Canon RF 200-800mm REVIEW - Too slow or the perfect telephoto lens for bird photographers? 

You mean, you can ORDER one. Good luck on when you actually GET it!

Thanks!

Thanks

Thanks! Hope you will get it soon

Cool, have fun

Thanks for your kind words 😊

You‘re welcome 🤗

Thanks

Thanks

Thanks!

I don't see the point in comparing with an L series lens as it will lose in every aspect but is a great lens and l do love using it.

You‘re welcome

Thanks 😊

You‘re welcome

Thanks! Yes, I also assume it will sell very well

Thanks

Thanks! You mean the video of the squirrel? I think it was focussing on some snow that the squirrel threw in the air. I would not really consider this as focus hunting

Thanks! Yes, I do have a video. Please check my channel

Thanks 😊

Hope you will get it soon 😊

Unfortunately I don’t own the Z180-600 and have none around at the moment

Thanks for your words and sharing your experiences

I would appreciate your help if you can. I want to buy this lens and I am debating between r7 and r5. The question is whether the r7 iso will be enough for me or do I have to buy the r5. Of course before noise cleaning

@@user-lz8dd7rc3i If you can afford it the R5 is a better camera that handles low light better. That said, I get very good results from both. I use Topaz AI on images with higher ISO from the R7 to clear them up. My threshold is lower when I use the R7. Anything over ISO 1600 I am likely to use Topaz AI. I don’t have to do that with the R5 unless the ISO is very high. If you can afford the R5 that is what I would recommend. Otherwise the R7 will give you very good results as well. The R5 focuses better, the shutter is quieter, and it preforms in low light better.

I’m in the same location as you. I’m looking to upgrade to a mirrorless camera. Does the r7 work well enough in low light for you?

Mostly. I do run a lot of the pictures I take using the R7 through Topaz AI to clean up the noise. The R5 does not have this issue. I have also found that with the R7 I can lower the shutter speed to keep the ISO down. As long as the subject isn't moving much it works. I love the detail the 32.5MP sensor can give.@@jgreysquirrel

Thanks for sharing your thoughts! It will definitely not replace my 600/4, but I guess this was clear from the beginning

@@FabianFoppNaturephotography yes, we all want a unicorn lens. That’s for sure. Did you move up to the RF 600mm f4 or are you still using the 600mm II. I’ve been debating it but hadn’t taken the plunge yet.

I bought the RF600 😊

@@gary_michael_flanagan_wildlife Like you I wondered if I should sell the 600 F4 MKII and get the RF version, the RF version Canon stated is just the EF MKIII with and RF connection, many reviews still say the MKII although only slightly is the sharpest of the 3 600mm F4's I would love to have all RF glass but in the UK if I sell my MKII I would need to put £8000 on top to get the RF version, I ask myself will I see £8000 upgrade in my photos? I very much doubt it.

@@tonyesposito9602 yeah true!! Maybe you can argue with the extenders the RF is better autofocus. Which is the part that is lacking with my 600 II and the 1.4 and 2x in some circumstances. It still hunts a bit. But it does depend on the situation. But for songbirds there will be less image quality (very slightly) and I don’t think it’s worth it either. If you are wanting to handhold the new 600 without extenders for flight shots, that’s where the upgrade seems worth it. At least for me. Like if I’m at the beach it would be nice. I can still handhold my 600 II for short periods though. I have a gimbal but I don’t like it much for flight birds.

I‘m working on it 😊

Thanks and have fun!

Unfortunately I don’t own an R7 so I could only test it with the R10

@@FabianFoppNaturephotography ok.

Excellent question. For birding, I love my R7 with the RF 100-500, adding the 1.4x TC if I really need more reach. Not sure I can justify adding the RF 200-800 due to the overlap, but I might consider replacement depending on how the image quality compares.

I've just bought an R7 along with the 100-400 and the 1.4x TX which I'll use until I make a decision on whether to buy the 200-800 or the 100-500. Much as I'd love the reach the size and weight of the 200-800 is offputting, I'm getting the impression there won't be much in it as regards quality and currently I can buy a 100-500 from Canon retailer for less than the 200-800, I half wonder if that situation will stay considering the demand for the longer lens might mean they don't get to sell quite so many of the shorter. @@wellingtoncrescent2480

I am working on a RF100-500 vs RF200-800 comparison

@@FabianFoppNaturephotography Thanks, Fabian. We enjoy your photographs and trust your judgement. Thanks for sharing both.

Go to: The Digital Picture Lens Comparison tool. The RF 100-500 is a fair bit sharper than the RF 200-800 and is much much sharper than the RF 800 f11 You should already suspect this from the relative sticker prices. The real question is, does the 200-800 focus as well as the 100-500. Is the eye tracking as fast to lock on, is it as sticky ?

Thanks a lot! I hope it arrives soon

How is not a problem f9 ? Ahh, canon users will buy everything.

@@planetfun85 You can buy the 800 mm f5.6 for just $17,000 USD. No more F9.

@@kennethlui2268 ,since when the 800mm is the standard ?

@@planetfun85 you don’t like the lens. Don’t buy. Period.

I could not test it with the R7. But with the R5, yes, it was dramatically better than the Sigma 150-600 Contemporary

I‘m working on the video 😊

Thanks! I could not do a side by side comparison. But I tested the RF800/11 a while ago and the RF200-800 seems noticeably sharper

The RF200-800 is definitely a very good choice for the relatively low price. If you don’t need so much focal length, I would also have a look at the RF100-500

Is the 200-800 mm lens okay with my r 10 ? Or should I upgrade the camera body?

Danke!

It will not work on DSLRs

Thanks! They are quite different. The EF600/4 clearly wins in terms of background blur and light availability, but IS, AF, flexibility and weight are much better on the RF200-800

I‘m working on a comparison video 😊

I’m also thinking about switching to Nikon. Their telephoto primes are more “affordable “ compared to canon. I just need a z6iii with better tracking. With this lens I, not concerned with the f stop considering it’s better than the 100-500 with 1.4. I’m sure image quality is just fine and doubt one would see a huge difference from the 100-500. I wasn’t really into wildlife/bird photography when I chose canon and between Sony,canon, and Nikon all their best lenses are similarly priced. Now I see canon is either budget lens or rich people pro lens. Too bad I don’t have all the money in the world to play with all brands

If you consider the Z100-400, why not buy the RF100-500?

​@@FabianFoppNaturephotography Hi Fabian, I love my 100-500 but I often need more reach and even with the inconvenient 1.4x it is often not enough and Canon has not affordable long primes.I would consider the Z100-400 along with the 600 mm. The Z100-400 takes a 1.4x with full range. Or I would go with the 180 - 600 mm which is slightly faster over most of its range than the RF 100-500mm (while being much heavier) goes to 600 mm and works with the 1.4x. I'm not young and while I'd love to have something like a 600 f/4 carrying it around all day is not possible. Thanks again for your excellent and balanced reviews!

I included some comparison pictures in the video. But unfortunately I don’t have a good way round share these quite big files

Yes!

Hope you habe fun! Yes, if you use mostly 500-800mm, the RF200-800 will be the better choice in most situations

My RF600/4 would probably be sharper and I totally love to use that lens! But it also costs 5x as much.

@@FabianFoppNaturephotography Fabian for a future episode why don't you test the 600 F4.0 against this 200 to 800 when you put the 1.4 on the 600 F4.0 I'm curious to see how sharp it is I don't own the 600 F4.0 like you have .

I already returned the lens. I did a few panning shots, but not so many to draw a conclusion

Sure, that’s definitely cheaper. Habe fun

I totally forgot! Thanks for pointing it out. I added it now: naturfotografie-fopp.ch/wp/e-book-bird-photography/

Yes, a dedicated MF ring would have been highly welcome

Hope it will not take too long!

@FabianFoppNaturephotography fingers crossed I'll be able to get one while winter is around, as I'd love to get some shots of birds in the snow 👍

The exif is below the photos. So mostly R5, some with the R10

Of course, it can’t replace a 600/4 prime lens. For me it’s more the background blur than the amount of light

@@FabianFoppNaturephotography I find that the separation between my subject, and the BG, makes a far bigger difference in a nice, soft bokeh, than does the wider aperture. Another thing to consider, when shooting small creatures, from relatively close, having a very wide aperture, like F4, can produce such a ridiculously shallow DOF, that you end up with a with bird, in which the only part of the shot that is sharp, is the eye ! Now, I'm not suggesting that the entire bird, right to the tip of its tail needs to be tack sharp, but I prefer at least from the tip of its beak, to the start of its tail to be sharp. I'm going to be thinking a lot about this ^ too, when I'm testing the 200-800. Especially since now, with a much shorter MFD, I might be shooting my birds even closer, I'm thinking that instead of shooting at the "faster" F9 aperture, I might be stopping it down to F13, or F14. Need to watch for diffraction then of course.

Yeah, most people aren't going to lug a 600 f4 up the side of a mountain, but I could see carrying this. That's what I'm considering it for, not to replace my heavy fast glass, but to supplement it. This lens would also be great on the seat next to you while driving around. I've tried having my 600 f4 on the seat. It's nearly impossible to react quickly without banging it on the roof, the steering wheel and the window trying to get it in position!

Gotta love it when ppl who can afford 500 f4 and it's long enough for them go ahead and compare it to basically 800 f9. If this comparison wasn't absolutely demented to start with, then cropping the 500 to match 800 fov would give you so much noise magnification, that the f9 suddenly doesn't look so bad. 85mm 1.2 makes Ur 500 f4 also look like a noisy shit.

The last airshow I attended, we had box seats right next to the runway. My 100-500 was perfect, 100mm on my ff R5 was necessary when the stunt planes knife edged past us just above the runway. We needed to be able to back of to 100mm in an instant. 200mm would not work Rally cars are the same, I found that mid corner, 100mm was barely wide enough, but still needed 500mm for the approach and depart. 200mm would be way too tight

To be fair, that’s the case for every Canon/Sony/Nikon telephoto lens. I didn’t try shooting any astro with it

Most lenses are softer at the edge of the frame. However, sometimes I want to position my subject not in the center of the image. That’s why it’s important to know about the sharpness at the edge as well

It may be 2.5x the cost, but also extremely more versatile, wider aperture at 800mm, weather-sealed, and so far I believe the IQ is superior. Ultimately, it's up to the photographer to put each and every aspect on the table (price and budget, usual environment in which the shootings take place, which subjects, etc.) and make up their mind accordingly. Personally, I would pick this lens 10 times before the RF 800mm f/11.

@@helios6379 I just want to know the opinion of the people who have both lenses. It's been a while and I haven't seen of a decent comparison video.

I couldn’t do a direct comparison. But the RF200-800 lets in more light, is more versatile, much better autofocus and I also felt that the image quality was better

while I do not have the 200-800, I do have the 800 f11 and the 100 to 500. I have done testing with a stationary object and compared the 800f11 to the 100-500 with 1.4x converter. When pixel peeped at the same size they were darn near indistinguishable. Of course that was in mid day lighting. I do have the 200-800 on preorder because while it may also give comparable images the range is better than being stuck with only 800mm and the 100-500+1.4x is heavy and expensive which i may not be comfortable taking out in certain locations. my tests were performed with a r7. i have a r6mk2 but dont use it often for my birding. not enough resolution to satisfy me.

I own the RF800 f11, and it is not nearly as sharp as my RF100-500 Go to: The Digital Picture Lens Comparison tool. The RF 100-500 is a fair bit sharper than the RF 200-800 and is much much sharper than the RF 800 f11 You should already suspect this from the relative sticker prices.

Yes, I totally agree

Haha too funny

Also true 😅

Have you actually used it? Or are you just trolling/joking? Genuine question.

This lens or the 100-500? Which is better for all around professional wildlife work? ​@@FabianFoppNaturephotography

@@Living_Matrix1 It's a joke!! read what I said how can you use the other 2 lenses on a Canon camera 🤣🤣

There is also a 800mm f/5.6 😊 But then you pay and carry way more

I hope I never need to use a push-pull anymore

It is lighter than the Nikon 180-600 (by a bit less than 100g)

⁠@@FabianFoppNaturephotographypeople get confused because a lot of other RU-vidrs and Nikon state the weight without the lens collar which does make 180-600 about 100g lighter.

I actually prefer the R5 + TC over the R7, mainly because of the better AF but also body, buffer, less rolling shutter, etc

@@FabianFoppNaturephotography definitely pros and cons to each. I think a lot of it has to do with ones specific uses. Like I say, I owned the R5 for a year, and it was a fine camera. Oh, and I have the RF 1.4 TC too. But I rented the R7 and it just worked better for me > in spite of its weaknesses, and their are definitely a few ! I’d love to see an R7 Mk II 👍

Thanks! Have fun 😊 I could imagine that the R6 II performs much better

Was it though? the sony and nikon 100-400s that compete against the 100-500 are same price or like $200 less. Yeah its expensive but its not overpriced

@@TheMrNeffels what made you think those 100 400 were not overpriced?🤣🤣🤣 understand it should be a little bit higher than the old DSLR lens but not $500 US dollar more. I am a little bit surprised that 100 500 is even cheaper than 200 800 in your country, but generally it is still too expensive in USA and most other regions.

@@thor9722 they aren't $500 more. The DSLR lenses of the same level cost basically the same when released. Like I said they're expensive but they aren't overpriced. Especially the 100-500 because you don't have to buy a 1.4tc like you do with Nikon and Sony to get to 500+mm

@@TheMrNeffels EF100 400mm II was $2399 when it was released, and RF100 500 was $2699 when it was released, and half year later CANON officially raise the price up to $2899 in USA(that is $500 difference). Verse to 100 400, RF 100 500 has smaller apture at long side and you can't even use the full zoom range if you have 1.4tc. Verse to 200 600, RF 100 500 is slower and shorter at the long zoom range. Of course most people can blame the inflation, but from market perpective 100 500 was overpriced if you consider it is the replacement of EF100 400mm II. Even the price of 100 500 dropped to $2399 during the Thankgiven this year for the first time of its lowest price, it is kindly normal in this Zoom range. RF 100 500 is a slightly sharper and lighter lens, it is good for current the price but as I said it was overpriced at the begining.

I don’t think the RF100-500 is overpriced. At least where I live, the Nikon Z100-400 is more expensive

Yes, I can see that some people would have preferred a removable tripod collar

I was upset about that too, but then I realized that I almost never take the foot off of my EF 100-400 4.5-5.6 ii. If it's not on a tripod or monopod the foot is attached to my Rapid Strap! You would never attach a strap directly to the body when you had a 4.5 lb.. lens attached, you could damage the lens mount! I hardly ever just carry a camera around in my hand except maybe with a wide angle lens. If I am carrying a longer telephoto in my hand it's nearly always by the foot.

What do you recommend ?

He didn’t explicitly mention the R7 but yes he did suggest APSC/cropped bodies. I suspect it will be better on the R7. This lens is interesting for sure

@@mvp_kryptonite He shows shots with the R10 which is also cropped, so that gives an idea.

I didn’t say this! I just noticed that with my R10 I had less keepers than with my R5

There are definitely cheaper cameras and lenses nowadays, even with excellent sharpness

Unfortunately I don’t have control over the stock of lenses 😉

I only found the theoretical video. Or do you also have one with AF and image quality comparisons from some tests?

@@FabianFoppNaturephotography my video is compassion drawn from a youtube reviewer. If you click on popular videos it should come up check with discretion box for a written review.

@@FabianFoppNaturephotography ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-u82beGWxvb4.htmlsi=7XSJ8m_eURckMsM5

For me it worked quite well in forests - as long as I‘m not trying flight shots

@@FabianFoppNaturephotography For sure.. I'm huge into bird photography so being fast is crucial. :) I plan to use my 500 f/4 v2 for many years to come! I love how well it pairs with the r5. Anyway, this is a cool piece of glass to be sure!

The feathers look sharp to me. Are you watching in 4k? Or where does it look blurry?

Here you can have it delivered by the next day. Several of my workshop clients were already using it.

@@FabianFoppNaturephotography Super, thanks! Even mighty B&H could not deliver.

Different countries. In Switzerland several dealers have them in stock

I would not call them embarrassing, I guess the lens will sell very well. I expect to see more RF200-800 lenses in the next years than Z180-600. but maybe it‘s not the right lens for you

I think that’s a very personal and not very objective statement 😉