From my time with the lens so far, since December 14th, I would say your review is very fair. I live in the Puget Sound area of Washington State, USA, and this time of the year we excel at dark and dreary. We only have about 8 hours of daylight and this is our rainy season. I have used it on my R5 and R7. The sharpness if great, the stabilization is great. Now for the low light, I did use Topaz AI to clean up some noise prior to editing the images I took with the R7. For a sub $2k lens it does a very good job.
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
@@אליההלברטל 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.
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
Great video Fabian. Think this will be a bestseller from Canon. I will for sure go for this lens when it comes for sale here in Brazil, where i live. Cheers, Bjoern
Thank you for this video which I found very useful. I wish yu could address the question that many R7/RF100-500 are asking themselves : should we trade the RF100-500 to this new lens, particularly that most of the time many of us find themselves using the RF 100-500 with a 1.4 extender. In short, would the RF 200-800 be better with the RF than the combination RF 100-500 + Extender ?
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
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! 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
Thank you for the video... Can you compare the canon 2-800 with the nikon 180-600 at the same F-stop and also with the 1.4 on the nikon. For sharpness.
Thanks for the review. You and I are in the same boat, having used the 600mm II f4 lens for years and loved it. I dismissed this lens at first, as I have the 100-500L and decided to sell it because it just doesn’t come close to the nicely diffused background of my 600 II. Obviously very different lenses but I think this lens may have some promise as a great travel option. F9 is a bit restrictive but I could see it effective in certain circumstances without having to lug around a big rig.
@@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.
@@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.
Helpful video! I was considering buying the Sigma 60-600 with an RF adapter for my R5, but after watching this, I've decided on the 200-800 instead. Thanks!
Awesome review. I can tell you are a great photographer. I trust your review. Duade Paton also liked this lens in his first impression review. Very promising. I don't know why people complain about F9 aperture and bad bokeh for $1900 USD. Everyone knows the RF 800 mm F5.6 is better, but at $17k USD. Mine is backordered. I can't wait to try it.
yes the question is , it is so better than the combination RF 100-500+ RF 1,4x to upgrade? I don't think. Maybe It is a very good solution for who don't hve this combination
Gut gemacht und einverstanden. :-) Und auch bei: Welchen zu kaufen oder uberhaupt nicht kaufen wenn man Profi ist. Die 100-500 rf ist naturlich ein echter competitor. Gruss dich aus der Niederlanden. Onno Nugteren.
Danke Fabian, I could no longer resist ordering this lens after seeing Duade's smile and body language in his review, and now the reviews from you and Jan Wegener confirm I didn't do anything silly ;-) Could you tell me the length of the tripod foot ? I'd like to order a silly arca swiss plate by the time my 200-800 arrives. judging by how you hold it with your hand, I'd assume the bottom part is some 11 or 12 cm, right ? As I also have the 100-500, I guess the shortest length of the 420-700 is not much shorter than the 200-800, and it will only be about 300grams lighter (when using tripod foot for a fair comparison). I would guess the 100-500 will be the best choice below 500mm, but switching to the 200-800 might be better than using the 420-700. Looking forward to those comparisons !
I currently have the Canon r7 and I'm using it with the sigma 150 to 600. Did I understand you correctly to say that the Canon 200-800 was much better than the sigma? I was thinking of upgrading but wanted to make sure it was worth the extra money. Thanks for your input.
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
It is tempting... but in my mind, its too limited in when you can shoot... Even with my 500mm f/4, shooting at sunrise, sunset, I was up at ISO 12800 with my 1DX and while my R6 ii is a couple of stops better at high ISO, f/9 and even higher ISO is a daunting prospect. Having to rely on noise reduction software, just to get usable images isn't the tempting part. Obviously in relatively decent and good light it makes sense in a reach to bang for buck scenario. Where I see his lens really shining is for airshow photography.
@@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
Another excellent review. Thank you! I look forward to your comparison with the RF 100-500. I am disappointed enough that the 200-800 is slower from 200-500mm that I have not ordered it. I shoot a lot in woods and other less than ideal light and feel I am already pushing the limits of low shutter speeds and DxO Pure Raw. Plus, I hope I'm wrong, but I'm guessing the image quality will not match the 100-500 in that range. It is unfortunate the 100-500 is so inconvenient to use with the 1.4x. There the 200-800 might exceed it in quality and go to 800mm at the same f-stop as the 100-500 at 700mm with the 1.4x. I don't believe Canon will introduce a more expensive but slightly faster and sharper L series 200-800 so this is it. I am considering switching to Nikon at this point and getting either the 100-400 or 180-600 and one of their medium fast long primes.
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
@@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!
For now at least ive got the cannon rp with the 100-400mm lense. Ive come across some bald eagles and the 100-400mm just isn't enough. The extra reach of the 800mm should be fantastic 👍 Now its just a matter of when ill be able to buy one as they appear to be backorderd.... :/
Nice review, it’s a pity Canon didn’t allow the collar to be removed and left out even a slim dedicated focus ring. The versatility especially on an R7 is crazy
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.
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.
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
You would need to buy an arca swiss plate to use it on a tripod as someone mentioned in there review .. How does it fare used during Dark winter gloomy skies here in Scotland . Or even Ships passing far offshore .. What about for Distant LS captures is it worth the hassle ? Does it get you a better Moon Capture
I think most Canon wildlife shooters will purchase this lens while users of other brands will just scoff at the F9 aperture. I love this lens of course it has it's faults but guess that's why it does not cost as much as a small car. I would prefer a separate custom control ring a focus limiter and be able to take the foot off but hey find me a lens that has everything you could want for a price you can afford.
I found it didn't perform the best with the R7 on bad overcast days, but that is kind of expected. Did much better with the sun out. I think I was dealing with a little bit of atmospheric distortion as I was shooting birds on a pond when the sun was out. Image stab was good on the R7. Tracking was a lot better when the sun out. Going to switch the R6MII today and see if it performs better. Thanks for the review.
@@FabianFoppNaturephotographypeople get confused because a lot of other RUclipsrs and Nikon state the weight without the lens collar which does make 180-600 about 100g lighter.
100 500 was over priced at the begining. Still waiting for my preorder to arrive today, the iq of 200 800 looks great from the video. The edge of 200mm is not a concern for me. Can't wait to try it.
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.
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
Nice review :) Thank you. Anxious to get my 200-800 rental next week. I'm now 95% sure I'll buy it. But just wanted to be sure, with a $2K purchase. I have to chuckle when folks get concerned about the F9 aperture :) I'm coming from my "beloved" 800 F11, so I don't think the "faster" F9 aperture is going to hurt me :) I've taken TONS of sharp shots with the 800 F11 > in low light ! Check my gallery and see for yourself. Probably 60% of my shots have been in cloudy / shaded conditions. Exif is provided. Keep in mind, I 'upgraded' from the R5 to my R7's a year ago, so now nearly all of my shooting is with a 1280mm equivalent. Honestly, if 800mm is not enough for you (which it usually isn't for me) I believe the R7 crop body is a MUCH better choice than shooting with a TC. Reach is usually the biggest thing for me, and so for what I do, the R7 is a lot better than my old R5.
@@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 👍
Looks sharp to me too! Some people have such ridiculously high standards. I've watched guys blow images up 200% or more, see a smidge of softness, and toss it! This image (especially after processing) is quite sharp, but honestly, as long as the print looks sharp at normal viewing distances, I'm happy.
@@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!
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.
@@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.
It’s hilarious and pathetic that Canon launches a lens with such embarrassing specifications. I’ve run of out patience and bought myself a Nikon Z9 & a Z600mm f/6.3 VR S PF (& a Z1.4x TC). Seriously considering to get rid of my R3 & RF800mm f/5.6L IS USM and get a Z600mm f/4 VR S TC……..
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
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
You can buy the lens here (Affiliate Links):
B&H Photo: bhpho.to/4722bZm
Adorama: adorama.rfvk.net/g1712g
You mean, you can ORDER one. Good luck on when you actually GET it!
Thank you Fabian. Really looking forward to the comparison with the 100-500mm.
Thanks!
Thanks for this. I have the lens on back order. I note that Duade Paton and Wild Alaska and others agree with you.
Hope you will get it soon 😊
Good job Fabian, i already own the rf 100-500...Can't wait to see your next vidéo comparing both lenses..!
Thanks
Look forward to you video with the 100-500 with the 1.4x see how it stacks up against the 200-800
I‘m working on it 😊
From my time with the lens so far, since December 14th, I would say your review is very fair. I live in the Puget Sound area of Washington State, USA, and this time of the year we excel at dark and dreary. We only have about 8 hours of daylight and this is our rainy season.
I have used it on my R5 and R7. The sharpness if great, the stabilization is great. Now for the low light, I did use Topaz AI to clean up some noise prior to editing the images I took with the R7.
For a sub $2k lens it does a very good job.
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
@@אליההלברטל 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
Great video Fabian. Think this will be a bestseller from Canon. I will for sure go for this lens when it comes for sale here in Brazil, where i live.
Cheers, Bjoern
Thanks! Yes, I also assume it will sell very well
Thank you for this video which I found very useful. I wish yu could address the question that many R7/RF100-500 are asking themselves : should we trade the RF100-500 to this new lens, particularly that most of the time many of us find themselves using the RF 100-500 with a 1.4 extender. In short, would the RF 200-800 be better with the RF than the combination RF 100-500 + Extender ?
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 ?
Great video & review! Thanks a lot also for showing some R10 photos contrary to the all the R5-only reviews!
Thanks
Nice review! Looking forward to the comparison between the 100-500 with this lens.
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.
Thank you. Please do a comparison between 100-400 and 200-800.
The first scene in this video , you can see clear how focus is hunting, or is because post stabilization process. Thank you for video!
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 Fabian for your review. Could you do a review with this lense with R7?
Unfortunately I don’t own an R7 so I could only test it with the R10
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography ok.
Thanks, Fabian. Seems the consensus is that this lens it worth owning if you can understand how to use it well. Good job.
Thanks 😊
Thanks for your excellent review and for sharing your knowledge
Thanks for your kind words 😊
Thank you for the video... Can you compare the canon 2-800 with the nikon 180-600 at the same F-stop and also with the 1.4 on the nikon. For sharpness.
Unfortunately I don’t own the Z180-600 and have none around at the moment
Thanks for sharing your experience with this lens. 👍❤️😇
You‘re welcome
Very useful review. I have just got my 200-800 today and look forward to test it.
Cool, have fun
Thanks for the review. You and I are in the same boat, having used the 600mm II f4 lens for years and loved it. I dismissed this lens at first, as I have the 100-500L and decided to sell it because it just doesn’t come close to the nicely diffused background of my 600 II. Obviously very different lenses but I think this lens may have some promise as a great travel option. F9 is a bit restrictive but I could see it effective in certain circumstances without having to lug around a big rig.
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.
Great video, very informative.
Now I can’t wait to get my lens delivered 😊 thank you.
Thanks! Hope you will get it soon
Helpful video! I was considering buying the Sigma 60-600 with an RF adapter for my R5, but after watching this, I've decided on the 200-800 instead. Thanks!
Thanks and have fun!
Excellent video as always . Do you have a video on how you edit your photos on capture 1 ? It would be interesting to see how you do it
Thanks! Yes, I do have a video. Please check my channel
Awesome review. I can tell you are a great photographer. I trust your review. Duade Paton also liked this lens in his first impression review. Very promising. I don't know why people complain about F9 aperture and bad bokeh for $1900 USD. Everyone knows the RF 800 mm F5.6 is better, but at $17k USD. Mine is backordered. I can't wait to try it.
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.
yes the question is , it is so better than the combination RF 100-500+ RF 1,4x to upgrade? I don't think. Maybe It is a very good solution for who don't hve this combination
I‘m working on a comparison video 😊
Really good lens but i'd like to see the Raw files. Can you please share some?
I included some comparison pictures in the video. But unfortunately I don’t have a good way round share these quite big files
Hi fabian , great review thanks so much
You‘re welcome 🤗
Gut gemacht und einverstanden. :-) Und auch bei: Welchen zu kaufen oder uberhaupt nicht kaufen wenn man Profi ist. Die 100-500 rf ist naturlich ein echter competitor. Gruss dich aus der Niederlanden. Onno Nugteren.
Danke!
I am looking forward to seeing 100-500 with an extender vs. this new lens.
I‘m working on the video 😊
Danke Fabian, I could no longer resist ordering this lens after seeing Duade's smile and body language in his review, and now the reviews from you and Jan Wegener confirm I didn't do anything silly ;-)
Could you tell me the length of the tripod foot ? I'd like to order a silly arca swiss plate by the time my 200-800 arrives. judging by how you hold it with your hand, I'd assume the bottom part is some 11 or 12 cm, right ?
As I also have the 100-500, I guess the shortest length of the 420-700 is not much shorter than the 200-800, and it will only be about 300grams lighter (when using tripod foot for a fair comparison).
I would guess the 100-500 will be the best choice below 500mm, but switching to the 200-800 might be better than using the 420-700. Looking forward to those comparisons !
Hope you habe fun! Yes, if you use mostly 500-800mm, the RF200-800 will be the better choice in most situations
I'm happy wirh my 7Dmk2 and siggy 150-600. Equals 900 mm.
Sure, that’s definitely cheaper. Habe fun
Can you test the panning please?
I already returned the lens. I did a few panning shots, but not so many to draw a conclusion
Hi Fabian. How this new lens do in mirror body like 6D?
It will not work on DSLRs
I currently have the Canon r7 and I'm using it with the sigma 150 to 600. Did I understand you correctly to say that the Canon 200-800 was much better than the sigma? I was thinking of upgrading but wanted to make sure it was worth the extra money. Thanks for your input.
I could not test it with the R7. But with the R5, yes, it was dramatically better than the Sigma 150-600 Contemporary
Nice review. How does it compare at 800mm with 800mm F/11 in sharpness?
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
Hi , your videos are great .
Which lens is best for wildlife photography for my eosr10. I currently have rf600mm f11 lens .
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?
It is tempting... but in my mind, its too limited in when you can shoot... Even with my 500mm f/4, shooting at sunrise, sunset, I was up at ISO 12800 with my 1DX and while my R6 ii is a couple of stops better at high ISO, f/9 and even higher ISO is a daunting prospect. Having to rely on noise reduction software, just to get usable images isn't the tempting part. Obviously in relatively decent and good light it makes sense in a reach to bang for buck scenario. Where I see his lens really shining is for airshow photography.
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
Another excellent review. Thank you! I look forward to your comparison with the RF 100-500. I am disappointed enough that the 200-800 is slower from 200-500mm that I have not ordered it. I shoot a lot in woods and other less than ideal light and feel I am already pushing the limits of low shutter speeds and DxO Pure Raw. Plus, I hope I'm wrong, but I'm guessing the image quality will not match the 100-500 in that range. It is unfortunate the 100-500 is so inconvenient to use with the 1.4x. There the 200-800 might exceed it in quality and go to 800mm at the same f-stop as the 100-500 at 700mm with the 1.4x. I don't believe Canon will introduce a more expensive but slightly faster and sharper L series 200-800 so this is it. I am considering switching to Nikon at this point and getting either the 100-400 or 180-600 and one of their medium fast long primes.
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!
Great work Fabian
Thanks 😊
Excellent review!
Thanks
Well presented. Thx!!
Thanks
For now at least ive got the cannon rp with the 100-400mm lense. Ive come across some bald eagles and the 100-400mm just isn't enough. The extra reach of the 800mm should be fantastic 👍
Now its just a matter of when ill be able to buy one as they appear to be backorderd.... :/
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 👍
If you are a Canon shooter, I think the biggest advantage this lens has over the Nikon or Sony offerings is this lens works on Canon cameras 🤣🤣
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 🤣🤣
I think it’s quite unique ❤
Yes!
I have r10 should i buy this lens?
That’s why I did the video
Nice review, it’s a pity Canon didn’t allow the collar to be removed and left out even a slim dedicated focus ring. The versatility especially on an R7 is crazy
Yes, a dedicated MF ring would have been highly welcome
What about RF 800mm f11? Those who ask only for reach should give 2.5x price for this lens?
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.
I don’t get the comparison of center and edge
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
What camera was used?
The exif is below the photos. So mostly R5, some with the R10
Thanks for the review. you said you would add a link to your book, I don't see that link. Thanks
I totally forgot! Thanks for pointing it out. I added it now: naturfotografie-fopp.ch/wp/e-book-bird-photography/
You would need to buy an arca swiss plate to use it on a tripod as someone mentioned in there review ..
How does it fare used during Dark winter gloomy skies here in Scotland . Or even Ships passing far offshore ..
What about for Distant LS captures is it worth the hassle ? Does it get you a better Moon Capture
To be fair, that’s the case for every Canon/Sony/Nikon telephoto lens.
I didn’t try shooting any astro with it
Thanks! Informative video
You‘re welcome
I think most Canon wildlife shooters will purchase this lens while users of other brands will just scoff at the F9 aperture. I love this lens of course it has it's faults but guess that's why it does not cost as much as a small car. I would prefer a separate custom control ring a focus limiter and be able to take the foot off but hey find me a lens that has everything you could want for a price you can afford.
Yes, I totally agree
i like the focal length goes to 800mm but i dont like the f9
There is also a 800mm f/5.6 😊 But then you pay and carry way more
I found it didn't perform the best with the R7 on bad overcast days, but that is kind of expected. Did much better with the sun out. I think I was dealing with a little bit of atmospheric distortion as I was shooting birds on a pond when the sun was out. Image stab was good on the R7. Tracking was a lot better when the sun out. Going to switch the R6MII today and see if it performs better. Thanks for the review.
Thanks! Have fun 😊 I could imagine that the R6 II performs much better
Has anyone sold their 500mm f4 and replaced it with this lens?
I would also be curious about that. I would definitely miss the f/4 aperture
The lens is amazinly light. Not as light as the Nikon 180-600 but lighter than then Sony 200-600mm !!!.
It is lighter than the Nikon 180-600 (by a bit less than 100g)
@@FabianFoppNaturephotographypeople get confused because a lot of other RUclipsrs and Nikon state the weight without the lens collar which does make 180-600 about 100g lighter.
100 500 was over priced at the begining. Still waiting for my preorder to arrive today, the iq of 200 800 looks great from the video. The edge of 200mm is not a concern for me. Can't wait to try it.
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
glad it’s not a push-pull.
I hope I never need to use a push-pull anymore
So its not made for R7 😢
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
Nice review :) Thank you. Anxious to get my 200-800 rental next week. I'm now 95% sure I'll buy it. But just wanted to be sure, with a $2K purchase. I have to chuckle when folks get concerned about the F9 aperture :) I'm coming from my "beloved" 800 F11, so I don't think the "faster" F9 aperture is going to hurt me :) I've taken TONS of sharp shots with the 800 F11 > in low light ! Check my gallery and see for yourself. Probably 60% of my shots have been in cloudy / shaded conditions. Exif is provided. Keep in mind, I 'upgraded' from the R5 to my R7's a year ago, so now nearly all of my shooting is with a 1280mm equivalent. Honestly, if 800mm is not enough for you (which it usually isn't for me) I believe the R7 crop body is a MUCH better choice than shooting with a TC. Reach is usually the biggest thing for me, and so for what I do, the R7 is a lot better than my old R5.
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 👍
Still unavailable in uk so irrelevant
Unfortunately I don’t have control over the stock of lenses 😉
10:12 - it is NOT sharp
The feathers look sharp to me. Are you watching in 4k? Or where does it look blurry?
Looks sharp to me too! Some people have such ridiculously high standards. I've watched guys blow images up 200% or more, see a smidge of softness, and toss it! This image (especially after processing) is quite sharp, but honestly, as long as the print looks sharp at normal viewing distances, I'm happy.
Thankfully mirrorless cameras were going to bring cheaper cameras and cheaper lenses....
There are definitely cheaper cameras and lenses nowadays, even with excellent sharpness
A great lens for peak daylight. Other than that, hard pass for me..
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!
Too slow, and who's the genius at Canon that decided the tripod collar shouldn't be removable?
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 ?
good video check out my comparison video 200-800 vs 100-500 + 1.4x
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 ruclips.net/video/u82beGWxvb4/видео.htmlsi=7XSJ8m_eURckMsM5
Nope, still a phantom lens. Not available.
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
It’s hilarious and pathetic that Canon launches a lens with such embarrassing specifications. I’ve run of out patience and bought myself a Nikon Z9 & a Z600mm f/6.3 VR S PF (& a Z1.4x TC). Seriously considering to get rid of my R3 & RF800mm f/5.6L IS USM and get a Z600mm f/4 VR S TC……..
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
Terrible lens. Way overpriced and f9 is unusable.
I think that’s a very personal and not very objective statement 😉