Видео

Thank you very much.

Beautiful place! Thanks for sharing.

"I get it, sometimes things just don’t click. Thanks for giving it a try, and I’ll keep working on making content that’s better for everyone!"

@@MisplacedMotoVlogger thank you very much.

@@ericviera5120 that’s awesome. I’m going back at the end of this month. Thanks for sharing.

😘😘😘

Thanks brother!

Thanks

Thanks 😘

You have a really good point, Wouldn't have cost them anything to make it white. I 100% agree. Thanks for sharing!

Thanks for the info.

I still have all my EF lenses and use the mount and works perfect. thanks for sharing.

@@GRaf05 70-200mm in general no matter the version is an awesome piece of glass. Thanks for the comment, very well explained.

@@mr.mephistopheles2497 That’s awesome. You won’t regret it.

@@Alexander_Kushnarev-117 Image quality it’s definitely great on the 200-800. Thanks for sharing.

@MannyDeida I am owner 200-800 and 100-400. I use R7.

@ 100-400 is an excellent lens as well. Thanks for sharing.

Hey brother. Thanks for the support.

Thanks

Thanks

Thank you very much.

Thanks for your support.

Agreed with you. This lens is a great option for bird photography without braking your bank account :) Thats what I like about canon, they have so many affordable options. Thanks for the comment.

The R7 with the 200-800 is defenetly a beast. I used it ones and loved it. R7 will be my next purchase for sure. Thanks for sharing.

Canon R6 Mrk II with Canon RF 200-800mm

I will guess it will perform great on the R3. Thanks.

I used it ones on a R7 and ohh my God, it was great. Having 1,280mm is mine blowing. Thanks

And Lord knows I need the extra reach 🙂 Love / hate my R7's ! They have so many issues, but until they make an improved R7 Mk II, I just really don't have a choice.

There's rumors about the R7 Mrk II coming out in 2025. Hopefully they will fix those issues specially on the high ISO capabilities. Thanks

@@MannyDeida Ya' know honestly, I have my Max ISO set to 3200. So my images are always super clean, right out of DXO Pure RAW. Rarely do I need to use any additional noise removal or sharpening. I know most folks follow the train of thought > darker conditions = higher ISO. I go with darker conditions = slower shutter, plus I always use a tripod regardless of all else. I'm not really much of a fast action, or BIF kind of guy anyway. The stuff I'd be likely to shoot in super low light would be like Owls or Nighthawks, which will often sit dead still for multiple second exposures with a tripod and timer :) I'm more interested in a much improved AF and EAF. Stickier, and better in low light / contrast.

Is a great lens, even more with the R5 45 MP sensor.

True. Excellent explanation. Thank you so much for sharing.

“Only a stop and a third slower” bro what

I definitely recommend it. Is sharp, not too heavy and you will have a focal length that no other lens will give you at this price ($1899) on a full frame camera.

@@ceesnabuursfauna2115 agree with you. And like I said in the video, the 200-800 is more affordable and that’s the reason is so popular now. Thanks for commenting.

If your "just looking for reach" you shouldn't be using a full frame camera in the first place. I'm glad to have "upgraded" from my R5, to my R7's 2 years ago. Great decision. I never looked back.

@@Chris_Wolfgram I use the R7 with the RF100-500. That is fine in good light. This combination gives me very good picture's, but it is important to keep the exposure always as far as possible to the right (without clipping), because the dynamic range is not as good as on my R6. In low light it is more a challenge, but using some creativity it can make also nice pic's. BIF is not as good as when using my R6. Overall the R7 with the RF100-500 is my go to combo.

Why did you agree with him when his comment is incorrect. The 100-500mm is less versatile, as it has a 400 range, whereas the 200-800mm has a 600mm range and it therefore a more versatile lens. If you want to shoot in the 100-200mm range then get the 100-500mm, but don't claim it is more versatile because it isn't. ​@@MannyDeida

Really. You know this because you own the RF100-500 ? No, of course you dont. I have owned the RF 100-500 since it was released, and it lives on my R5mkii. Yes, the teleconverter thing can be a pita, but that is all for the negatives. Maintains full 500mm @ mfd (Sony 200-600 is closer to 360mm at mfd when it should be 600mm) Nearly one 1kg lighter with the lens foot off than the Sony 200-600 Sharp as sharp as sharp - no complaints. Re the f7.1, I usually stop down to f9 @ 500mm to have more of the subject in focus. Combined with the r5mkii, this is an unbeatable combination; light, sharp and class leading af. Internal zoom ? Meh, meaningless.

I own it from Jan 2022. It is half finished lens and can take good photo too.

@@fredlar9421 I’ll be honest, I’m not a big fan of the external zoom either. Thanks for sharing.

yeah totally. thats why its one of their most popular lenses ever because its soooo bad. it should not have been internal zoom or 6.3. its have been way bigger for basically very very little benefit. its already 6.3 out to 472mm. just zoom out 28mm if you have to have 6.3. They basically made a ef 100-400 that weighs less and has a better tc built in already. its a tiny bit less reach, but sharper and faster aperture, than the ef 100-400 with a 1.4. The external zoom is fantastic for travel and weight. Ive absolutely abused the crap out of my 100-500 the past 2+ years and its still flawless. It'd be nice to have full zoom range with tc but if you think youd use a tc that much just get the 200-800

Worse lens Canon ever made? Lost any credibility you may have had with that statement!

😘😘😘

Thanks

@@MannyDeida Great lens.

Thanks

❤

Thanks

Thanks

@@hollyshepherd200 thank

Thanks🥰

@@sulydeida4823 thanks ❤️

Thanks

Thanks

Thanks

Hello :)

Thanks

Thanks