5 since late December now. The R7 and 100-500 has been sitting in the bag, but I use my 600mm EF MK II if light is not good. Just yesterday I had a great egret maybe 30 feet from me and was very impressed with the sharpness of the 200-800. I was able to crop in and get a head shot, and it was still sharp. I think this lens will do well with the R5 MKII, and your shots in this video looked good.
Thank you!
Thanks for sharing. I own the 600mm f4 II lens and the 100-500L. Been using the 600 for years and I can say that every time I take the 100-500 out I’m disappointed. It’s hard to go back to a zoom with a small aperture once you use the bigger lenses. So I’m selling my 100-500L. If i was shooting a lot of big game it would be foolish to sell it but it’s mostly birds and I am continually disappointed every time I take the zoom out. Just my opinion. Like you, I get tired of lugging big gear out all the time and the 200-800 really has me intrigued. I feel that it might be a good second lens. Do you like it? I hate cluttered crappy backgrounds and I am really picky. But I’m sure in some circumstances you can work around that, right? Is f9 that soft compared to the 600mm II or is it still pretty sharp where you can sharpen in post? Lastly I think if we wait a year they might come out with a more professional zoom so maybe waiting longer would be a good idea. Just curious how much you like this lens compared to your 600mm. Seems like most folks are coming from sigma and 800mm f11 lenses and from those lenses this is a big jump. But for us I didn’t think so. Thanks man and also thanks Phil for the video.
@gary_michael_flanagan_wildlife warbler photography past few days has been good with the 200-800. At 800 sometimes it focuses more on branches than I'd like so it helps to zoom out a but. But, I've gotten super sharp images at 800 that look incredible. Canada warbler and Northern Parula looked stunning in good light. Smooth background at f9 is not an issue if enough separation between subject and background.
@@hstein27 ok thanks. Do you stop down to f10? Or is f9 pretty sharp? I’m in North Carolina and the warblers are here too. Thanks
@gary_michael_flanagan_wildlife I am in shutter priority, so it sometimes automatically stops down to f 10. Even at f9 it is reasonably sharp.
Thanks for another great video Phil. I love that 200-800 lens and I find it to be fairly sharp on my R5 and R7. I wonder if maybe you got a bad copy? Is it as sharp as my a7CR and the Sony 200-600? No but it's pretty darn good. Also I don't have the amazing 100-500 Canon lens to compare it against so I can see how you might be less than happy with the 200-800. They do say comparison is the robber of joy :-). Cheers.
Thank you! Another robber of joy is soft photographs lol 😂
@@PhilThachtouche! That's why i shot Sony😀
I don't think I've even heard of this lens. Not sure how I missed the announcement. I knew of the 100-500 and the 600 and 800 f/11 models. Shame if this isn't a great lens. It would be a nice hand-holdable wildlife. I am used to lugging a 400 2.8 and a TC.
Apparently a 200-500 f4 is in the pipeline. Similar to the 100-300 f2.8. I’m only guessing it would be hand holdable
Generally your shutter speeds are too slow. Are you afraid of higher ISO's?
Conventional wisdom is to use a higher shutter speed and take care of the noise later with software. I prefer to use as slow of a shutter speed as I can get away with and still have shots without motion blur. I might have to shoot a burst of 30 to get 5 without motion blur. My problem with the 200-800, especially wide open and on the unforgivingly high pixel density R7, is the shots without motion blur are still not acceptably sharp. I have discovered over my past two outings that, if I stop down to f/10 and use the less demanding low pixel density R6 Mark II, I can get shots that are sharp enough to share.
I see the photos your showing us are .tifs. Can you briefly describe your workflow and how you get to tifs. Thank you!
I import the raw files into Lightroom where I do all of my editing before running them through Topaz Denoise AI for sharpening, and noise reduction.
@@PhilThach Thanks Phil. Basically the same as mine. I bring mine into PS before running Topaz and save as a layered psd.
Just sharing. You can join the Canon club (forget what they call it) for $100 year. They will inspect and test the lens. I had an issue with my 100-500 last year. It was dropped onto soft wet grass. Canon did the inspection and turned it around in 7 days. I did it for peace of mind really, and the lens was fine. It’s just an option in case your actual lens has an issue. They may even do it for free with such a new lens.
If I've learned anything about lenses over the years it's that a lens is never sharpest wide open, its always 2-5 stops back.
I dont think you are real happy with it so I'd get rid of it while there is still high demand for it
Unfortunately, this lens does not fall into that category because if you stop this lens down 2 to 5 stops, it becomes very unsharp. Wide open is f9, it gets a little better at f10 and then it begins to fall apart at f11.
@@PhilThach that's sad, it could be so much better and the more Fstop options you have the better off we all are being stuck at f/10 only limits it's use case even further. It seems you are too big of a fan of it so I'd still get rid of it while there is large demand for it.
After watching or videos and noticing that you were kind of scratching your head with this lens, I think the answer is clear. I decided to stick with my 100-500 and 1.4x and not buy this lens.
Hey Phil. If you decide to sell your 200-800, I'll buy it. My R6 MKII would love it. The 200-800 I ordered is still on backorder since Nov. last. Might even pay a little extra if you autograph its white snout. Ha.
I will certainly consider that. I’m kind of waiting to see how it does on the R5 Mark II before I sell it.
@johnjuby6184 Could you email me at miataphil@gmail.com , I'm interested in your offer and would like to discuss it further.
I’d send it in to Canon and have them recalibrate the focus. It’s under warranty, yes?
Not exactly a ringing endorsement, nor a harsh critique. At just north of $2,000 (including tax) I'm not sure I'm going for it based on this video. I've watched other reviews shot with the R5 which has 45 megapixels and results seem consistently good, so maybe it's the sensor? The R6-M2 AF system should be doing as good if not better than the R5 given it's a newer camera, so I wonder what it could be. Most reviews are wide open aperture and at the full 800mm yet the reviewers all seem a lot more excited with their results than I'm seeing here. A used 100-500 is still hovering around $2,200 so that's out of my reach. All of this leaves me back to hoping for Sigma being allowed to make their 150-600mm for the RF mount soon!
I think that describes my feelings about this lens pretty well. "Not a ringing endorsement".
Before you decide, I'd suggest you make a few sessions keeping your shutter speed between 1/2000 and 1/4000. After testing the 70 200 with the A6700, I decided to stay at 1/4000 all the time.
If I have to keep my shutter speed that high, it's not worth it to me. I can go MUCH lower than that with the budget 800 f/11 and still bag sharp images.
I find it strange that there is this great disparity of opinions on the lens. Because there are some very experienced wild like photographers that like the lens. I noticed you don’t use high shutter speeds for such a long lens. I can’t shoot at that narrow angle of view unless I’m at 1600th of a second. If you have Topaz Sharpen AI it tells you if the sharpness problem is the lens or camera shake.
Looks like the 200-800 is not a winner on the R7. It's the 100-500 F7.1 or bust especially with the poor light in Ireland for most of the year
Yes, on the R7 the 100-500 is the way to go for sure. The Jury is still out on full-frame cameras.
@@PhilThach Thanks very much for that recommendation Phil. The 200-800 canon lens just cannot be got at the moment in Europe due to supply shortages.
Looks same quality as RF 100-400, but price is very different.
Indeed, but so is the focal range.
If you can tell this much difference of sharpness from you R6 Markii, you should definitely sell or return your 200 800, I think you might get a lemon lens😂😂😂.
That is possible.
Hi Phil, I like your video. I don’t know why you are not shooting at 1600 to 6400 with the R62 and that lens. Your shutter speed is too slow to obtain sharp images. You may have done it already but use higher iso and faster shutter speeds before you make a rash decision about selling the lens.
I understand your point and realize that conventional wisdom suggests using much higher shutter speeds than I do but, I when I shoot with the 800 f/11 I don't have to go to high shutter speeds like you recommend so surely this more expensive lens should be able to match that performance.
@@PhilThach Is there much of a weight differential between the 800 F11 and the 200-800 ? I still would try faster shutter speeds and bump up the Iso to get there. I fully intend to buy one of the RF 200-800 lenses and trade my 100-500 as I will not need or use both.
Nothing Stellar Phil. Not a keeper lens.😊
I'm still thinking about it.
Junk lens no chance