The BEST Lens for Wildlife under $2000 - Canon RF 200-800 Review
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 сен 2024
- Looking for the best lens for wildlife photography under $2000? Check out this review of the Canon RF 200-800, a highly recommended lens for capturing stunning wildlife shots. Unfortunately, it's currently out of stock everywhere, so act fast when it's available!
Rent any camera, lens or drone - use cod KRIS15 at checkout for 15% off - tr.ee/oE9DRLVsu6
Canon RF 200-800 Raw Photos - drive.google.c...
Bro I can’t tell you how long I’ve been on the waitlist. I went ahead and pulled the trigger on the 14k RF 600mm F4 instead an amazing Lens!
Woahhh! Nice! Man, I am wanting the RF 400 2.8 so bad. I might try to get it next year, I plan on getting the R1 this year, maybe r5 mark ii. But i had a lot of $$$ house repairs this year unfortunately
@@KrisLuckPhoto Making the decision to pull the trigger on these lenses is crazy but at least it will last 10 years unlike these cameras which seem to become irrelevant every 2 years when a newer one comes out with better specs
@@hawaiifreespeechnewsyou won’t be disappointed! Once you use the big glass it’s addicting and it’s hard to go back to bologna after having filet mignon! I have the 600mm f4 II lens adapted to my R3. It’s not always fun to lug a tripod around but for songbirds it’s amazing. I’m still debating this lens too though because some days you just want to run and gun and having a zoom us awesome for mammals like the amazing footage the content creator created. Awesome!
Ouch ! I’m sure many folks will rave about how much better the 600 F4 is than the 200-800 anyway. But I’m in the minority who believes the 200-800 is better, for the additional reach, for the lighter weight, but most especially for the amazing versatility.
If I have to wait another year… Or two, I will eventually get the 200-800. In the mean time, I’ll keep killing it with my “not near as versatile” 800 F11.
@@Chris_Wolfgram you don't need it for the additional reach, the 600mm f4 with a 1.4x is 840 mm f/5.6 and 2x 1200mm which is still tac sharp is all the extension you're ever going to want or need in this field
This lens is the Holy grail for small bird photography. I rented it for a week, and absolutely loved it. It’s killing me that Canon can’t get their chit together and get more of them out there !
For my purposes the 100-500 is way too short, and lame with teleconverters. I rented that one too, and glad I didn’t waste a lot of money on one.
Oh btw, I shoot with the R7, for the additional reach, and I always use a tripod…
Not for weight, but for the additional stability. Also, once I get a bird in my very small, 1280mm field of view, a tripod helps a lot to keep it there.
How do you find the 200-800 in comparison to the 100-500?
I own both so I think I can give a better good answer to this. I have had the RF 200-800 since the day camera shops were allowed to deliver it in December of 2023. I have had the RF 100-500 much longer.
Simple answer, the RF 100-500 is better. We need to be happy about that since the RF 100-500 is an L series, and the RF 200-800 isn't. If it was as good Canon would have a problem.
My walking around configuration is: R5 with the RF 100-500 and R7 with the RF 200-800. This gives me 100mm to 1280mm of reach between the two combinations. For BIF, the R5 with the RF 100-500 is the combination I use most.
The RF 200-800 isn't quite as sharp as the RF 100-500 but that is more noticeable on the R7, than the R5. Again, I have both. Even having said that, I use it more on my R7 than the R5. It is still really sharp but the 100-500 is super sharp.
It is a tiny bit slower to focus, you may not notice it but it is. Some people have trouble reaching the focus ring when holding the lens. I have big hands so that isn't an issue for me but as you may know, sometimes you need to "help" the camera focus in the right area.
The RF 200-800 has pretty serious chromatic aberration. This is mostly observed when shooting white objects on bright sunny days and part or all of the white is in a corner. Think Trumpeter Swan on a bright day. The center will look great but if the back of the bird is in a corner, you will likely see a lot of chromatic aberration.
I am happy I have both. I like the RF 200-800 better than using the 1.4x with the RF 100-500.
The RF 100-500: is sharper, faster to focus, has better lens coatings, is lighter, packs easier, and had better weather sealing.
The RF 200-800: reaches 800mm, the entire zoom range is available with extenders attached, and if you can find it, costs less.
I will continue to use both lenses and am glad I have both.
@@jeffolson4731 ah amazing, thanks for the detailed information 😊 I have the R5 and the 100-500 and use the 1.4x extender (sometimes) and was wondering how the 200-800 stacked up. The extra reach would be nice but if it's not as sharp I guess it's not worth the trade haha. Thanks 😊
Excellent reply, I agree word for word! thank you!
I rented both. The 100-500 was almost never long enough and it sucked with teleconverters. (greatly reduced its zoom range, and it's ability to fully contract).
None of the shots I took with it made it to my Flickr page.
I also rented the 200-800. Took about 6000 shots with it. Absolutely loved it. I think about 14 shots from the 200-800 made it to my Flickr page. You can go see those.... But they are way back on the 3rd page, as I recently did a 30 day, 7300 mile birding road trip, and took about 30K shots with my 800 F11, of which about 200 shots made it to my page. Love that "slow darn lens" lol 🙂👍 Well, I'm on my 3rd one, but that's another story 🙂
I'm going to disagree with @jeffolson4731. I've shot with the 100-500 for years now and it's a truly incredible lens, but comparing shots of the same subject side by side (which I have done), the 200-800 offers the same sharpness with more detail. For small birds that you really need to crop in on, the 200-800 is superior because it retains more detail with less cropping. For anything that would be closer to full frame with the 100-500 I would choose that lens simply because it's smaller and lighter.
My 100-400 II has a black lens hood...not weird to me at all.
Haha yeah, I just was surprised to see it on an RF lens. I got too addicted to the 100-500
I would like to use this for sports
It might be tough for indoor sports, but with the denoise software you can shoot 12,000+ iso confidently
Great review 🙂 Would you choose the 100-500 F7.1 Canon lens to use with the R7 over the 200-800 F7.1 for capturing birds in flight?
For birds, I’d definitely say the 200-800! I believe it focuses way better on smaller animals than the 100-500
@KrisLuckPhoto Thanks very much for that information Kris 🙂 I have heard that the 200-800 lens struggles to autofocus with the R7 and I would be concerned about its low light performance in UK and Irish weather conditions especially in winter so I was going to buy the 100-500 F7.1 lens instead.
@@stephenbolger5925 I have the R7 and the 200-800 down in Surrey. My first outing I was very disappointed fortunately results improved with familiarity. Definitely much better in brighter light. By all accounts it works better on full frame, with the R7 on static subjects it performs well though you do get the often reported issue of a slightly out of focus picture amongst the sharp. It's worse with BIF and though you think the tracking is spot on when you look later the focus is often trailing behind, the answer seems to be keep the finger down as some will be spot on. That said, it can be very sharp and the reach is amazing. I use it on a monopod as I'm too old to hold it up for long but the weight isn't an issue to carry round.
@SurreyAlan I think the 200-800 would be a much better performer on the new R5ii when than comes out or the R6ii but then you are losing the crop factor. My friend uses the 800F11 lens on the R5 and R7 and the R5 is much better. Hopefully whenever the R7ii comes out it's autofucus system and high iso performance will be much better and maybe we can dream of a stacked sensor too. In my opinion the R7 is a mirrorless upgrade of the 90D and not a mirrorless upgrade of the 7Dii. The R7 is a very good camera in good light but an average performer in poor light.