The Canon RF200-800mm f/6.3-f/9 - Who Is This Lens For?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 8 พ.ย. 2023
- The gear i currently use:
DJI Mini 3 Pro - www.amazon.com/DJI-Mini-Pro-L...
DJI Osmo Hero - www.amazon.com/DJI-Super-Wide...
Insta360 One RS - www.amazon.com/insta360-ONE-1...
Canon R5 - www.amazon.com/Canon-Full-Fra...
Canon R6 - www.amazon.com/Canon-Full-Fra...
Canon RF15-35 f2.8 - www.amazon.com/Canon-RF-15-35...
Canon RF28-70 f2 - www.amazon.com/Canon-RF-28-70...
Canon RF70-200 f2.8 - www.amazon.com/Canon-RF-70-20...
Canon RF100-500 f4.5-7.1 - www.amazon.com/Canon-100-500m...
Canon RF400 f2.8 - www.amazon.com/s?k=RF400mm&am... - ภาพยนตร์และแอนิเมชัน
![[4K] TREASURE(트레저) “KING KONG” Band LIVE Concert 킹콩은 라이브를 찢어🦍 [it’s KPOP LIVE 잇츠라이브]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/p8bLLOxPDD8/mqdefault.jpg)
Love having the graphs as visuals, thank you for the great video comparison
I would like to see the aperture comparison of the EF 100-400L II + 1.4x II vs. the RF 200-800.
I don’t get why there’s so much discussion around teleconverters with this lens. TCs are bad enough on a sharp bright prime but using them on an already mediocre image us just nuts.
I would go with Nikon/sony way with f6.3 till 600mm and 1.4x tele works great with those..
I will need to test the R7 and the 200-800 combo to see how sharp it is and the AF performance. If the combo works great, that is a killer combo.
Why are you stealing my friend's shot for your review without even mentionning him ?
Proof?
@@DaMeng3000 some of the shots (including those around 0:23, and the nature ones) are from a video review for Miss Numerique that my friend did shoot. The video from Miss Numerique came out 9 days ago. Also the nature images are from the guy that is interviewed in the miss numerique's video, and were exclusives
@@charlyandco.4488they're probably from the press release.. I've seen them on multiple places.
Was there a limitation to the aperture drop off being like that? It's better than the dropoff of the competition with a 1.4x teleconveter though
Incredible break down. Very well done. New sub for sure. Using an R7 with an extender would the aperture be even smaller at high focal ranges? Meaning with the 1.4 at 1000mm plus, would the F stop be slower than compared to full frame? Thanks!
With a crop camera alone the aperture will not change. It will with teleconverters. 1,4 gives one stop, 2x gives two stops.
With crop the aperture will not technically change (aperture = focal length/ diameter of entrance pupil), BUT it will be equivalent to an aperture change in all the ways that matter: light gathering and bokeh
So an APSC r7 800mm f9 will be EQUIVALENT to a full frame 1280mm f14.4 on full frame. There’s no free lunch in photography, only compromises
Think about it, if you’re cropping, you’re only using a portion of the full sensor (from FF to APSC), if the technical aperature remains the same, there’s literally less light hitting the sensor since the sensor has a smaller surface area; hence less light gathering by the square of the crop factor (r7 1.6 crop means 2.56x less light than the r5 at the same technical aperture)
When it comes to bokeh, the math is the same.
You are wrong. There will be no light reduktion and no change in bokeh. You can think of it as if you are taking an A4 photo and rip it into two A5. That is the same you do when you crop.
@@jeffbronson3696
@@jeffbronson3696that's not quite accurate. On a crop sensor, the apparent depth of field and bokeh is like using a smaller f/stop on a full frame. But the light gathering remains equivalent. The lens still gathers the same amount of light. The sensor is just recording a portion on the image circle. It's exactly the same as if you record the image on a full frame sonsor and then crop the file. Now on most crop sensors, the actual pixel size is smaller, so that requires the gain for the sensor to be higher. The exposure remains the same but the S/N ratio creates more noise in the image. So the effect is from a smaller pixel size not the overall sensor size.
@@markfarrer1162 well, that's what I meant though. Since it's a smaller sensor (or if you cropped in post), are aren't taking full advantage of all the light gathered by the lens.
On the note on noise, I find this a bit interesting because there is evidence that while the S/N ratio worsens with smaller pixels, you also get smaller and less obtrusive noise artifacts (since the pixel density is higher) which can actually outweigh the disadvantage of worse S/N. From my understanding, the benefit of better S/N ratio (hence larger pixels) is more apparent for video than it is for photography.
100-400 Sony and Nikon are used by professional photographers, 100-500 is even better than those ones, and also used by professional photographers. 200-800 is totally a different lens, more for amateurs. I do agree, no tc with zoom lens, especially x2.
Here we are 3 months later.... and for a lens that "a lot of people might consider to be ridiculous" it sure has been such a smash hit, that they might not catch up on the back orders for MANY months ! I rented it for a week, and I loved it. But decided to cancel my order for now.... mostly because I'm poor, and $2K is a lot of money for me. But also because it is a lot of overlap with my RF 100-400 + TC (which had done remarkably well for me) + my favorite lens of all time, the 800 F11. I did order a second one of those though :) HAVE to have a backup on multi week, multi thousand mile birding trips :) Really the only thing the 200-800 can do that my two lenses can't > is all the same stuff "in one lens", which admittedly, is pretty big. But at a cost of $2K, and about 2 additional lbs. I'll probably get it eventually, as a refurb.... in stock, for $500 off :)
Thanks for the comment. You made some good points and always best to rent a lens before deciding to buy it.
I feel Canon painted it white so people won’t mistake it for a Tamron 150-600g2 which design wise looks similar. Especially when zooming out.
It's white because of physics. Warming of the metal causes expansion of the metal/plastic which can seriously impair image quality as the lenses inside are no longer where they have been optimized for
What Benni said.
I've had the rf 100-400 and sold it because I was not quite satisfied with image quality and reach shooting large birds.
I'm currently considering a used 100-500 for 1.9k usd OR wait for the 200-800.
On the one hand I like the smaller package of the 1-5 but the 2-8 seems more practical with linger reach.
I'm not a pro, I don't do this for money, I mostly would use it on the weekend when we go for walks in park (I live in south east Asia and there is tons of wildlife in parks here).
I am torn and cannot decide
L series
@@mikeyseifert80 you think I should take the 1-5? I'm shooting on FF (r8).
What's your rationale?
@@mikeyseifert80 the other "grudge" I have against the 1-5 was that I have a 70-200, and didn't like the idea of overlap. It Canon had pulled a 200-600 I would have jumped in an instant for example.
@@jcloiseau For me I would prefer L series glass for better overall performance, and build quality. It's just going to be a better overall experience and you will go out and shoot more. I guess in your case it comes down to quality vs a little more reach. I have the 100-500 on my R5 and it's a pleasure to use every single day. Unless you can afford an F4 600mm than this is the canon RF wildlife lens, or at least for me.
@@jcloiseau if it's the F4 maybe sell that? But the 2.8 with the 100-500 is still a really great combination. I love that 2.8 version and have to stop myself daily from picking one up as I'm saving for the F4 600.
I have a Canon EF 500 / 4.0L and it with a teleconverter of 2x gives me an aperture of 8. And compare this with aperture 9, This is stellar lens thas have weight of half current setup. For me its a no brainer. And it is probably faster in the autofocus compared to my older combination with teleconverter
This lens should run circles around my adapted EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 w/ 2x extender (f/11 at 800mm, extender degradation, and 20 year old tech).
I would think the lack of weather sealing kills it. It will only get worse the longer you use it. That's not an option for bird and wildlife photographery
Lens has weathersealin g. This is an example of how rumors won't die. Before it was announced the rumor sites said that it lacked weathersealing, yet when it was released (and subsequently on camera store websites) it was listed by Canon as "weather resistant", and before you freak out, that's exactly how the L Series Canon lenses, such as the 600 f4, are listed. No lens is 100% waterproof and all manufacturers recommend using covers in inclement weather.
Great review!! Extremely helpful
All that is going to matter to me, is the image quality, comparing it to all the fantastic shots I've taken with my "slow" 800 F11. I know it is long enough (on my crop sensor R7) and the zoom will be nice once in a while. Can't wait to get the rental, for some hard core testing. I'm not so concerned with the specs on paper, as I am real world results.
Look at all the bashing the 800 F11 took when it was announced, and it has become the best value in camera gear I've ever owned, in 25 yrs of digital photography.
Btw, I believe the RF 100-400 is a great value too, sharp, light, cheap... Just not generally long enough, except maybe for blind shooting.
I know the RF 100-500 is sharp, but IMPO way overpriced for its short reach, and not being any faster than it is.
Again, if this lens is "as sharp" as my 800 F11, and produces as well in the field, as my 800 F11, I'll buy it 👍
Your welcome to go look at my work with the 800 F11....
The 200-800 is 7.1 at 455mm. That's only 45mm less than 7.1 @500mm on the 100-500 4.5-7.1. Fairly insignificant. I can make that up by taking two steps forward. Obviously Canon could not allow it to hold 7.1 to 500 and sell it for $1,000.00 less. Everything above that is gravy. So it all comes down to sharpness.
Thanks for making some good points. It's all a compromise really.
ME for a start.
Thanks for the comment
Funny, it's meant for the amateurs, but what amateurs will handle a 4.5lbs lens? Lol. Under 2%
Well it's certainly not for me.
I think it was a mistake to go 200-800. Pretty useless. They should have made an internal zoom 200-600 like Nikon with the top end being f6.3. If you need more than that grab a tele converter. It really is overkill imo.
I would probably agree.
Canon doesn't play follow the leader. They never have. Meanwhile, this lens is breaking sales records according to a friend who works for a major on line camera store.
Nah you're right they don't really play follow the leader when it comes to lenses. Everybody has their niche.@@alansach8437
You may be spot on with the 200-800 but you are way off in your 100-500 point of view. Show me a pro who doesn't have one?
Lol . Show me a pro that's using mirrorless!!! Lol
Are you really that out of touch? R5 is the most used camera out there. LOL@@AlKnightbird432
Show me a professional ( or any) that dont want the superior autofokus the mirrorless cameras give.@@AlKnightbird432
Agree with you 100%, this video seems to give a bunch of BS when it comes to being knowledgeable.
@@AlKnightbird432You're kidding, right? It's obviously expensive to make a switch and (to protect profits) pros won't just switch to switch, but you better believe the conversion is well underway as older gear is replaced.
Sony 200-600 6.3 better than all these 4 lenses for wildlife. + 1.4 is actually reaching 840/9 so its basically the same except you can remove the teleconverter. 200-600 6.3 actually is brighter since the canon lens is 1/3 of a stop darker in mid range and 1/2 stops till 600mm. Very bad options from Canon. Nikon have much more interesting lenses. Sony actually have one but very good.
Thanks you make some good points about other camera and lens options.
This is a bird/wildlife watchers lens. It is absolutely not a "pro consumer" lens. This lens is for when you are ok with just getting any old image for your bird club portfolio. Which is fine; I am not judging the hobby. However, there are other options (RF 800 f11, Sigma 150-600 with its 1.4x TC, etc.) that can get you the same IQ and performance for a fraction of the price. So, the only limit or boundary Canon is pushing here is how much they can charge for what are strictly amateur quality lenses. The Sony E 200-600 and Nikon Z 180-600 both available at around the same or less price as the RF 200-800 and are each a far better option. Better IQ and all around performance, a full stop faster at the long end, and internal zoom. With their respective 1.4x TC's, they would be at 840mm f9 and highly likely outperform the RF 200-800 at 800mm f9 in every measurable way. Of course, none of these lenses stand even a remote chance against the likes of the Z 800 PF. That lens is very quickly achieving legendary status in the "pro consumer" space.
It all depends on the sharpness. If it is as good as the 100-500 it will be a bestseller. I have the 500 f4 II and the 100-500 is just as sharp. The 100-500 has been a favorite since i got it.
really you sound so knowledgeable 🤔.
🤡🤡🤡
Yea, I'm sure 600mm lens with a teleconverter will outperform a 800mm lens without one...riiiiight...now I've heard it all, lol
Spot on