Canon RF 200-800 - Small Aperture Lenses are Frustrating for Wildlife Photography
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 14 พ.ย. 2023
- The highly anticipated Canon RF 200-800mm is here and I just cancelled my order! I really wanted to like this lens but for me it has to be better than the F11 800 and so far, at 800, I ain't seeing an improvement. Though F9 is much better than F11, this lens will still leave you frustrated when it comes to getting enough light onto the sensor.
Freewell Mega Filter Kit geni.us/kIIR
Get the light kit you see in the video here:
Main light eu.ifootagegear.com/products/...
Fresnel for that light eu.ifootagegear.com/collectio...
Really good colour changing LED light eu.ifootagegear.com/products/...
My main gear for TH-cam videos:
Camera (Canon R5C) geni.us/2cAKD
OSMO Pocket 3 geni.us/IOH4S
24-70 Amazing Lens! geni.us/vfAlMo3
Main vlogging mic geni.us/MhQ93
Ultimate mic for videos geni.us/VYxB - ภาพยนตร์และแอนิเมชัน
![[FULL EP.69] #เอิร์นจิรวรรณ เปิดบ้านหมื่นล้านทุกมุม ครั้งแรก! l เคหสถานบานปลาย l One Playground](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/_J4_nw8c64o/mqdefault.jpg)
![พาแม่บินครั้งแรก..เกือบวูบ! ให้เกาหลีเยียวยาใจ I Korea Ep.1 [Seoul] x อุงเอิง](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/waL3__dEQBU/mqdefault.jpg)
It seems like lots of folks don't understand how aperture is calculated. People comparing this lens to the Sigma 150-600, for example, don't seem to get that both lenses let in about the same amount of light. If the Sigma went out to 800mm, it, too, would be f/9 or thereabouts, as they both have roughly the same size diameter lens opening, allowing a 95mm filter/lens cap to be used. Did you expect f/6.3 at the long end of an 800mm lens? That would require a 127mm diameter lens opening...and cost another couple grand probably, and weight double what this lens weighs. Sure compared to an f/4 or f/5.6 superzoom, you won't get the same look or subject separation, but you're also not paying upwards of 10 grand. Not enough light? I guess old time film photographers have to laugh! ISO 400 film was typically as high as you would go in the film days. Today, with the software available, using a crop camera, ISO 6400 is no problem, FF 12800 is my max default. So, on a crop body, ISO 64oo is 4 stops more than ISO 400 film. So, let's go 4 stops down from f/9...or to make it easier, f/11. Hmmm, that makes it f/2.8. Don't think f/2.8 was getting you enough light when we were shooting film at ISO 400? Of course, it was. I'm really not sure what folks were expecting from a lens that seems to be in the same category as the Sigma, Tamron and even Sony lenses that go to 600mm. If you want the subject separation of an f/4 lens, you're not getting it from those lenses either. If you want to shoot at really fast shutter speeds in low light, nope, not getting it from those lenses either. Want more reach - considerably more reach - and still have a hand-holdable lens in the same price bracket as those lenses, this seems to fit the bill. What seem quite ridiculous, is that people are cancelling orders and forming opinions on a lens they haven't tried. Basing it on TH-cam videos from folks who have barely touched the lens. Why not wait until the really experienced and professional reviewers start to use the lens, or better yet use it yourself. If it's not right for you, fine. That's perfectly understandable and quite possible. It will certainly not be for everyone.
First, I want to thank you for canceling your preorder, now I am one level up in the backorder list 🤩 I mean sure this is not the best lens in the world, but it fits to my photography journey and it was full of compromises. 😮 but also thank you to share your considerations, these are the same in my head. 😊
I get the argument with blowing out the background when you have access to much better lenses. However, personally i still think the price is justified for a hobbyist or beginner or when you are simply on a tight budget. The range it covers its simply amazing because of the price and flexibility.
Where I live, you get the Sony 200-600 for 900€ less and the Nikon 180-600 for 500€ less, both let in 2/3 more light at 600mm.
Considering the small aperture, this canon lens is very expensive.
It retails at £2300. That's a lot of money for a beginner to spend.
$2300 for beginner bro💀if you have a R7 then get RF 100-400mm and you can still get incredible photos based on your skill. Cheap and efficient.
Here is the problem. If you are a full time professional this lens wasn’t meant you. Certainly the seventeen thousand dollar 800mm 5.6 is the lens for full time pros. This 200mm to 800mm RF was designed for enthusiasts that want the flexibility of a zoom and the 800mm reach. And not be burdened with the weight of the big whites. Can you take great images with the 200mm to 800mm? Yes you can if you understand the limitations. In the near future software for creating bokeh will allow users to melt the background of any image. Lenses will get smaller and lighter and people will still complain.
I’m not really complaining though, I just thought the lens would look a bit better than the f11.
@@HuFilms I didn’t think you in particular were complaining. That was for all the people on line that trash products from spec sheets before the product reaches the field. I own a f11 RF 800. For the price I can’t fault it. An 800mm that many people can afford and is light enough for an elderly person to shoot with all day. The big problem for me is the minimum focusing distance. The minimum focusing distance for the RF 200-800 mm is 1.8m at 400mm, 2.8 m at 600mm and 3.3 m at 800mm. That gives the lens vastly more utility in the field. It is weather sealed and has the same focusing motor as the the RF 100-500mm L lens. The focusing will be quick. It will be better than F/11 prime. I use a RF 100-500 mostly, but there are times I use the 800 f/11. All of these lens can yield great results if you understand their limitations. Knowing your gear will vastly improve anyone’s photography.
If you remember what she said about the haze and hot air in Africa, she is actually telling you think twice before buying. .. Canon is not doing a good job on cheaper wildlife lenses like Sony and Nikon, as a Canon user, I am frustrated. No third party lenses make things even worse.
@@yafeiyi7493 There are third party lenses. Simply use the adapter. It works flawlessly. Haze and hot air don’t care what name is on the lens. The laws of physics don’t change for Sony are Nikon. She was stating the reality that atmospheric degradation is a problem with a thousand dollar lens or a ten thousand dollar lens. People need to know they can’t blame the equipment when the use it incorrectly. They won’t get a tack sharp image unless atmospheric conditions allow it.
@@HuFilmsi do have to say tho, if you do the math. Its faster than the 100-500, about the same as the 150-600 from sigma / tamron. I can‘t see a faster lens coming out for this range that is at this price and with the quality of cameras these days, i think this will work very well
Its all about how sharp it is. Bokeh can you fix in phs. The zoom range is exactly what you need for birding. The R5 will make a perfekt match, it takes very good pictures at Iso 6400. You almost certanly must crop pictures with only 500 mm. I have the 100-500 and its a fantastic lens, versatile and supersharp. After testing it against my 500f4 II i found it not to be sharper than the 100-500. And the minimum fokus distance on the 100-500 is 1 meter! The 500 f4 II is also very heavy and not so easy to use for BIF. I sold the 500f4. I have preordered the 200-800 so i can judge for my self. If it is sharp i think i will keep it.
Creating artificial bokeh in PHS is not ever something I want to do. Same with noise reduction. I'm one of these old school guys who like to have a nice image sooc.
I'm in the same boat with you man. I'd definitely get it if I had some extra cash, but having recently got my 500 mk ii, not only am I out of extra cash, but I have extremely high motivations for lugging my new lens around, lol.
I initially thought the weight of a big white prime would bother me, but having gotten in much better shape, lost weight, and surgeries fixing my shoulder, etc., I feel better than I ever have in my adult life and surprisingly haven't had any issues carrying or using my 500 handheld. It's just such a joy for me, so even if I still had my 100-500, it'd be sitting at home most of the time now.
I still stand by what I said in my video though, that it will be great for anyone who is getting into wildlife and needs a solid all-in-one wildlife and landscape telephoto. Also, don't discount the power of editing, especially these days. It can really help you get more than you thought possible out of slower lenses like this. Good editing will make a world of difference for anyone who gets this lines, IMHO.
Also, I need to get over to Ireland and we need to go do some wildlife together!
😁
Hey Brent, I totally get you. You're gonna be trading off image quality for sure and you may still feel the weight of the 200-800 as it's not that light either. You're right what you say about the landscape stuff, it's lovely taking zoomed in landscape shots with these lenses. I definitely would like to have it, thought the 24-105 f2.8 would probably be a better lens for me to get for my work. It's all money, eh? In regards to injury, it's good that you can manage the weight. Unfortunately, I've developed some nerve issues in my shoulder from carrying heavy rigs. I'm struggling to get it sorted, even with physio. I can pump serious iron in the gym and I'm as fit as ever but years of doing handheld camera work with the left arm carrying the brunt of it, is catching up with me. It'd be a pleasure to have you over here to Ireland, if you do come, I'll book some days off and we can do some excursions / wildlife YT vids. I have a second channel that I'd love to dedicate to just that. Lets keep in touch, I have you on Insta for messages.
Thanks for your thoughts on this lens. I've been on the fence since it was announced too. I absolutely love my RF 100-500 but would love a longer lens. It's hard for me to take a step down in image quality. I'll be curious once this lens ships and it gets in more people's hands. Good to see you on TH-cam Hugh!
Thanks Josh, the 100-500 is awesome but if you shot at F4 you'd be hooked. Though when not so into photos, it mightn't matter so much. It's been tough getting YT stuff done, hopefully I'll get my Osmo 3 video out within two weeks. Even if I do 2 vids a month, it'd be awesome. Well done on passing 25k on your channel! 👏
@@HuFilms Thanks Hugh! Yeah I'm doing almost all video and no photo so the F7.1 doesn't bother me so much on the 100-500. I don't want to try one of those big boy F4 primes because I know there won't be any going back. The size and weight of the 100-500 is just such a joy to carry around and use. I just wish it had a bit more reach, but that's probably the case with any telephoto lens.
Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts about this lens. Your video is probably the only really honest review I've seen so far.
Thanks man.
Definitely feels like a side-grade, but the range and price tag is quite attractive for people who don't have anything in that range, or can't yet afford the massive whites
Great point 👏
I want to give it a try in wildlife photography.So, what would you recommend for up to 3k wild life lens for canon?
Is rf 100 500 +extender 1.4 better option than this..or some ef lens?
You really put my concerns into words.. great insight, thanks. I think this lens isn't going to be better than my 600/f11. I bought it second hand so I probably won't lose much on it. I am pretty sure I'll get the RF100-500 and an R10 or R7 body to get into the range I want for smaller birds.
On a side note, what mic did you use for this video? I liked the sound quality.
Thanks.just the Sennheiser 416, not very close and my room accoustics are way too wet. So, I use a bit of voice isolator in DR.
Still for photography I also think about the old fashioned 2.8 300 and add converters or better use a high megapixel camera. The new Sony lightweight 2.8 300 is a real step forward I think being not a sports-photographer so much behind the lines of a soccer match. I think 800 mm are at all rare lenses to use. Don't you think? The real edge is 600 mm in reality and in mainstream large lenses photography or filming. What do you think about the 600 mm as an 'edge'?
Thank You for a great video , very helpful in making a decision on the 200-800mm .. Having already the 100-500mm & the 800mm F11 is as good as it gets.. Can only dream a the 600m F4 !!!
Perfect video, thank you.
I got interested when I seen it on the website and starting looking at videos. Seen hers and noticed what you pointed out in your video and was like ok, that doesn't look good at all. Then I seen another guy's video and was like wow amazing. Perfect shots. So good, wondering how it could even be that lens.
Then here I am, the 3rd video watching on this lens and I feel we have close to the same mindset on what we want out of our images. I feel you have shown more reality of what you will probably actually get, where the others are not sure how some are so Perfect.
Was excited about the lens in the beginning, but now not so much.
I got the R6 MKII at launch and a few L series lenses. I can say that I didn't spend this much money to just take ok pictures. I got it to be able to take the best pictures I possibly can and to wow myself.
Image quality is everything to me and with this lens, I think there would be too many disappointing missed shots with this lens.
And how often does the outdoors here have Perfect lighting conditions? Not too often for that range of aperture.
Thank you for the details I needed to hear in your video.
You covered my concerns exactly. I have an EF 600 F4 III (my wife OK'd it when we had the option used at a phenomenal price). Be nice to have something zoomy and smaller for certain spots. I'm getting left a little underwhelmed everytime I see a positive review.
Agree with you...I can see the appeal for a certain market. I knew this wasn't going to necessarily be a "pro" level lens but I had high hopes for it being a nice alternative to times when I didn't want to carry my f4 lenses. For me personally I was left wanting too much and trying to convince myself for my personal uses, that I should get it....but ultimately decided to pass.
Thanks Harry, it's just not impressive enough at 800 and not any better from what I can see, than the F11 800 lens and for that price, I would need it to be more of an improvement to be honest. Also, it's like f8 at around 500 which is so dang dark.
I have the RF 100-500mm and I owned the EF 600 f/4 III, but sold it to pay of the remainder of the mortgage on the house a couple of years ago. I would be looking at old pics and when one stuck out as an impressive pictures it was invariably the 600mm f/4. After 2 years I again had the finances to buy the RF 600 f/4 this past month. When I went into the store the manager asked if I had considered the RF 200-800. I said yes, but the images you get with the 600 f/4 can not be compared. It is also the only lens I feel comfortable with using the 1.4 extender on and getting acceptable results. Essentially it becomes an 840mm f/5.6.
I've also heard the argument that a lot of people shoot with their 600mm f/4 stopped down, but the more light the faster it focuses, even if you are shooting stepped down. I hear the same thing about the f/1.2 or f/1.8 vs f/4 primes. True, you may shoot them at f/4 or 5.6, but the focus is going to be a lot better on f/1.2 stepped down to f/4, than an f/4 shot at f/4. The 2 and 1/3 stops ISO gain also means means an ISO 6400 becomes ISO 1280. Of course the 200-800mm is lighter, but if I am never going to really like the photos, what is the point? I kept making the same mistake by getting crop bodies rather than better glass or getting closer. I did get some excellent pics with my 80D, 90D, and R7, but at the end of the day my personal keeper rate was much less than those of the full frame camera bodies.
Also, the diffraction limit on the R7 is about f/6.3, and the R5 is about f/9. The 100-500mm is just above the diffraction limit on the R7, but the 200-800mm is really pushing it if you want to crop a lot.
At 16:33: "600 mil ... f4 .... RF!" That made me chuckle. Thank you for this very thoughtful commentary. It is very helpful.
You kinda made me laugh too.
Would like to see a comparison between the RF 200-800 @ 700mm and the RF 100-500 with the RF1.4 TC @700mm on the R5. That would determine whether the new lens is of interest.
I just sold my 500 f4 because my 800 f11 is just as sharp. If your shoot action and need high shutter speeds then you need a fast aperture. But if you’re able to compose properly for backgrounds, you can easily shoot these lenses slow enough with their stabilization to offset the slow apertures.
Watch the video.
100%
@@HuFilmslol😅
@HuFilms I decided to after reading Mike's comment and I actually agree even more with Mike now lol
I think I agree with Mike
I have both RF 600 and RF 800mm f/11 and and both are fine lenses.
I started using them with the R6 but the small AF caused me to upgrade to R6 Mark II where the AF area is far larger at 80% vertical and 80% horizontal. I do also have a R7 where the AF area with these two lenses are 69% horizontal and 80% vertical. which I found ok.
Nice one!
You may not read this, as it's two weeks since the video was posted but here's a little of my experience with Sand Martins etc. I have a Sony A1 with the 600 f4 GM lens. It's a great set-up but those Sand Martins are extremely agile and where I am, they come in very close. The big 600 is too tunnel visioned for using on them, I also have the Sony 200-600 & a couple other of their lens but for these birds, the 100-400 is just about right. Having that in/out zoom is what makes the difference for me. I have no idea what Canon do in that range, but all the best in getting those pictures.
If I was thinking of getting this lens, I would rent it for a week or two at a time of the year when I would really feel I could the best use out of it and then decide whether to buy or not.
I think this could be an excellent lens for stills and especially for video. Time will tell.
Video is a strongpoint for sure and if I had a bit more spare cash I'd take a chance on it. Lens rentals of this type aren't that available in Ireland.
Great review Hugh. I have the Canon R7, would you recommend getting the 100-500 F7.1 lens or is the slower F stop still not good enough in bad light? Or do I need to get an R6ii or R5. I am shooting wildlife. Thanks alot 🙂
You're really inhibiting the ability to get bright images with shallow dof with both of those options. You could try the 100-500 on that camera but a prime would look nicer. My lens, the SIGMA 500 f4, though not as good at fast focusing, will give a nicer image at 500 but the 100-500 will give you great versatility!
Hi Hugh Thanks very much for taking the time to reply. I really appreciate it 🙂 I previously used the Nikon D500 and 200-500 F5.6 for my wildlife photography and the 300 F4 nikon lens. I bought the Canon R7 as I fitted my budget but I have found that in low light it has struggled and I have been shooting in high iso's with it alot. Is the 100-500 F7.1 worth the investment? I always carry a birdwatching scope so weight is a factor for me. I would love to get the 600 RF F4 lens but the Bank Manager says No at the moment :D
I can say the RF100-500 is a great lens the bad light is done to what you can get away with in ISO I've gone over 32000 with the R5 no problem Also for people that think stick an 2x extender on I wouldn't bother I've taken shots of the moon 1 with and 1 without and I got the same result just by cropping ok I have 45MP on the R5 so that's easier to say and taken a shot of a Robin just 2mtrs away at 500mm or just under the bird filled the frame. other than the 28-70f2 the 100-500 is my favourite lenses
I noted for myself the final phrase of this video about the desire to brew good tea. This pleased me, because I also like tea. And many bloggers prefer coffee, for some reason... My father often said that money has no eyes. And I was impressed by your very sensible approach to investing money in really reasonable things. Good luck to your channel, Hugh.
Ha ha, thanks!
Thank you for your thoughts about this lens. I've been waiting for this...with a lot of reviews I felt they were more selling it and not reviewing it. Of course it is a nice lens, but one can't expect it to be great or compairable to prime lenses. I used to buy this sort of lenses before, thinking/hoping it would get me prefect pictures. But they just don't. Of course, it is a peronal and mostly financial decision...but I rather save a little longer and buy me the lens that gives me the quality I want.
Here in Germany, where I live, it's 500€ more expensive than the Nikon 180-600 and about 900€ more expensive than the Sony 200-600.
Even if they all were the same price, I'd still rather a 600 mm zoom with f/6.3. To me, this makes no sense, should be cheaper than those zoom lenses, and I really don't get why Canon can't just release a 600mm zoom like everybody else. Different isn't always better, and 2/3 more light at 600mm is pretty significant.
So funny! Did the same thing. I ordered it the morning after it was released. Then I thought about it and ultimately canceled my preorder 3 days later. I have the 800 F11 and 600 RF F4. The 200-800 range is ideal. However, the slow aperture is not so much.
Yeah I’m currently shooting the 100-500 and I’m waiting for comparison reviews of the 100-500 with a1.4x up against the 200-800 would much prefer like Nikon 800 mm f6.3
Totally Agree! I struggle with owls with my Sony at 6.3, but at F9, I couldn't imagine!
I think a lot of what you've presented makes sense. Although circumstances are different for various image makers. If I was a Pro, I'd probably bypass this lens for some of the prime options with L quality glass and wider apertures. Many of us are not pros, however... we are hobbyists.
For a hobbyist like myself... I'm probably NEVER going to spend the $7,000 to $12,000+ for the fast and top of the line glass. We are excited to have a Sigma or Tamron 150-600mm on an EF to RF adapter or an f/11 Canon because that's the most reach and quality we could afford without our significant other having a heart attack. This lens is aimed at that segment. Someone that wants Canon quality... maybe just a little less quality than an L lens, with big reach (bonus! more reach than the 150-600mm), at a price that isn't equal to the trade in value of the car we commute to work in everyday.
Not having those big dollars or already owning a big prime, puts us in the position of a trade off in aperture. If a fixed f/11 is doable for some of these hobbyists, an f/9 can be accommodated.
As far as wants... I'd love for Canon to bridge between the low end and the high end with a 500mm or 600mm f/5.6 or f/6.3. I got a lot of use out of my EF 400/5.6L... something in that vein with a bit more reach would be really nice if it was mid-priced.
I get paid for some wildlife work but a lot of that is basically only 'capturing' whats there. So, essentially, I too, am a hobbyist. I think I made a good call when I got the Sigma Sports 500 F4. It was on special offer at the time, 2 years ago so I only paid €3500 for it (after VAT). That's quite good value for a lens that delivers 'pro' images. I would like to trade up to a 600mm F4 Canon MK2/3 or RF but that's megabucks!!
Well said. I agree with you 100% about the new rf lens
I'm waiting for full reviews after the lens ships and might rent one for a week to try it out. I'd love a monster $12,000 lens but realistically, the competition in my life is my current setup with Canon's 100-500mm + 1.4x extender. 800mm at f9 might not be great but it's better than 700mm at f10. At least if it's sufficiently sharp.
I'd really like for Canon to open up the RF mount to third parties so Sigma et al. could provide some more options. That's a big benefit of the Sony ecosystem right now.
I'm with you on this. f9 IS a big deal under some circumstances, and the main ones apply to wildlife photography. In particular - backgrounds and working in low light. Sure, you can try to work a position where the background doesn't fight with the subject, and yes DXO or Topaz will help clean up a noisy image, but both of these have downsides. I'm confident the lens will be a quality piece of glass for colour and sharpness and its range is incredible so it will be very popular. It's not for me though - I often work in low light and I'm fussy about backgrounds. To be honest, I'm getting a bit weary with Canon's lens offerings for wildlife work on the R system. Apart from the big whites (which I love) they don't seem to have Nikon's range of glass. And I'm STILL waiting for a stacked sensor in the 40-50 megapixel range. I've used Canon for more than 25 years and I've always been happy, but I'm wondering if it's time for a switch - and that's mainly down to the lenses.
Thanks, but shooting an image knowing you'll be digitally enhancing it artificially, isn't doing it for me.
I contemplated this one for the eventual trips to Boca Chica for Starship launches, but the infrequency with which that would happen doesn't push me to drop $2,000 on this. I'll stick with a 100-400 and 2x teleconverter on my APS-C. It'll get the job done.
I'm glad you made this video. I am so SICK of camera influencers pimping this lens (without managing expectations), while all having their links to get paid when people buy it. No matter what those people say, Canon fully expected this lens to spend most of its time on a tripod - which is why the foot is non-removable. It is going to be "fun" for a lot of people to experience this kind of reach. But once the novelty wears off, a lot of them will be sad. Because it's still cost them close to $2K that they could have spent on something else.
The full story is that professionals, generally speaking, have better hand-held skills. And for professionals to present the best of their best images to amateurs is just not fair to the amateurs. You talk about the look of the bokeh, and you're right. But there is a much more fundamental problem for most of the amateurs who are going to be buying this lens based on the fact that they can afford it. Muscle fatigue brings small jitters, and the lens is still 2KG. Those folks are going to head out into the field without a tripod, and as the light finally gets good enough, their ability to hold the lens still will already be declining. For a while, they are going to be so impressed with how "close" they can get to animals, and they're going to take a LOT of images. But then they'll begin to look back at them and realize that very, very few of them are really sharp enough to show off to friends, or give as Christmas presents.
It's a tripod lens. For amateurs, in particular, it's a tripod lens. And did I mention that it's a tripod lens?
Thanks for your input, good points!
9:51 that comparison.... the focus is behind the bird, not on the bird ;)
I think I would love this lens for video shooting stuff... i shoot windsurfing, surfing events, and then it's nice that you have a bit of zoomrange, switch from surfers on the water to people on the beach or other stuff nearby.
For the action, bit like you told, I shoot Canon EF 500/L IS II, with a 1.4x convertor, and I barely need 'less mm's' ... only when surfers come back from the water, or sometimes when they do stuff near the shore.
For kiters , a zoom like this would be awesome, since you constantly switch between 'tele' and 'less tele if you want them in the frame when they jump high' . But then again, kiters are difficult to get in focus, and I'm not sure if a lens like 200-800 with such small aperture is that fast and accurate compared to F4.0/F2.8 lenses
But... with these prices, Canon nowadays show, it's not affordable just to have this 'next to it' . I already 'broke the bank' buying the 28-70/F2.0, which is an awesome lens, but pffff that price...
And.... if you once shot with primes like the 500/F4.0 or 600/F4.0 or 400/F2.8.... the sharpness, AF speed.... you barely want something else.
With video that's less an issue in my opinion, at least for the stuff I do.
I use my 150-600 Contemporary 90% of the time when I go out to shoot birds. Granted there are not a lot of interesting birds where I live, some eagles once in a while on a couple lakes locally and I really enjoy shooting them but here It seems after the lakes have frozen over it's a lot easier to get good shots of them and when the lakes start thawing. They tend to hang out far away making the 600mm a tough shot with heat haze off the lakes. I know the RF 100-500 is an amazing lens, but for the price it's tough to justify for a hobbyist. The occasional pulsing of the SIgma can be irritating and seems like you have the same issue with that 500f4. I was on the fence about getting the 800F11 and then this new lens was announced. I have it on pre order and have the sigma and another lens for sale to offset the cost. If they don't sell I probably will wait on the 200-800 and see how other peoples reviews are of it after release. Have got some great shots with the sigma so I am not complaining and have been happy with it. Time will tell what will transpire in the next couple of months.
I think you'll love it. Good choice. The pulsing isn't really a thing with the 500 but on small BIF its not workable really.
BTW. Check out test of 600mm f4 lenses by digital picture. EF II seems to be actually a bit sharper than both EF III and RF
OK, this is interesting. The last thing you'd want after spending that cash is to find out that an older spec is sharper. Good lord!
I watched this video with great interest, but I don't completely agree with the conclusions. I'll start by saying that I'm not a professional photographer but a nature photography enthusiast, so I don't necessarily have to have 97% of the shots in focus or perfect because that's not my job. Also for this reason I didn't want to spend exaggerated amounts to buy the equipment but at the same time I'm not a person who is satisfied because I still want to get the best possible photos. So I made a somewhat atypical choice: I bought a Sony A7RIII which is among the best in terms of photographic noise and at the same time the 42 Mpx sensor allows for a notable crop and as lenses I bought two Russian telephoto lenses, Rubinar, 500 mm F5.6 (525 mm real) and 1000 mm F10 (1070 mm real) both catadioptric. The sharpness is good, they are extremely light and compact (1.3 kg and 1.9 kg), and the brightness in relation to the focal length is good. I spent 200 euros for the first and 300 euros for the second. They are both only manual as for focusing. I'm seeing that in the end I always and only use the 1000 mm. With a good technique I can in fact obtain with the 1000 mm about 15% of perfectly focused photos with birds in flight and about 30% of photos that if, in post production, I zoomed out up to a maximum of 50% (so as if I took them with a 500mm) they come back perfect. I shoot bursts at maximum shutter speed, short ones moving around the focus point, so almost always when I aim and take some good photos it always works. With animals on the tree/ground, using the magnification that mirrorless cameras allow, the percentage of perfect photos is 80-90%. In fact, the point not covered in this video is precisely the following: it is true that with F10 compared to F5.6 I obtain noisier photos (but in any case with the A7RIII the noise is often very acceptable), but it is also true that I can then act in two ways if a photo is not perfectly focused or a little too noisy: in post production zoom it out a little until it becomes perfect again. I often only scale them down by 25%, so as if I were using an 750 mm, if it goes badly, by 50%, but in any case if it goes badly it is as when it goes well if I were using my 500 mm F5.6, in all other cases I get much larger photos with more detail. This is the reason why I practically never use the 500 mm, unless I take photos after sunset or on super cloudy days or if I think I will find animals too close for an 1000 mm. Regarding the bokeh: the 5.6 mm is not always better, often the 1000 mm brings the subject so close to the background that it is much better with the longer focal length. Then clearly the catadioptrics have their own bokeh that is sometimes very artistic and sometimes less so but this is a subjective choice, I normally like it more, but it is precisely a personal taste. Finally: there are programs like DXO that are excellent for noise removal: I always pass my photos first through DXO and then through Raw Therapee to increase their sharpness and the results are really very good, so even the problem of increased noise (but my experience is limited to an A7RIII that starts off with an advantage) is often overcome in this way. Two examples photos with the 1000 mm Rubinar F10: in the evening, very cloudy-black sky, under the trees, distance 40 meters with two Hoopoes fighting quickly, I had to use 1/2000 ISO12800: drive.google.com/file/d/1Wgu1ZIf3kH5AYJjdNT8-kYdVjnQLCGdH/view?usp=sharing or in average sun light but inside the shadow of a tree 1/500 ISO6400, 30 meters: drive.google.com/file/d/1Yb0XrtL7Uy75DCEBJbCoDLIMsx1ljUiq/view?usp=sharing Greetings from Italy to green and beautiful Ireland!
Great video! I feel like every reviewer just minimizes all the negatives and sometimes even spins them as advantages. I'm glad you mentioned nikon because it seems they have the most affordable teles by far.
Yeah, the Nikkor 800 6.3 is a fantastic option. 3x the price but worth it if possible. Nikon is a little behind canon with focus though.
@@HuFilms There's also the 600 6.3. At MSRP 4800 USD, which is kinda in line with the price of your current sigma 500mm lens.
Whoa! Those f4 photos make the point!
A friend pro photographer is using it and he is very happy about this lens. Even if I am not gonna buy it, this is a valid competitor to Nikon’s and Sony telezoom.
I totally agree with photographing rarer species, that's why I photography Canadian Geese, because no one photographs them 🤣🤣🤣👍 That Sigma 500mm F4 is a lens I've had my eye on for awhile, it's not cheap and I just haven't pulled the trigger. Interesting to hear about the focus speed when adapted to the new Canon RF Cameras.👍
I am looking at 500mm f4 ef is version 1. Same money as an Rf 100-500 etc. Apples and pumpkins comparison. You need both.
Really enjoyed your video and review !! but i'm still going to buy the RF 200-800. My work around for lack of light is to shoot on sunny days and in good light - no more dark cloudy days. Cheers - make more videos !!
Thanks, and from the video you will see that I still kinda like the lens and would like to get it. But it’s not enough of an improvement at 800 than my f11 to justify it.
@@HuFilms Thanks for the reply !! I hear ya about lack of improvement from the f11 - but in my case, i hope it's useful and can get at least one decent shot on each outing. I will go this route instead of dropping $13,000.00 US for a 600mm f4 - though I am planning to save for it. I do have the RF 100-500mm, but lacks that 600mm reach, but still a little dark - It's too cloudy where I live
Cheers
Totally agree! 👍🏻
Cheers from Denmark 🇩🇰
I agree f9 is too dark i went another way canon ef 300mm f2.8 with extenders. I also sport 100-500. You have sigma 500f4 its a lens i am interested in if you had a choice between f4 500mm or Canon vs sigma which would it be. I have had the 150-600 sigma lenses but os was very bad they claim 4 stops to me its closer to 2 stops your right the stabilization on canon lenses are so much better.
The Sigma f4 is a lot cheaper and one of the best options for 'pro' results on a budget but it's not as good as Canon for stabilisation, nowhere near. I would pick Canon but right now, I can't afford it. The 150-600s are a bit dated now. Not as sharp as ideal.
I can see why many people use crop sensor bodies even today. When paired with a full frame lens, they can reach farther with the same aperture, with a far cheaper price.
I sold my R5 for a second R7. That was a year ago. Never looked back.
I'm sticking with my EF400mm f5.6 and adding a 1.4 converter if needed. Is isn't needed. I either have a tripod or - more often - need a fast shutter speed to stop motion anyway
I have an r10 and 600 f11. I like the low weight but I wish I could zoom out for bifs so I might sell the 600 and get this lens and just deal with the extra weight lol
Appreciate the video, but not sure I agree. Why are people comparing this new lens to the 600 F4???? It's a completely different market thereby rendering this as a flawed argument. This lens will be a fantastic & affordable option for people who want to shoot wildlife and don't have 20k to spend on a lens. I personally use the 100-500 @ F7.1 all day long with zero issues. Modern day cameras can shoot at such high iso that its rarely a problem. Couple that with some post processing and it becomes a non issue. Not to mention if I add a 1.4 extender i'm basically at 800 at f10, which can still be very usable. So I see a lot of value in the new 200-800 which is f9 @ the long end, and that's without an extender. No brainer to me if the image quality stacks up. just my opinion anyway!
It's called saving up and going pro. Canon has lived by this model and there are people willing to do that even if you won't.
@@omegavladosovich6757 sorry, i don't understand what this has to do with anything is said? All I'm saying is this is not intended to be the best canon offer, but merely an option for people who want to indulge in wildlife for an affordable price.
Watch the video. My main point is that the lens is no better than the 800 F11 at 800 (which is half the price) and most wildlife users will be at the range a lot so you're kinda no better off. I do mention that it's aimed at that user type.
Fully agreed - why I held off on the 100-500 and instead went with a (cheaper) Canon 600mm f/4L non-IS. :) Yes, a newer 600/4 would be nicer still - but the old ones still produce way more pleasant shots than modern, slow zooms.
I agree, once you get used to how the brighter lenses look, it's hard to switch to a limited aperture lens, even if it's better for focus. I just need an F4 zoom in my life, even if i'm not doing pro wildlife.
I have RF 800 f11 and the 200-800 has USM instead of STM and (but i'm not sure) a bigger focus area on the R6. These are 2 valid thing to buy it.
A reviewer who hasn’t actually had the lens in his hands, hmmm ? But I carried on watching and, I have to say, I agree with everything he says and it has changed my mind. I am no longer interested in this lens-thank you-and will carry on with the 100-400EF on an adapter, plus the RF800 and then save, save, save, to chop both in for a f4 RF lens in the future. I’m persuaded, convinced and have subscribed, great post !
Just bought an Olympus 75-300mm f4.8-6.7 for US120 for a G9. Small, light and ‘good enough’ is my winning criteria. So the hot rate will be 40% and the bokeh, what bokeh?
Rf800 f11 for videography of birds with the canon r7...
What are your thoughts?
It's better at video than photos in my opinion as you'll be using slower shutter and even at 60fps you can shoot at ISO 800. Good IS and focus, so yes, it's no-brainer. Very cropped but thats fine with birds usually, unless they're close.
@@HuFilms it's rumoured that next year we will be getting the canon r7 mark ii that would be a great upgrade
And i just hope it has 4k 120fps🤗
I love the Sony 200-600/5.6/6.3...cheers
Well first off, for anyone who has the option to rent it (which is at least everyone in the US,.... not sure where else) I don't see why anyone would pre-order this, or any other expensive camera gear ? Glad to say I'm one of the first on the pre-rental list.
I have absolutely LOVED my 800 F11. ALWAYS use it on a tripod, and slow my shutter speed as much as I need to, to get enough light, EVEN in very low light situations. I'm not really sure how big a deal the "faster" F9 will be, but it couldn't hurt. Also, while I would probably stay pegged at 800mm 95% of the time, it would be nice to be able to back out for the occasional larger, closer creature, or to be able to get a wider environmental shot after I have already gotten plenty shots of the creature "In my face" :)
Long story short, if this lens is even a little bit better for my actual in the field use, I'll order it the same day I return the rental. If not, I'll order another 800 F11, My current one, after 130K shots, and 30K miles of travel, is showing some wear, but will still make a fine back up.
BTW, Hugh, noise ??? How are you processing your images ? As a very first step (after culling) I run my cRaw's through DXO Pure RAW, and that removes 90-100% of the noise, without any sliders or settings needing to be messed with. Once in a while, if I have a shot that is really noisy and still has a hint of noise after DXO, or if my focus was not 100% spot on (which would typically be a personal failure) I'll run it through Topaz, to touch it up. If you look through my gallery and see a shot with ANY noise, please let me know so I can fix that :)
Disclaimer; IF you are the kind of wildlife photographer that does a lot of BIF or fast action stuff, well then, I'm sorry. You will probably have to have a big, heavy, super expensive lens. Luckily for me, I prefer "more beautiful" perched bird shots, than "cooler" BIF shots (yes, I realize their are exceptions for both, but generally speaking) Even so, I think I could have been producing more "cool" BIF shots than I have, with more effort. I just haven't cared enough to put in that effort.
Thank you Chris, for writing these words of widsom :) I adore your images over at Flickr and I'm always amazed what you achieve with the 800 f11. Your images are one of the reasons why I pre-ordered my 200-800, because if someone can create such beautiful bird images at f11, I should absolutely be fine with f9 ;) (but I still lack your skills). And some images Ive seen taken with the 200-800 are just breathtaking (if one knows what he/ she's doing). So asking for a faster (and much more expensive) lens is such a "luxury problem". MOST (not all) of the people who have the big gear are not able to see the wonders of nature, it's all about the gear and money and not even nature. Sorry, but that has to be said, once in a while. Yes, I'm sometimes disappointed with Canons RF line, also, but they somehow did something with their lenses so that we are still able to create amazing images at slower apertures. And I guess, times are really over for the purists who just don't want to use DxO or similar. It's the best you could do with all the images, I find. So, to each their own, but I don't think, ALL photography YTers are just trying to promote. Some are believable and really happy with their 200-800.
Go with the Nikon Z System >> for Wild Life especially The NON extending Cheaper and Brighter Nikon 180-600 VR f5.6 - F6.3 (Brighter than the RF 100-500 f7.1 !!!) Kicks the 200-800 RF out the Park
I canceled mine on Monday. I just can't get behind using ISO 25,600 on the normal. I also hated that it was super slow under the curve. Meaning that at 800, f9 isn't that bad, but "under the curve" like 500mm and lower, it's super slow.
yeah, it's terrible the way the ap gets so small, so quickly! I don't even like shooting at iso 2500 let alone 25,600!! 😂
That f9 killed it for me i went with that new nikon 180-600mm.
Nikon and Sony seem to have more options than Canon with these 'versatile' lenses.
Do you know what is Canon 200-800mm f-stop at 600mm?
I was very disappointment when this lens was announced. It's as if Canon saw the success of the Sony 200-600 and decided to completely ignore it and the reasons it became very popular (Nikon seemed to be paying attention with the 180-600). For many wildlife hobbyist, this is a very important lens category and it seems like Canon missed the mark while also not giving opportunity for third parties to fill this void without the use of adapters. Its a slow and massive lens when extended yet they choose to make the tripod mount non removable for people that may want an arca foot to use with a gimbal or make it more manageable to pack in a bag. For most Canon users, a used 100-500 is fine.
Interesting points and I totally agree. It's left me a bit frustrated too, to be honest.
Nonsense. The Nikon and Sony at 600mm won't give you noticeably better bokeh than this lens at 800mm.
It's almost guaranteed that every happy user of those lenses would be even happier with this, unless Canon's sharpness is lacking above 600mm.
@@masina9447the quality right through from 200 to 800 is fantastic and the bokeh is very nice at f9. People are missing a great lens if they miss out on this lens.
I completely understand the sentiment.
I would avoid this lens specifically because I don’t have unlimited funds - I don’t want to bang out a couple of thousand dollars to be parked at f/9 all day, unable to shoot in the shoulders of the day.
I’m shooting at f/5.6 @ 500mm and already the equipment is struggling just when a lot of wildlife is available and in artful lighting. I recently shot North American otters, Pacific coastal wolves, and beaver in amazing morning and evening light and the camera was really struggling (ISO 6400-7200). I was able to capture the moment through good post-production, but none of these shots would have been possible at f/9.
Yeah, and even f4 can be limiting. When it gets really dark and I want to 'just capture something' I'll actually bang the 70-200 f8 on my camera! F9 is a nightmare in this scenario. My F11 was terrible at dusk and dawn.
I usually shoot at f5.6-f8 with my EF 600mm f4, so I see no problem
I'm a Sony shooter and it appears that the Canon 200-800 is a quite impressive lens that has some advantages over the also impressive RF1O0-500. The key one being at 800 it's better in every respect, except weight. It is brighter. It is sharper. It has better Bokeh. You're also going to have a lot more pixels to work with on your final image. To bring the 500 mm focal length lens up to 800mm would require a 1.6x teleconverter which would make the aperture f11. If you cropped a 500mm image on the R5 to 800 mm, you'd have a 17.5 megapixel image. The 200-800 gives you 45 megapixels at all focal lengths. At 800 the 200-800 would can shoot at f9, which is faster that f11. That means more light, lower ISO, and better bokeh. All in all, this lens is a winner for people who shoot on the long end most of the time. If you're like Hugh and really want a wider aperture lens then this can't acheive that, but what it does it does very well for the price point.
th-cam.com/video/Kh8Rh_dCAIY/w-d-xo.htmlsi=mV2wj2_ebmQIH-47
My thoughts exactly. I REALLY wanted canon to produce something to fill the (very large gap) between the 100-500f7.1 and the rf 600mm f4. I feel the 200-800 is a sideways step rather than a forwards step so I took the money I was going to spend on this (plus a bit) and bought a 2nd hand ef 500mm f4 with an extender. It's big and heavy and awkward but wow the images are great - higher shutter speed, lower ISO and whilst the focus takes a little longer to 'catch' than the rf it tracks better once it's on. I will keep saving for the rf 600 f4 but in the meantime I'm pretty happy with my monster 500mm.
Yes, this is my thoughts exactly. I ultimately want that rf 600 f4 also. Imagine when the new r5 comes out, how good that setup will be?
I’m thinking to get EF 200-400/4 for that reason. At the moment Canon offers crappy lenses for 2-3K price range. All decent ones are over 10K and huge gap between
I have been waiting for the other shoe to drop. So many of these slow telephoto lenses are being released. Sure, they are lighter. Sure, they are cheaper. But things move quickly. It gets dark. The reason people pay a lot for expensive fast lenses, even though they are heavy, is that fast lenses are more capable than slow lenses. There's an expression, "you get what you pay for" and also, "there's no such thing as a free lunch" and those are reminders that a compromise means you are giving something up.
Is it just me or is Canon really missing the mark with RF glass. Nikon seems to have a much better grasp of releasing practical zooms all with outstanding quality and at prices for everybody.
I recently sold my R5C and picked up a XH2S for wildlife and video. I really like Fuji's 200mm f/2 with 1.4x teleconverter. It gives a 420mm f/2.8 with f/4 equiv. DoF. It's just perfect.
Yeah, I agree, they really make us fork out for the good stuff. Honestly, if I wasn't a videographer shooting commercial work and if wildlife was my main interest, I'd probably get the Z9 and 800 6.3. Though, I will say, Canon is on point with their autofocus, particularly for birds.
Hugh ... you are the best.
Thanks!
Canon have left us in an awkward situation for length, though all the things you mention are true the part that l nervous about is image quality past 600mm. I am not paying for a real f4 lens but l am not adapting EF as l find the autofocus on the adapted Tamron and Sigma lenses is so frustrating and slow. It a hard decision as there no other real choices. In regards to price there are some good features such as some weather sealing, ability to change zoom ring tension and USM focus motor these things cost so l think price is fair.
Yes I agree. Whilst this lens is very versatile and affordable somewhat, I really feel that if Canon gave us a brighter prime that's more affordable than the big f4's, it's be incredibly popular. Even a 6.3 at 600 thats sharp.
@@HuFilms I get what Canon are doing with these slow lenses they are taking advantage of the mirror less system and in a lot of ways it works but there are still trade offs that a photographer does not want. If it could have been a 5.6 to 8 aperture with another 3 or 4 hundred grams l think it would have been more well accepted.
I like your ideas on aperture😅. I dont like J eject cannon if gin i70
Other concern is that this lens isn't that great at 800mm f/9 either /referring to The-digital-picture test/, as is visibly worse corrected than f11 in terms of CA, while sharpness is only OK.
You need to consider weight as much as other factors. My wildlife shooting day consists of walking around 8km in hot weather here in Australia. I currently use a 100-500L and I hardly notice the weight. The 200-800 isn't much heavier and should be an easy carry around lens. No way will I be carrying a 600 f4 lens unless I'm sitting around somewhere and have the camera on a tripod. The 200-800 will be a killer I reckon. And we have heaps of light here in Australia 😂 so the slower f stop ain't that bad..
I do agree with you there. But your case is specific and a lot of birders looking to get nice images will need to get in position and wait for the wildlife to show. The 200-800 is definitly a better choice and I would gladly chose it first for that too.
Tend to agree with you about this lens. I'm retired and have friends who own Harley Davidson motorbikes who only take them out on the occasional dry Sunday afternoon. These bikes are worth more than a Canon RF 600mm F4 L IS Lens but this is their choice. So I'm going to use this as a means of justifying (to my wife) as to why I'm going to purchase a Canon RF 600mm F4 L IS Lens and a Canon R5 Mk2 camera body.
Ha ha, you sound like a guy who I could spend hours talking to!
If you live in a more cloudy 😅 part of the world definitely this lens is not for you. But if you live like in a sunny state or Africa or Asia than this lens is suitable. So it is really depends on where you live. I pre ordered this lens even though I live in the Pacific Northwest because it’s my money.
Good point! But remember, some of the best wildlife shots are not when the day is at it's brightest!
Come on over to Nikon :) the water is warm! 180-600, 600 f6.3, 800 f6.3, 400 f4.5, Tamron 150-500. But in all honesty, I would have preferred to go over to Canon for the R5 but I didn't because of the lens options. Canon very clearly is segmenting their lenses into either very cheap, slow lenses or very expensive, fast lenses. I much prefer Nikon's strategy of prosumer lenses as well as pro lenses.
A kind gentlemen in the Facebook R group gave us a link to RAW files taken with this lens, after downloading them and doing my own edit I was shocked how good this lens is, very sharp.
Will it replace my Canon 600mm F4? definitely not, will it replace my RF100-500? don't think so, will it replace my RF800 F11? definitely 🙂
For birding the 200-800 will be perfect when I want more reach and don't want to carry the 600mm prime about.
Good points. Maybe I’ll reignite my order if I see nice samples!
Rumours this week are that Canon are working on RF 400 & 600 DO lenses, that might tickle your fancy as the quality will be outstanding and a bit lighter. Price who knows.
With your cancellation, it shows you know what tools you need. But it all comes down to compromises
Eh..... DO tech is fine (as experienced with my 800 F!!) but I wouldn't buy a lens that I knew would always have to have a TC glued on it. {I had a 150-600 zoom, and it was NEVER long enough} I keep dreaming of a "Glorified" 800 F11 (F8 ?) with a handful of other upgrades too. I think such a lens could be designed which was better for my purposes, than the 200-800 zoom..... But until then...
Totally agree with you, Hugh. I felt the so-called influences made a big deal out of this release. I will always go with Nikon/Sony 180/200-600mm f5.6-6.3, with a high megapixel camera or with a DX camera, if I am so desperate I will use a 1.4x tele (840mm f9) rather than this Canon option.
Thanks a lot. Good choices there!
Cropping 600mm f6.3 is equivalent to 800mm f8.4, and DX is equivalent to 1000mm f10. You're not getting any noticeably better bokeh that way.
It all comes down to sharpness. Will the Canon be sharper at 800mm than a cropped Sony/Nikon? Should be, but maybe not...
@@masina9447 Still the option of 1.4 tele makes more sense than losing light in other focal lengths. It is about using 600-800mm effectively, and the compromises may need to deal with..
You're right about the background blur...that sure limits opportunities.
Definitely!
You can have as much background blur you like in Ps....
In my personal experience, the separation between the subject and the BG, makes a far greater difference with the bokeh, than does the aperture of the lens. Also, I think the whole idea that "every" great bird or wildlife shot needs to have a 100% blurred BG is false. IMPO, a gallery with nothing but these kinds of shots gets boring really quickly. Also, I believe their are other factors that help to make a subject stand out, such as colors, brightness, and contrast of the subject vs. the BG.
@@siljuholtet to some degree. Typically, it would be more likely for me to just blur a branch or something, than the entire BG. But its different for every image.
@@Chris_Wolfgram Distance always is a factor...and it seems that's exactly what you will need with this lens. Which is why I said...less opportunities.
I’m a newbie 6 years of photography don’t know much I always think of upgrading thinking that will fix everything I use an old 7d2 and 100-400mkii for wildlife of course everybody wants reach last year world photography contest the top 10 used cameras at least 10 years old and just so you know I’ve almost been published in Natgeo 14 times it’s a lot more than just your gear and yes I don’t foto bag ❌💀
100 percent agree. This lens is a 2 wd F150 XL without air con or auto trans. Canons 600mm F4 is the 700 hp Raptor R. YET, the F150 Lariat is the best seller...............come on Canon, step up. 360-720 f4.5-5.6 $6,000.00 L series.
I saw Janine's of Pangoline PS video of 200-800 as well, as probably most of us did, and yeah, she and Sabine are wonderful ladies ☺ but it made me lol when she "unintentionally" smuggle the serious downsides of this lens for wildlife shooters, like 25600 iso in sunny day haha 😆It's a pity that Canon didn't do any lens like wonderful 200-600 of Sony and Nikon, closed constructions, relatively fast at 600/6.3. I know exactly why they didnt - because none would buy RF100-500 f7.1 anymore for it's ridiculous price... So, for now, the only alternative in the range of money for Canon users is to have A7III+200-600 - it's almost the same price as RF100-500 itself 🤭OR be patient and wait.. it looks like in February 2024 there will be first Sigma RF lenses announced, I wonder if there will be any lens that would challenge the 100-500 or 200-800.
With great regret I came to a similar conclusion. I was hoping for a lens that matched my 100-500 for f-stops between 200 to 500. It's significantly slower which means more depth of field and higher ISOs even in that range. I shoot a lot of birds near sunrise and in forests. My 100-500 with the 1.4x is very good. Although very inconvenient to change and end up with 420 - 700mm. Not sure how its sharpness compares in the 600 - 700mm range where it is also f/9, but decided it doesn't seem worth the f-stop hit at the wider end.
It was always gonna be darker and not as sharp as the 100-500 as Canon would only be shooting themselves in the foot there. But I'd hoped it'd be a bit better and sharper than the F11 at 800.
I cancel my order, too. There no good pictures in the net taken with that lens.
:D Lost
I get what you mean but i also cant agree with basing decision on other peoples youtube videos because i watched like all of them and 90% of them had no idea how to use a lens that long. a lot of just pointing at something way to far away over water or rocks on a sunny day and heat haze just ruining photos. pangolin wildlife were really only ones that did know what they were doing and even they made some mistakes when comparing the lens to 800 5.6. they talked about how much more background was visible in a bird picture, the first you shared in video, for example but the image with the 800 5.6 was eye level with bird and the 200-800f9 one was clearly more looking down at the bird and just getting more ground in focus.
I went ahead and got a lensrentals reservation to test the lens first but i think its going to be a pretty good lens.
also at 800mm f9 the lens has a shallower dof than a 400 2.8 if you and your buddy are standing beside each other and subject is x feet away. obvious advantage of 400 2.8 being more light and it can have much wider framing at that dof
I agree with what you're saying but you could argue that those are 'real world' tests too. The bottom line for me in not getting it is that it's really no better at 800 than the current F11 which is half that price and I already own one. If I was to get the lens I'd really want it to be optically superior and I feel I'd be underwhelmed a bit.
I have watched countless wildlife photographers who love this lens. Sure it's not a Luxury lens, and Canon has never claimed it was, but most people who can't afford a ten to twenty thousand dollar lens this one may be perfect. The biggest clue about this lens for me is that it is not an "L" lens. What is so hard to understand about that.
I hear what you're saying but please bear in mind my main points in the video. That it's not really sharper at 800 than the f11 and that Canon should give us an 'in-between' lens like Nikon have done. I.E. the 800 6.3.
VERY FAIR POINT! My feelings are exactly the same. This lens is no match for 600mm f4 or even xx-600mm f/x.x-6.3 class lenses. This is a great replacement for both 600mm and 800mm f11 with an option to zoom out to find your subject, better minimum focus distance, a degree of weather protection and that 2/3EV advantage as a bonus. But at such a price (in Poland eqivalent of $2700) to be good alternative it would have to be a lighter than it is now (removable colar would be welcome as now this lens is not hand-holdable for a prolonged periods) and have at least as good IQ at 600-800mm range. And some initial reviews kind of question even that. One of the reviewers mentioned that if best IQ at 800mm is your priority, you will be better served by 800mm f11. I would like to see a head to head comparison.
You've just hit the nail on the head here and pinpointed exactly why I didn't go for it. And that is selling the F11 800, then having to pay another 2000 to get this lens only to realise that it's not as sharp at 800 as the f11. Great point, thanks for sharing!
Just use it up to 600mm like all it competitions then it's same brightness as rest
I've just sold my RF 600 f/11. I hated the limited focus coverage when using it with my R5 and I only got 'ok' results with good light. I also have the RF 100-500 L which is an incredible lens. Id love an RF 400 f/2.8 or the RF 600 f/4 but they are way out of my price range as a hobbyist. I may treat myself and rent one of them... The new RF 200-800 doesn't interest me at all and I agree with your points. I've always been with canon, but must admit I am tempted to sell everything and get the Sony A1 with the G Master 200-600... Just waiting for the R5mkii spec before I make a final decision. Canon needs to close the gap with their lenses for sure. Great video!
Thanks a lot, I'm the exact same as you. If I didn't do video as my main work and if wildlife was a bigger thing for me, I think I'd jump ship too. The Nikkor 800 6.3 seems to be reasonable in what it offers for the money.
You're talking about difficult to find Birds .
Could you just Imagine trying to get a photo of a belted kingfisher with this 200 - 800 lens ?? sorry it isn't going to happen with this lens .
Hugh I totally agree with you you've got it right here , Canon is just not getting it they are making lenses to cheap and then the other lenses are WAY too expensive of lenses and not doing what Nikon is doing to make things sensible and affordable .
I'll stick with my Canon RF 800 f 11.
And buy the Sigma 150-600 f5 -6.3 DG DN Sports for my L Mount camera.
I am using EF 100-400 L IS USM ii with 2xTC iii on R6 and it's absolutely fine for someone who doesn't want to spend thousands more on fixed aperture lens. 100-500 is f/7.1 and it was hard to get for some time as so many people wanted the lens.... You made someone happy with the cancellation 😉
I'd love the 100-500 and I would probably use that lens a lot but it's just not bright enough for that money. Once you get used to having an F4, regardless of how heavy it is or how it focuses, it's hard to go back to the restriction of a small aperture.
@@HuFilms but just as you saying in the video.. I will probably go canon EF 500/4 L IS USM. The focusing is lot better and the price will be close to Sigma if you went 3500... Put a TC 1.4 iii on it and you at 700/5.6 or 1000/8.0 🤣🤣🤣
I don't waste my money or time with F9 glass. I have been shooting with the fantastic "no fucus issues, shooting small birds or big birds" Sigma 500mm f4 sports for four years "bought it new", pretty much never leaves my camera, from the D850 to the Z9. I also use the Nikon 200-500mm f5.6, which is not as sharp but a bit more versatile and lighter.
Its a great lens alright. One of the best for the money. But small fast birds in flight like swallows and swifts are difficult - for me!
@@HuFilms
Practice, and more practice. Small birds are difficult with any lens.
Pangolin Photo Tours is based in Botswana, not South Africa. :)
My Sony 200-600mm with a 1.4x is 840mm F9 so very similar to this new Canon lens. The problem I see is the teleconverter is only worth using in good sunlight, it just doesn't let in enough light for majority of situations.
My backgrounds at 840mm F9 or even F11 look fine, so technically the new Canon lens should look similar, but from the test shots I have seen the backgrounds look a little messy for some reason
So the Nikon z 180-600mm(f5.6-6.3) is still a better option than this one.
Nikon is definitely better in the lens dept for affordability pro leness at 800mm
A nice practical view of this new lens. I watched the 2 videos you referenced and having never seen their channels before, I felt I was watching 2 Canon Ambassadors making excuses to justify the shortcomings of the lens (even on a first review). The lady mentioned other factors such as heat haze. That might be Africa, but doesn't apply to other parts of the world, especially outside of the summer months. Heat Haze, or not, it should just be a side by side comparison. Any experience photographer will tell you that light is paramount for consistent quality and flexibility. I think the lens will be good for someone wanting to carry less gear, with more zoom options, at a more affordable price than the pro series lenses, rather than a professional photographer with specific needs.
Good Morning :
entertaining video..
I own the RF 600 mm f11.. I use it on the R8..
The majority of pictures are of small birds from 20ft to 100ft away.
At 20ft the Depth of field is about 4 inches.. Perfect for small birds and mammals.
I use FV mode shutter speed 1/8000, F11, ISO auto from100 to 102,400
I use the R8+600f11 all day from Dawn to Dusk in bright light an heavy shade.
Two days ago, a heavily overcast day , thick with humidity.. I was after a flycatcher..
I got a excellent photo of two sheep and a donkey snug in the doorway of a small barn. .. At ISO 102,400
Yesterday , heavily overcast again but not as muggy,
I got an excellent photo of the flycatcher using Pre-burst at 30fps.
Shot through the lower branches and green leaves of an orange tree with low hanging fruit.
the flycatcher has wings fully outstretched head turned looking at the camera. The eye is tack sharp.
Shot at ISO 64,000, f11, 1/8000, +1.0 EV
Processed in DXO PhotoLab6...Shot using Canon R8
Pre-Burst is more fun than a Barrel of Monkeys...
I bought the R8 in April..I E-mail picks to friends and Family .
The reviews have been stunning, staggering, marvelous and magnificent..
Best Quote: You could sell that!
What camera are you using?
Thanks, have you these in a gallery online? I’d like to see them. I use the R5 and R5C.
@@HuFilms No I do not..I an too casual for that..email?
@@HuFilms A better solution.... try if for yourself..
Set the camera with 800mm fII attached.. to FV mode ..
using the viewfinder first set the shutter speed
Mr Jan Wegener recommends a shutter speed 4,000 or 6,400
Mr Isaac Grant recommends, for maximum sharpness,
setting the shutter speed to the highest number available.
Set the Iso to auto ( on the R8 it is 100 to 102,400) using the viewfinder,
You may have to go to another menu to set the range.
Keep an eye on the settings ..
If you are in shade with high Iso showing in the viewfinder...
Mr. Jan Wegener recommends, in a TH-cam video, framing your subject with a light background.. To melt away the noise..
I process images in DXO Photolab6 with astonishing results..
DXO Pure Raw + photoshop will work..
Photoshop by itself may work..
The R5 does not have Pre-Burst which is the secret weapon
for Birds at takeoff, Landing, and general bad behavior ..
The key is high shutter speed and high ISO..plus Pre burst..
Hope it works for you...