Canon RF 200-800 | Field Test and First Impressions
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 1 окт 2024
- Janine was invited to test the New Canon Rf 200-800 mm lens when she was in South Africa recently. She only had the camera for a few hours and in this comprehensive video she will share her thoughts on whether she thinks this lens should be considered for wildlife photography.
Many thanks to Roger Machin at Canon South Africa for making this possible. Janine filmed this in Rietvlei Nature Reserve in South Africa and we are hoping to test it further in the Chobe in December during our annual Canon Photo Festival.
Janine had a few hours with the lens in challenging light but managed to compare it to canons other lenses. the 800mm f11 and the larger 800mm f5.6. As you will see from her images she enjoyed the lens very much and in the review she will cover everything from the ergonomics and build to the image stabilisation and image quality..not bad for a few hours!!!
Timestamps:
01:50 The Canon Rf 200-800
2:23 Ergonomics and weight
5:05 Aperture limitations
8:31 Image quality
14:31 Pricing for the Canon Rf 200-800
17:18 Sample images from the day
We are Pangolin Wildlife Photography based in the Chobe, Northern Botswana. When we are not making videos for our channel we host our guests and clients from all over the world on our Wildlife Photography safaris throughout Botswana and the rest of Africa..and beyond sometimes too!
If you are interested in joining us on safari then please have a look at our photo safari packages: www.pangolinph...
If you would like to be kept informed of our new videos releases as well as online tutorials, gear reviews and special offers on safaris then please join our community by clicking here: www.pangolinph...
#wildlifephotography #naturephotography #Canon200-800
I really like that you mentioned the effect of distance and what it does to sharpness in images. Something I think a lot of people oversee or don't really understand.
Great summary of the strengths and tradeoffs of this lens! I think this one is a no-brainer for me, it's compact enough to fit in a camera bag, and it's inexpensive enough to risk taking it on my kayak without having a heart attack while still performing better than the 800/11.
Very good reasoning!
Yeah didn’t like the f11 got rid after couple a weeks lol 😂
Only really works in bright sunlight, which isn't the ideal condition to shoot in, anyway.
Would've been an absolutely phenomenal lens, if it was at f/6.3 at 600mm, but the way it is now it isn't worth the trade-off in my opinion. I don't get why Canon can't just offer a competitor to Nikon's and Sony's 600mm zooms. Being different isn't always better.
On good full frame sensors you can shoot it in over-cast conditions as well like I did in the video a lot.... but yes. There is limitations to the lens... cheers Janine
A fantastic review and even better to have the comparisons with the other lenses. Way better than any other review I've seen so far on announcement day. Great job and thank you, Janine 👍
Thank you so much Phil... I really appreciate it. It is only my first thoughts on the lens but I hope it helped 😊
Excellent review. Was first thinking of replacing my EF100-400mm USMII lens with the RF100-500. Will keep the EF lens and buy the RF200-800mm. With my EF500mm USMII should be covered for all my wildlife needs. Think this lens will work really well with the R1.
I have found the RF 800mm at f/11 to be very manageable in low light situations. I suspect this lens will be a very versatile replacement for the 800mm, especially at $1899 US.
I think so.
Hi Janine - great review! Apart from the RF 200 -800 having the extra 300mm reach, how does it compare to the RF 100 - 500 mm with and without extenders? If you had the opportunity of one of the 2 which would you reach for first? I would love to see a comparison video 🙂
800mm on a full frame = what 500mm can do on a R7 due to 1.6 crop factor. So, that 200-800mm on R7 = 320-1280mm. Nice.
This was an excellent breakdown of why all of these lenses are designed and priced as they are. It is our job as photographers to figure out the right balance of price and performance. Kudos to Janine for making it clear for photographers of all levels to understand!
Thank you very much indeed.
Perhaps you were surprised to hear the price point is $1899 and not $2600... I was.
Yes indeed. At least we were told it was more and not less. Always better that way!!!
would it be good with a canon r7
Crop sensor with this would be super interesting! You should totally go for it! R7 can probably provide you with the ISO needed for this lens too. Well depending on your style.
Estou pesquisando também essa lente com a R7, pelo que observei até agora só o ISO será um inconveniente, terá de trabalhar com ele alto, mas vi bons resultados ...
That thing just looks comically big. Some nice shots here though.
Thank you.
I can't see the point in getting one as I already have the 100-500mm with a 1.4tc, which isn't ideal for gloomy UK weather, especially if you need a high shutter speed.
Come to Africa....much less gloomy! ;-)
Sorry for telling you this, but this isn't the best review/first impression I've seen so far. No IS behavior, no real pixel peeping for a good quality check, no comparison with Sony's and Nikon's competitor, which are more realistic, and so on.
Compare IQ with RF800 f5,6 and RF800 f11 doesn't reveal RF200-800 IQ. It only tells us that this brand new lens has same image quality of a teleconverterted and a fixed iris cheap lenses. Why don't you compared with quality masterpiece like RF100-500? Which costs only 1000 € more. I'm afraid I know why.
Now I have the demonstration about why Canon produced the RF800 f5,6 at 18.000 €: only to try to feel you ok with this lens. That was only a 400 2.8 with a welded in 2x. Such a pity.
No, I don't like this new lens. It'd be better if Canon produced a similar 180/200-600 at 6.3. The rest of the world doesn't shoot in Africa's light conditions.
The clue is... first impression! It's not a full review as you would have liked to see - I only had the lens for one hour . But I agree that I also still prefer lower aperture lenses.
I love my 100-500, and used in conjunction with the 1.4 converter you can get 700mm F10, but then have the limitation of it becoming 420mm at the wide end. The thought of having 200mm all the way to 800mm without any of the fuss does seem rather welcome.
Indeed
How do you get 420mm at the wide end?
@@armenhovhannisyan5505 The 1.4 extender protrudes into the lens meaning you cannot use the full range of the zoom with it attached. You can only use from 300-500, effectively turning it into a 420-700mm lens.
Will you be considering this lens? Is the price point right for what you get? Let us know your thoughts!
Thank for the review I order mine in February and finally received last week . preorder price was 1900 usd
You say that it is better to use it on a full frame body. But have you tested it on a R7 ? Really ?
Pretty sure that was an R3.
@@terrysmith810
I know it was a R3, but it is written that you need a low light sensor for this lens like the R3, R5, R6, that means all the full frame bodies. But I saw other youtubers who tested it on a R7 and it was great too !!!!
Thanks for clarifying. I have an R7 so that is of interest to me.@@bengazzara1324
Simply because on a crop sensor you cannot push the iso so high. I wouldn't push the R7 past 6400 ISO
the bird from 800 f5.6 and 800 f11 is much bigger than 200-800 @800mm
Correct... therefore the side note on the bottom
Personally I’d prefer the foot ring to be removeable so that hopefully some aftermarket company would be able to make a arca Swiss foot for it which I’d sooner have than messing around with arca Swiss plates adding extra bulk or even if the ring wasn’t removeable to at least make a foot that is removeable like some other lenses canon made so again arca Swiss foot could be bolted in place .
still if this lens works as well as the rf 100-500 with a 1.4x teleconverter then I would px the 100-500 for the 200-800
Yes I'm wondering about this. There is nothing behind the collar - can it be removed by having the foot in a certain position and pulled back? I have the Tamron 150-600 G2 (A022) which is like that. It can not snap apart like 100-500 shown but pulled back. As long as it's not in the specific position it cannot drop. Seems like this 200-800 might be like that?
The tamron also have an Arca-Swiss foot. Too bad Canon didn't take that idea.
When I bought my tamron on contrast with sigma 150-600 C was that I don't need a special foot adapter for arca swiss.
I also much enjoy shooting handheld without a foot, if it's impossible (apart from servicing - somehow they got it on there) to remove it's a pitty.
Thanks Janine, I believe I’ll stick with my 100-500 L for the very purposes you outlined here… 800 is very unlikely to be sharp.
It will likely be sharper than the 500 cropped, over double the pixel density on the subject
Over distance - as shown, 800 buys little and the pixel density magnifies the distortion. Ok for limited distance birding but @robertwhitephotography5633 makes a very valid point.
@@mengshun the pixel density increase is drastic on the 800mm. 2.56 times more dense - 1.6^2
A White body only looks cool on polar bears.Realy a photographer knows the sharpest thing you put on a camera is your experience. Thanks for doing the blog like the lenses or not bloggers with experience always are worth listening to. Cheers .
Yes it does!
Images marked copyright 2022 posted in November 2023? When was this lens being sent to reviewers?
It's my old copyright... it was tested on the day it came out
Wonderful review! subscribed to the channel. Seems very similar to the new Fuji 150-600, trading bright aperture for lighter weight. Great to see more women doing these types of reviews as well for different perspective, seems like most photo gear reviews on YT are dudes.
Hey Joey, thank you so much!
Please test the sharpness of bird photos between the 100-500 lens and + TC1.4x adapter and 200-800 at a distance of approximately 20 meters to see how much or little the difference is. Thank you.
That is a good point that we should really look into more... I will wait for the Canon festival and give it a try!
Thanks for this amazing review. Judging by sample photos presented in this video, in my opinion, the 200-800 looks bit wider @800mm than 800/11 and 800/5.6. Did You have the same impression? Does it suffer a lot of focus breathing like Sony 200-600?
It's definitely wider than the 800 f/11 ... I didn't get the impression from thr 800 f/5.6 so much
Madam, may I know which body are you using? Is it a eos r system or dslr? What do you think about the combination of this lense with canon eos r6. Please come with your opinion. Thank you.
Janien was using an R3. its an RF lens so can only be used with mirrorless. Would work very well with an R6.
I really feel it was the wrong call for Canon to go 800mm on this lens. 200-600 with better Fstop would have been better. Living in Iceland that really needs all the light you can get 90% of the time... makes these new lenses just meh without massive amount of post-work.
That would be tricky there!
I am a little confused why the lens was softer than the f5.6 on the black bellied bird because of atmospherics when it was the same for both lenses, in fact the images were so similar it was either in one place for a very long time or you just switched cameras. You may love the DOF on the 5.6, but as they are both the same focal length, less than one stop won't be that different. As for comparing images, it is virtually impossible to make a decision on RUclips because of screen resolution. Incidentally, using the word mirage, no, a mirage is an illusion, like seeing water along a road, you just had heat haze. Still, if I had the money I would not turn down a safari.
I see your problem... it wasn't just Atmospheric disturbance thay made the difference. The lens is just not as sharp on longer distances... simply a fact!
err 30. trying to sort out my 5D. I'd like to see a comparison with the sigma sport 150-600mm. if there is one ;)
Thats certainly an idea!
Everything looks sexy on a R3 😁
Thats very true!!
F9 is to slow for my use. Great price though
Fair enough!
$1899 US Dollars. Might want to revise your video. Nice review.
At least we were over not under...we worked of the prices that Canon SA were told...seems like Canon USA had other ideas....
With all that said 👆. Owner of this expensive paper weight lens will take shitty and noisy looking photograph of a tiger/lion … on an overcast day. Period !
😅 ... can't argue with that!
Disappointing that it is so slow at 200mm end of f/6.3. At least Canon is making some affordable lenses.
Yep... but still a pretty slow lens given that people with a fairly good sensor will have to buy it.
Seems it would helpful to move your subject maybe a third closer to the sun to take advantage of that f9.
Which subject in particular?
Ty! Would like to see 200-800 compared to 100-500 with 1.4 ET. Pic quality. Weight. Length.
Thats in the pipeline!
Going to be road-testing one of these vs my Sigma 150-600 that I’ve had for about 7 years now. Subject separation is not such an issue these days now that Adobe have incorporated “fake” lens blur tools into Lightroom and ACR. Coupled with their excellent noise reduction which means you can use very high ISO without issues, this could be a worthy replacement (although significantly more expensive than the Sigma here in the UK).
I would say it is definitely as good as the sigma from a quality perspective... especially if subject separation is not an issue for you
@@janinekrayer2499 “as good as” doesn’t really cut it at 2.5x the price though.
Janine did you notice any fringing around some of the images? like purple? I thought I noticed it on the one image of the ostrich just in the video so i am not sure if its that or possibly RUclips
Not really yet... but it didn't put it through its proper paces... I felt like I saw vignetting!
@@janinekrayer2499 vignetting is fixable if you go to 17:27 that image has some white fringing around the neck other then that everything looks good but the real issues wont be known till there are a lot of them in customers hands
At 6:32, that manual shutter noise followed by you asking, "Did I catch that?" You're shooting with an R3, the electronic shutter burst mode beast! Of course, you caught that! 😂
Not always is one fast enough though ... :)
I would highly appreciate it if you could compare R7 + RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1l WITH this R6/R5 + Canon Rf 200-800 (this one). Otherwise, it was a great video as usual to get first-hand info.
Noted! Nice new video ideas!
Will be interesting to hear if there’s any problems with dust getting in internally with future owners
Yes, but it is the same as the current 100-500mm or the old 100-400mm .... it will happen but I don't think excessively - cheers Janine
Why black hood on the white lens? Is there any design idea behind it or it is just what it is?
Yeah, it is weird. That is how they did it in the past but some of the last EF lenses and all of the white RF lenses had white hoods so far.. Maybe to differentiate it further from L-series lenses.
It makes no difference once you have slipped a protective camo cover over it.
I guess to show it's not an L-series lens... the body was kept white to try and keep so much glass cool and to avoid too much variation with temperature changes
£2299 In the UK. This sounds like a great lens but it's only great if you will use it for what it is. I had the 100-500 and loved it but could get just as good results from my RF 70-200 F2.8 so I sold it.
I think lenses like these that try to be jack of all trades look attractive on 1st look, so attract a lot of buyers but eventually the novelty wears off.
Good video Janine!
Thank you.
Probably right for small birds. I would probably go for one of the fixed lenses, 400, 600 or 800 if I could stretch to the costs lol.
They really needed to keep to f6.3 up to 600mm to compete with the nikon or sony.
Yes... that is a point that many people will make! I personally agree!
Nice review..But why the 200-800 mm images are looking smaller in 800 mm focal length (Time 10.39 &12.03)as compared to 800 mm f5.6 and 800 mm f11 ? So is it true 800 mm lens or canon is just claiming it ?
It's definitely smaller than on the 800mm f/11 ... the same issue is on the 70-200 EF vs. RF... don't know though if one falls short or one adds on
Thanks for the reply 👍
I wish the foot came off, I always handhold and they just get in the way, plus it reduces a a bit of weight
Thats true.
Great review. Love that it retains the close focus ability like the RF 100-500. I’m forever using the 1.4 extender with my 100-500 so this lens has me really thinking about another purchase? Would love to see a comparison to the 100-500 and the use of the extender for image quality. I know many of the cheaper super zooms suffer for things moving such as birds in flight. If this keeps up with big boys they will fly off the shelves! Pun may be intended? lol
Hi... so glad you are enjoying your 100-500mm ... remember that lens is still a L series lense while the 200-800 isnt..... so it does make a difference and I feel it is sharper than the 200-800mm... but if you mostly shoot with an extender anyways I feel the two lenses start being on par.
Janine, I really want a comparison with the RF100-500 v RF 200-800mm, no satisfying some, sorry 😂
Great video and really useful thanks so much
Thanks so much... yes, we should compare the 100-500 with the 1.4x ... as is I can tell you of the bat that the 100-500mm on its own is significantly sharper
@@janinekrayer2499 just such a pain loosing the lower end of the zoom 🤷🏼♂️
Wonderful images Janine! Just shows that it’s not just about the lens, but the person behind it
Thank you so so much !
Its not sharp compared to sony 200-600 or Nikkor 180-600mm?
We will have to do a comparison
800mm f5.6 is sharper at longer distances not because of the heat haze. It is just better. But to me it just don't justify spending $17k. This one is very nicely priced in USA but in Europe it is much more expensive. It is no replacement for xx-600mm f/x.x-6.3 class lens. This is replacement for 600/800mm f11 lenses. But it may be too heavy to serve that purpose. And inability to detatch this tripod foot is a bummer for me.
Yes... you are right... it is simply a lot better!
RRP is U$D 1899, I dont know where you got the 2600?
That the price we got from Canon SA....The US is low balling a bit!
Great video!!
I got the R5 and I wonder, do you recommend using Electronic shutter 20 or so?
I'm an aviation and Navy photorapher.
Thanks!
This is a more than fantastic answer to the Sony 200-600 and Nikkor 180-600
I was sold on buying the RF 100-500 but really considering this one instead
Its a tough choice now!
is that Arca Swiss compatible? If not, shame on you Canon! Still, this is an enticing lens and a great price.
Too expensive I guess for them to put that foot on
@@janinekrayer2499 ha ha, right…naw, just the canon cripple hammer again!
i see you using sunglasses whilst shooting ,do you find this restricting? your evf
Not at all... it saves me time. Those are prescription glasses so I prefer not to take them off...
Thanks Janine for your discussion of atmospheric limitations in high focal length lenses. I saw everyone's eyes glaze over when it became clear that this lens would work with the teleconverters. Immediately folks are calling for testing with a 2x TC on an R7! I can't imagine what a mess those images would be. I tell folks all the time - use these like a magnifying glass, not a telescope. This looks like a great lens but I don't think I'll trade it for my RF100-500/1.4x anytime soon. If this option had been available when I bought the 100-500, I probably would have went with it instead.
"Immediately folks are calling for testing with a 2x TC on an R7!" Nice idea!
I agree that with 2x TC it gets into heavy diffraction territory, not to mention the darkness and that 2x TC isn't that great compared to 1.4. This lens is great that you can use it without teleconverter or attach the 1.4 while zoom out and use the whole range. Main downside of the 100-500, which I have too, is the cumbersome use with TC, you can use only last third of the zoom range and it won't fit in my bag extended at those 300mm. So I will be getting this one, it's still cheaper than the 100-500 and I can always crop further on my R5.
I shoot with a M50 on a swarovski digiscope, equivalent to about 2600mm and even on miserable UK days atmospherics usually get in the way, its also a lot of weight to lug and to get set up and focused takes an age and the bird has flown, forget about shots on the wing. My wife uses a cheap bridge camera with 1200mm equivalent onto a phone size sensor, good enough for identification but not good when they've been cropped. I'd love to see this on an R7 as that would be 1200 onto a much larger sensor though then the comparison might be with a 600mm bridge with a 1 inch sensor. I think it's white for marketing, if your lens isn't white and very long you can't possibly be a serious twitcher.
Exactly my thinking. Jeepers when I read your comment I honestly thought I wrote it and had forgotten that I had already replied!
@@SurreyAlanI have the same experience with a Svarowski telescope and a Sony APS-C: While the scope is really great for watching even over great distances, the photos coming out of the combo in most situations are good for determination and evidence, but not beautiful.
wow this is a proper review! thanks for this! keep up the hard work on the comparison!
Hmm, I'm not so sure about this lens. I think I'll wait for some more reviews of production models before I consider adding it to my gear. I like your set up with the 400mm f/2.8, realizing of course the huge price difference. I'm also considering an RF 100-300mm f/2.8 with a 2 x teleconverter to use when necessary. Thanks for the early review.
Hi Steve, I think the 100-300mm is an epic lense... but just like with the 400mm f/2.8 the 2x doesn't work great... the 1.4x is fantastic though I think - cheers Janine
@@janinekrayer2499 Hi Janine,
Thanks for the tip on the 2X teleconverter. I think I’m probably going to go with the RF 400mm f/2.8. I really like going out during the early morning & late evening hours and I think an f/2.8 lens will be better suited in that regards. Thanks again for your advise! Cheers!
I’m a wildlife photographer currently with the R5 and a sigma 150-600C. I’m looking to upgrade and I’m looking at this lens and the rf 100-500 +/- the 1.4x TC.
At the end of your video you recommended a camera body with suitable low light sensor and the R5 just doesn’t hold up as well as an R6 in low light.
So my question for you is- which lens (100-500 or the 200-800) would you recommend for a wildlife photographer (birds and big game) with the R5?
Thanks!
I wielded a 600/4 for many years in the past. Never again such a heavy burden for this old man!
Been delighted with the RF800/11 for about 3 years now. Not really tempted by this new offering. It's a rare occurrence for me that 800mm is too long. Long zooms, in my experience, are invariably used at max FL so the additional weight of a zoom and the compromises that must be made in their design, have just never appealed to me.
Thanks Terry.
Are you sponsored by canon?
How does this compare to the Tamron 150-600mm f4-6.3 g2 lens?
That would be a great comparison.
Quality wise very similar except that you get far more reach
about the 'haze' on long distances, yeah I know... Shooting windsurfers in the sea surf, far away with cloudy/rainy conditions, NON of all the Canons I had (from 5D , 1D's to now R5/R3) got me extremely sharp images, allways bit grainy. There is simply to much salt, moist and sand in the air.
It adds to the atmosphers though of the experience, but 'tack sharp', nah no. With sunny weather it's better ofcourse, but even then , long distance, saying windsurfers on the 3-4th bank, meh....
But... I hope this lens is 'fast' enough to get the focus right, that would be a deal breaker for me... that 500/F4.0 is soooo fast especially together with a R3 (or R5)...
I tested the same lens and noticed what is told at 3.36 sec in the video, the zoom going from 200mm to 800mm is going tight and hardly to do with a single hand move. I need to zoom very fast (specially in sports) and I couldn't make that with the RF 200-800 lens easially. It is my personal opinion. I'll keep my RF 800. The EF 100-400 has another way of zooming by pulling/pushing the front lens which i prefer best. The only negative this is pumping air and also slightly dust into the lens. Still using EOS 7DMkII, 5DsR, R10, R5 and R6.
Thanks Janine for a great video! Even as Sony shooter I think the new 200-800 Canon lens is great. However, I took your advice from Maasai Mara. 😊 Do you remember? I asked you, weather to buy a 400 mm F2.8 or a 600 mm F4? I managed to find a secondhand Sony GM 400mm F2.8. 😊 and I have the 1.4x and 2.0x teleconverters from before. Thanks and have a good one!
that is so exciting.... you must enjoy it!!!! - cheers Janine
white is tooo flashy, native olive paint would be perfect
It's a technical issue of keeping so much glass as cool as possible ... but I agree... olive would be cool
Pretty awesome lens that I just couldn’t find a practical use for personally, as I do not live in the Savannah. Thanks for the good review.
Haha, if you don't like bird photography there is probably not much use for you... cheers Janine
Having no other way to ask you this question, I figured I would try reaching you here! My daughter and i will be joining you at Chobe (then beyond that for 10 days or so). Given limitations on weight, would you recommend bringing my Sony 200-600 or 100-400 with a doubler? Thanks for any advice….😁
Excellent overview, certainly very welcome addition into RF lineup, however I'll aim for used EF 100-400mm L II, as I imagine second-hand market will be flooded with that EF lens soon.
There are some real bargains to be had out there!
Thank you very much! Great review. With an emphasis on not exaggerating the cost of equipment! Very sensible and comforting! Unfortunately, my "safari" will be limited to Poland. I need a lens like this!
Hi, Poland has some great birdlife too. And the 800mm will be fantastic for that....cheers Janine
Also for an update. you said $2,600 US, it is for sale now for $1,900. At that price it is a no brainer move. may keep my 800 F11 and grab this one also.
800 f11 is smaller and lighter for causal forest walks.
Hi, I'm writing from Italy. I have two R6s, I would like to replace my 100-400II, I use it for natural, sport engines so I am sometimes close to, planes. From your sincere experience, do you recommend the 100 500, or the 200 800, thanks diego
Hi, I'm writing from Italy. I have two R6s, I would like to replace my 100-400II, I use it for natural, sport engines so I am sometimes close to, planes. From your sincere experience, do you recommend the 100 500, or the 200 800, thanks diego
Hi, if you had to choose between RF200-800mm on a R6 or FE200-600mm on A7R3 for Safari at Chobe, which would you choose?
Kindly share the model of the camera you are using.
It was an R3. Will be testing on other bodies soon.
"Anything more than 25-30 meters forget about it?" That's 82-98 feet. As an 800 5.6 owner I can assure you this information is wildly incorrect.
Thank you very much. You are just amazing. Most of the time you were in the field and not on warming up a chair. Your technical specification was rich with essential information. I have a question please. But in your opinion, the focus speed in the 800mm mode with the 800-200 lens versus the black 800mm lens. Who is faster in most situations
This is selling at USD1899.00 not USD2600.00.
🤗🤗😍
Looks like Canon might be doing an introductory launch price!!! Great news for everyone!!!
Not so lucky in UK £2300 here.
@@stuartcarlton7939 if that include 20% UK VAT it's the same price as in US given that americans shows prices excluding eventuel state taxes.
Ah yes of course, I forgot that, I don't feel so bad now!😀
mmmh , this lens or should I opt for the Canon RF100-500 for birds and wildlife? Thank you for your informative review.
Still no integrated Arca foot plate? Eh, well, I bought the 100-500 last Christmas. I also picked up the x2 extender last month. It's a little hard to justify getting this.
The prices of these lenses (in general) are just too much for the average person. I can’t justify $2,600 for a lens, especially with these focal lengths. Will have to stick with my Sigma.
If I'm not mistaken, at 12:53 the problem is not with the lens sharpness of the 200-800, it's that the lens focused sharply on the grass several inches beyond the bird, and not the bird itself. Check it versus the 800 prime picture, and you'll see what I mean.
I use Canon R7. Which is your opinion about R7+ 200-800 lense? Thank you
We will be trying that out soon!
@@PangolinWildlife❤
I wonder how the RF 200-800 will perform with the built in Digital Tele Converter 2X-4X of the R6 Mark II found on Menu Red Camera, tab 1?
Thank you very much. I have many telephoto zoom lenses and have not purchased expensive fixed-focus telephoto lenses due to financial reasons. However, your videos let me know the advantages of fixed-focus lenses. It seems that in order to get better image quality, I should buy a better telephoto fixed focus lens.
yes the quality between 800mm f5.6 and 200-800mm is 10 times. If u have busy backround, its worth 0
I'd rather to stick to OM system, camera size, weight and price for similar Pro equipment is just overwhelming over a Canon pro gear.
Thanks of the review. I guess you would need a new body as this RF lens will not fit the EOS 7D Mark II body right? Also no adapter?
Very good review. The US price turned out to be $1899 so I preordered one.
Where I live I can get away with longer distances on most days since we don’t let a lot of heat shimmer. But, not everyone lives in the Pacific Northwest. However, I like a long lens to make a small subject big in the frame so I rarely shoot at a distance anyway.
I am really looking forward to getting my copy.
Hope it arrives soon.
What a wonderful review! Thank you so much. I can see how it performs on a R3, do wonder how it will go on my R7. Will find out hopefully soon as I preordered it. "Buttery"? Loved it! :)) My question to you Janine would be: will you take this combo with you in the field or would you opt for the 400 F2.8 with a 1.4 extender instead? (I love that 400/2.8 btw....!)
I would always go for the RF400 f/2.8 .... if the money is there, it is a no brainer! However, it is a huge price difference! It will perform great on the R7 I think but the R7 itself has limitations with higher ISOs.... so in that sense it might give you trouble! -cheers Janine
At exactly what focal distance doe it make the jump to f9? You mentioned that "towards 800mm we hit f9," but at what point between 500 and 800mm does it make the jump. Put another way, how far can you go and still be at f8?
This is not a review, this is a publicity fir this new Canon lens, that isn't very sharp, has horrible balance and in oour countries where there isn' t sunshine all day every day, will oblige huge ISO values due to the f9 diafragma. No thanks, they can keep it.
A great review for a great lens, and a beautiful woman to boot. Just more photos like this. Only the prices are destructive. Would you still do a review on the cheapest piece, if it is even worth buying? Thanks. Jan❤
Too dark :( I don't like the design choices. Everything above f/8 is a deal-breaker. I prefer to stop down to f/8 on f/6.3 to get the best results out of the lens.
Very interesting lens, but won't leave my Nikon Z8 for it 🙂 I will have to do with the new Nikon 600PF ...
Thanks for the comment
The price is 1899.00 USD not 2600.00
Yep... we noticed... wrong information from the producer
Otherwise, I love the work you are doing. Thank you. I'm am Collins Joshua Kaboggoza from Uganda 🇺🇬 . I love Mother Nature😊
Canon rf 200-800mm f6.3-9 listed at $1899 USD
At time of filming were told the other price..glad its actually lower!!!
This looks like a really good lens! Now to find a way to get R50 000.... :)
Where there's a will there's a way!