Ron, great info in your video. Yesterday I received my 200-800 and wanted to see how it stood up on the R7 comparing it to the 100-500 with the 1.4. (Yes I also saw the other video…) As a bird shooter, when I use the 100-500 I almost always have the 1.4 on it and am happy with the sharpness and detail so that’s what I compared to the 200-800 without a convertor. After shooting a resolution chart with both lenses on the R7, and evaluating the files in Photoshop I could see no significant differences in the photos. The shots were taken indoors at about 35 feet on a heavy tripod, cable release, electronic shutter, with and without stabilization. So Ron, I would have to agree with you that the R7 and the 200- 800 will make a very useful combo.
Thank you for adding your testing results. It is always great to have as many people bring information to the table as possible so others can make well informed decisions.
I tested the R7 with the 100-500 and 1.4x TC and was disappointed with the results. In fact, that combination wide open at f/10 did worse than the 200-800 at f/9. If you are satisfied with the results using the R7 100-500 + 1.4x combo, the 200-800 will be great for you on the R7. Surprisingly, the budget 800 f/11 did the best of the three. I got my best results with the 200-800 shortened to just over 700mm and stopped down to F10 on the R7.
Excellent combo. I’m not a bird shooter but Canon need to fulfil all their orders as seeing 5+ months waiting time. That is nerve racking! I just picked up the trusty EF 100-400ii L for the odd occasion when I’m not shooting sports. Some great value to be had in that used market.
Agreed, and the EF lenses adapted to the RF mount really work well for the most part. If you need max performance go with RF to RF but if you don't EF to RF works well. Thanks for watching and commenting.
I run a R8 and 100-500 combo and absolutely love it! I just picked up the R7 for when I need a bit more reach and in good lighting. Also have the 1.4x when needed. So far very happy having the option of good low light performance and the ability to reach out and not stuck with one or the other. Most of my photography is in Southern Oregon around the Rogue River and out in the Klamath Marsh area. Appreciate the videos and real-world reviews!
It's funny took them to Kenya, and I spent the entire trip using them. It was great, and I come back and people are telling me it out resolves the lens. And I look at my images...and yep some heat haze I don't normally see on primes and some colour cast in bad light, overall very sharp shots, very very snappy focus and nice crisp images. I think the majority of folks making videos based on charts, aren't really people I would run to for sharp, or even good images usually. I'm with you buddy, as usual. It's a quality combo, you get a lot for a little.
I agree, the issue I see with my images on the R7 and 200-800 combo really seems to stem from the noise at higher ISO settings masking detail in my birds and heat wave issues being magnified. Also, it is just a demanding combo to shoot for action. You need to be very accurate with your panning and shooting a bit higher shutter speeds than normal to maximize the number of sharp shots. Thanks as always for watching and commenting. Always good to hear your views on these subjects.
Great video. I think a lot of people looking at this lens a) compare it to the 100-500 and b) simply watch the videos where they’re simply shooting test charts. I’ve had it for a couple months now and with all the migratory birds in western Canada it’s been a real great experience having that reach. Most talk about all zoomed out to 800 (and yes, I shoot there a lot), but I’ve found that even at 500-700 the lens produces very sharp results, and I believe only 1/3 stop off from the fantastic 100-500. Honestly, my 100-400 wasn’t enough (on R7), so I wasn’t crazy about spending $3800 on the 100-500 just for another 100mm. The way I see it, that extra 500-800 is just bonus on the 200-800. Also, coming out of winter with lots of bright snow in the backgrounds of my shots, I’ve been very impressed with the lack of CA. For the money, this is a fantastic and very fun lens to use.
I added camo to my 100-500 just like you did and will add it to 200-800 when I receive it. A suggestion: To kill the bright white on the knurled control ring I covered it with Gaffers Tape. It covers up the bright white and has a nice tactile feel. Some folks have been really angered by the shortages on this lens. I have learned that Canon is not experiencing hundreds of backorders but thousands. Sorry chums. That is the way it rolls.
Hey, thanks for the suggestion. Good idea for sure. Regarding the shortage, it is just the way of the world now. I don't like it either, but nothing we lowly humans can do.
I have an R7 with an RF 100-400mm and RF 800 F/11 "budget lenses". For about the same price I can buy a used R6 in excellent condition or the RF 200-800mm lens. Which would be a better choice and why? Thanks.
Great and fair video. I have had my 200 to 800 for just one week, and tried it with both my R7 and R6. I agree entirely, the lens is more difficult to use with the R7 and I found you have to nail the exposure. I get fewer keepers than withe R6 due to autofocus missing occasionally. However I am really impressed with iq and the close focusing. It has a place alongside my 100 to 500
I prefer the 200 = 800 on my r6 but i will try the r7 on a tripod and see how i get on but if anyone got any doubts about the 200 = 800 rf lens I think you should forget them it's a fantastic lens.
Hey, thanks for watching. What shutter mode I use depends on the type of subject/scenario I am shooting. The R7 has a lot of rolling shutter affect when electronic shutter is used, but it is much easier to pan with a flying bird while using electronic shutter versus mechanical. So, if the subject has very fast wing movements and/or the background has vertical elements that will be noticeably distorted by this issue, I will use mechanical shutter. If I think I can shoot the scenario and not have these issues then I will use the electronic shutter to increase ease of panning and to gain frames per second if needed. This camera presents a compromise that needs to be dealt with given the rolling shutter affect associated with the electronic shutter. I hope this helps.
I was about to disagree with you, but when you said "in good light", then I totally agree with you. R7 and 200-800 is a great combo in good light. In low light or heavily overcast, I will use R5 and 200-800 because R5 has way better noise performance. I use mechanical shutter, especially hummingbird in flight, with the R7 which has poor rolling shutter. Do you use electronic shutter full time with this combo?
The R3 on the 200-800 is even better in low light. That combo is my favorite for a zoom combo right now. I do not use the electronic shutter (ES) full time on the R7 for the reason you stated. I pick my times to use the ES so I can take advantage of the better panning performance as seen through the viewfinder and the higher frames per second. Otherwise, I use the mechanical shutter to deal with rolling shutter issues. Thanks so much for watching and commenting. Always good to hear from you.
@@whistlingwingsphotographyI am so torn. I have the 600mm f4 II and I love it so much that using the 100-500L with the 1.4x never gives me what I’m used to (obviously). You can sometimes get a decent background and make it work, but the big glass is so addictive. Do you think the 200-800 is worth selling the 100-500L for? I use the R3 also but don’t like using the TC combo with 100-500 so debating selling it. Did you end up selling your 100-500? Thanks I’m debating buying the 200-800.
@@gary_michael_flanagan_wildlife I sold my 100-500. The 200-800mm range is so much more useful for what I do, which is mostly birds and birds in flight. I love the 200-800, but as you state, you will find it more challenging to get the creamy backgrounds. However, sometimes have a bit more detail in the BG to give your image context is not a bad thing.
@@whistlingwingsphotography thanks. Yeah that does make a lot of sense. Sometimes it just gets so laborious luggging a big rig around also. I was deep in the forest in this one location here in NC and the warbler is so close that the 200-800 is much easier to get into position and help me seek through the thickets to get him on his perch. It’s a lot harder to move the big lens around to get the bird. I definitely have missed a few shots because of the movement needed to use the bigger lens. I’m selling the 500mm now so I think the 200-800 would be perfect. Especially for my beach images with more light. You sold me haha thanks
It's ok to say Hell on RUclips. :) You have some nice shots in this video but they don't seem quite as sharp as what you normally share. I had a comment about my images not being as sharp as usual on one of my first videos about the 200-800. It took me a while to admit it, but it's true. But, if you really like the results you are getting with the 200-800 on the R7, go for it! I'm still on the fence about selling mine. I'll never sell the 100-500.
I think the lack of tack sharpness is more due to how I resized the images for the video. Did you go to my Smug Mug gallery. The images are pretty sharp. Thanks for watching and commenting. Always appreciated.
Any lack of sharpness in the images taken with the 200-800 are definitely an issue with the photographer (i.e., me) and not the capability of the lens. If it were the lens then I would not be getting any tack sharp images from the lens and this is certainly not the case. The R7 and 200-800 combo is a very capable but demanding system to shoot.
@@whistlingwingsphotography I appreciate your humility in taking the blame instead of putting it on the lens. However, in my experience, I can get tack-sharp images with many lenses on the R7 including the budget 800 f/11 but the images from the 200-800, especially wide open at f/9 are always just a little below the level of sharpness I can get with other lenses. Using the 200-800 with a lower resolution body like the R6 Mark II I can get results that are much closer to the level of sharpness that I'm used to getting with other lenses. This is the reason for the resolving power versus pixel density theory. My video was shared in a 200-800 group on Facebook and many people became upset about my questioning their new lens and how it worked on the R7. Then they posted examples of their images made with the 200-800 and the R7. Every one of them was soft. Every single one. So, I don't know, maybe the problem is me and you and all of those people but I think it's more likely that the problem is the lens and its lack of ability to resolve enough for a 32.5mp 1.6 crop sensor.
Could be the case. I will keep testing the combo and maybe I will come around to the same conclusion. Thanks for providing input. It is valuable for others to get all the information possible.
I'm going to California soon and am planning on renting a more powerful camera to take pictures of various wildlife, mainly birds. But I can't figure out if the r3 or the r7 would be best... honestly not sure which of the cameras has a longer focal length?
No problem in low light photography. The advancement in chip capabilities is going very fast. In no time we will have Very light sensitive chips. Then tbere will be no need to use high ISO😊😊😊
I have never really used lens buttons much. I tend to hit them when I don't want to and so I don't set them to do anything major. The control ring I use to change my focus area. I find it quick and thus like that set up. Thanks so much for watching.
Unfortunately I can't say the same as you, today I returned this lens which I have been waiting for since February,. On my R5 it works almost perfectly but on my R7 it is not the heavenly combination as you say.. the photos are not sharp no matter what speed or aperture is used... So.. I dreamed so much about this combination because as you say it could be the heavenly combination.. for me it is the other part, the same one that you don't even want to mention..Thank you so much for your videos and nice information,,
The R7 and 200-800mm is a very demanding combo to use there is no doubt about that. I still produce some very nice images with the combo, but it is def. not my go to combo. Thanks so much for watching and the kind words. My goal is to provide real-world input that is useful.
@whistlingwingsphotography thank you so much. Maybe my copy wasn't good enough to match my R7. You are right; many people say it is a great combo, and I believed it, but for me, it didn't work. Instead, I bought a Fujifilm XF 150-600mm (much, much better than the 200-800). It's a great combo with my Fujifilm X-T5.
I feel your pain. I hate how it is taking so long for companies to make available the products they announce. I hope you get yours soon. Thanks for watching and commenting.
Always find good information in your videos even though I don't shoot Canon. However, I have learned enough from watching you to help a friend set up her new R6 and 100-500mm lens. I'll reconsider Canon as a camera for me when the R7 Mk 2 comes out and, perhaps, they smooth out some of the rough edges in the current model.
Hey, thanks so much for the kind words and for watching. I agree, the R7 as it stands leaves a lot to be desired. The rolling shutter with the electronic shutter is the main issue I have. That should be gone with the R7II.
I think it is exactly that for some folks. I find it a very demanding combo to shoot, but when I concentrate and pay attention to what I am doing and the conditions I am shooting in my results are very good with this combination.
You always have great content, but..... I absolutely hate it when people claim that crop sensors give you a longer effective focal length. The resolution of your system depends on the focal length of the lens, the CMOS element sensor sizes, and the quality of the lens. Focal length is focal length, period. Why not just take your camera body, hook it up to an 8" Celestron tube assembly, and hand hold it for bird photography????
Wow! No need to get angry. Of course, 800mm is 800mm. A lens' focal length is what it is and will never change. Questions, so I may grow in my knowledge and understanding. If putting a lens made for a full-frame sensor camera on a cropped-sensor body does not give a photographer more realized focal length from said lens, then what is happening? Why does the bird look so much larger in the frame as compared to when the lens is mounted on a full-frame sensor body? Given all the pixels on the sensors are being used (we are not cropping the sensor/image) in both cases (cropped versus full-frame sensor body), would there not be more pixels on the bird with the cropped sensor, given the bird is filling much more of the frame. Would the increase in pixels on the bird not result in more potential resolution/detail on the bird? Is this not at least similar to using a longer focal length lens? I understand that pixel "quality" is affected by many things including lens quality, sensor design, shake, atmospheric conditions, etc. And whether the potential increase in resolution is actually realized depends on the many aforementioned factors. Thank you for helping me understand this issue.
I did a lot of testing comparing the 100-500 and the 200-800. I am a professional wildlife photographer that started out shooting film way back when. The lenses being produced today are just so good, especially the zooms, as compared to just a few years ago. Don't go by "L" versus non-"L." Pro quality versus consumer? Labels do not matter. You will miss out on some great lenes if you go by price and label. I sold my 100-500 and kept the 200-800 because the IQ is great (show me a real world difference between the two lenses) and the zoom range fits bird photography much better than the 100-500 for me. I have always taken advantage of teleconverters when needed, but they can slow you down and cause issues at times. The 200-800 gets me to 800mm without any of these potential issues and all the way down to 200 when the birds fly close. In the end, you need to try each lens for yourself and then make an informed decision based on your use cases. Videos like this one can help, but they are no substitute for using the lenses. Thanks so much for watching and commenting.
Jan Wegener images with this combo are tack sharp and he compared it with the RF 100-500 with teleconverter in various focal lenghts. It was always consistent. In reality the RF 100-500 and the RF 200-800 similarly work good and bad with the R7. There's practically no difference except a slight advantage on IQ as for RF 100-500 when it has no TC and reach as far as the 200-800 . IQ is even better on the 200-800 when 100-500 has TC on the far end of the focal range.
I have found that my images are just as sharp with the 200-800 as with the 100-500 on the R7. I sold my 100-500 and kept the 200-800, so I guess that says something. If nothing else it signals I value the 200-800 range more than the 100-500 range for the work I do. There just are not many "bad" combos out there among the newest mirrorless bodies and lens. If I can't make good images I certainly do not look at the camera and lens, I look in the mirror. Thanks for watching and commenting.
In reality, no one camera or one lens can do everything perfect in all situations. There will be compromises but this combo is not too bad for this reach has relatively high resolution.
By no means its a perfect lens. By no means it's a perfect camera. Because there's always going to be the $15k us. 600 F/4 and R5 or R3. But this whole combo costs around $3.5k depending on where you're in the world but no matter where you are, it costs significantly less. Will I buy this lens? maybe, cause I already have sigma 150-600 and I'm pretty happy with it. But man if the autofocus system works better with the R7 with that lens, It's well worth it. F9 sounds bad but it's no big deal for daylight. And to be honest the only reason why I'd pay a fortune for a 600 F/4 is because of the ability to take 2 times converters with not much of an IQ reduction and therefore get even more reach. However it's light. It's cheap. It may really be well worth the buck. I just need to lend one and see for myself how I can handle the thing to decide to pay a fortune or pay 2k.
Every You-Tuber is hawking the 200-800. Been waiting for mine since Nov. 3, 2023 and there is no delivery date on the horizon. Nice video that is totally irrelevant to the consumer. Might as well do a promo for the R5 MkII.
Well, at some point the lens will be widely available and then videos like this and others will have served a purpose as you will know at least a bit more about what type of performance you can expect. Thanks for watching and taking the time to comment. It is much appreciated.
Im puzzled why they still make TC for digital it was original popular for 35mm film cameras 30 years ago. With digital you just don't need them as the penalty is loss of light slower shutter and higher ISO no good for freezing action or sunset early morning shooting . Clearly your set up is optimised with no penalty and save money on these really expensive TC's accessories a waste of money and time .Nikon and Canon really push them with Z and Rf mounts, I think they are targeting the hobby people all the gear no idea people who still don't get, iso, shutter and f stops penalty when these are used .
You are joking, right? The penalties are the penalties, same as they have always been. If you are shooting with an f4 supertele, which is what teleconverters are designed to be used with, a 1.4 teleconverter isn't that much of a penalty (f5.6). Many photographers would rather be optically closer in the camera than crop in post. It helps visualize the final image easier. I'm not a big fan of 2x's, and clearly, with a lens like the 200-800, even a 1.4 is impractical, but with a prime 2.8 or f4.0 lens they can be invaluable tools....even for pros!
@@r2hildur there is you loose a full stop of light your iso and shutter speeds are compromised in lower lighting situations forces up iso or slows shutters plus iq is not same focus points can be compromised due to higher f stop numbers. Fixed focal lengths, better to set you 45 mp to DX 1.5 crop becomes 20mp is still plenty , then you get 750mm @ f 4 much better your shutter and iso better . faster and lower not slower and higher too get correct exposures . It's camera physics, not a point of view or a feeling it's real .
I have an R3 with 100-500, and the 1.4x almost lives between those two. There’s very little drop in image quality. Ok, autofocus may struggle in low light, but I don’t fit it if I think that will be an issue. As ever, it’s nice to have choices, and mirrorless is light years ahead of dSLR tech when it comes to lens choices and maximum apertures. Move on, it’s a beautiful world out there.
@@christophercarlimages9003 I think you’re missing the elephant in the room: Price Have you seen the price of the RF telephoto primes, and then the RF 100-400, 100-500 and 200-800 lenses? Also, with a 600mm prime, I’d find it very difficult to find a bird in flight in the first place. £15,000 is beyond the reach of ‘normal’ photographers, whereas £2,000-3,000 is achievable. I’ve spoken to a few bird photographers recently who still carried their big EF primes for a while, to use with their RF zooms. They don’t anymore, they’re all selling them while they still have value.
Ron, great info in your video.
Yesterday I received my 200-800 and wanted to see how it stood up on the R7 comparing it to the 100-500 with the 1.4.
(Yes I also saw the other video…)
As a bird shooter, when I use the 100-500 I almost always have the 1.4 on it and am happy with the sharpness and detail so that’s what I compared to the 200-800 without a convertor.
After shooting a resolution chart with both lenses on the R7, and evaluating the files in Photoshop I could see no significant differences in the photos.
The shots were taken indoors at about 35 feet on a heavy tripod, cable release, electronic shutter, with and without stabilization.
So Ron, I would have to agree with you that the R7 and the 200- 800 will make a very useful combo.
Thank you for adding your testing results. It is always great to have as many people bring information to the table as possible so others can make well informed decisions.
I tested the R7 with the 100-500 and 1.4x TC and was disappointed with the results. In fact, that combination wide open at f/10 did worse than the 200-800 at f/9. If you are satisfied with the results using the R7 100-500 + 1.4x combo, the 200-800 will be great for you on the R7. Surprisingly, the budget 800 f/11 did the best of the three. I got my best results with the 200-800 shortened to just over 700mm and stopped down to F10 on the R7.
@@PhilThach So 200-800 or 800 mm f11?
Well Ron you are a different youtuber. You actually focus on the positive. Thanks, you always give the real world perspective.
Hey, thanks so much for watching and commenting. Always appreciated.
Excellent combo. I’m not a bird shooter but Canon need to fulfil all their orders as seeing 5+ months waiting time. That is nerve racking! I just picked up the trusty EF 100-400ii L for the odd occasion when I’m not shooting sports. Some great value to be had in that used market.
Agreed, and the EF lenses adapted to the RF mount really work well for the most part. If you need max performance go with RF to RF but if you don't EF to RF works well. Thanks for watching and commenting.
I run a R8 and 100-500 combo and absolutely love it! I just picked up the R7 for when I need a bit more reach and in good lighting. Also have the 1.4x when needed. So far very happy having the option of good low light performance and the ability to reach out and not stuck with one or the other. Most of my photography is in Southern Oregon around the Rogue River and out in the Klamath Marsh area.
Appreciate the videos and real-world reviews!
It's funny took them to Kenya, and I spent the entire trip using them. It was great, and I come back and people are telling me it out resolves the lens. And I look at my images...and yep some heat haze I don't normally see on primes and some colour cast in bad light, overall very sharp shots, very very snappy focus and nice crisp images. I think the majority of folks making videos based on charts, aren't really people I would run to for sharp, or even good images usually. I'm with you buddy, as usual. It's a quality combo, you get a lot for a little.
I agree, the issue I see with my images on the R7 and 200-800 combo really seems to stem from the noise at higher ISO settings masking detail in my birds and heat wave issues being magnified. Also, it is just a demanding combo to shoot for action. You need to be very accurate with your panning and shooting a bit higher shutter speeds than normal to maximize the number of sharp shots. Thanks as always for watching and commenting. Always good to hear your views on these subjects.
Great video. I think a lot of people looking at this lens a) compare it to the 100-500 and b) simply watch the videos where they’re simply shooting test charts. I’ve had it for a couple months now and with all the migratory birds in western Canada it’s been a real great experience having that reach. Most talk about all zoomed out to 800 (and yes, I shoot there a lot), but I’ve found that even at 500-700 the lens produces very sharp results, and I believe only 1/3 stop off from the fantastic 100-500. Honestly, my 100-400 wasn’t enough (on R7), so I wasn’t crazy about spending $3800 on the 100-500 just for another 100mm. The way I see it, that extra 500-800 is just bonus on the 200-800. Also, coming out of winter with lots of bright snow in the backgrounds of my shots, I’ve been very impressed with the lack of CA. For the money, this is a fantastic and very fun lens to use.
I added camo to my 100-500 just like you did and will add it to 200-800 when I receive it. A suggestion: To kill the bright white on the knurled control ring I covered it with Gaffers Tape. It covers up the bright white and has a nice tactile feel.
Some folks have been really angered by the shortages on this lens. I have learned that Canon is not experiencing hundreds of backorders but thousands. Sorry chums. That is the way it rolls.
Hey, thanks for the suggestion. Good idea for sure. Regarding the shortage, it is just the way of the world now. I don't like it either, but nothing we lowly humans can do.
You have been our "go to" for all information on Canon. Keep up the videos and beautiful pictures.
Thanks, will do! And thanks for the continued support. Have a wonderful day.
great video - I have R5 and R7 and this lens. I have yet to notice any issues.
Thanks for sharing. Always good to hear from you and your experiences. Adds greatly to the discussion.
I have an R7 with an RF 100-400mm and RF 800 F/11 "budget lenses". For about the same price I can buy a used R6 in excellent condition or the RF 200-800mm lens. Which would be a better choice and why? Thanks.
Great and fair video. I have had my 200 to 800 for just one week, and tried it with both my R7 and R6. I agree entirely, the lens is more difficult to use with the R7 and I found you have to nail the exposure. I get fewer keepers than withe R6 due to autofocus missing occasionally. However I am really impressed with iq and the close focusing. It has a place alongside my 100 to 500
Thanks for sharing. Always good to hear other peoples' assessments.
Haven't tried the 200-800, but the long throw and the front end weight extension would probably be a no go for me.
Just FYI, the throw is no longer than on the 100-500. Thanks for watching and commenting.
I prefer the 200 = 800 on my r6 but i will try the r7 on a tripod and see how i get on but if anyone got any doubts about the 200 = 800 rf lens I think you should forget them it's a fantastic lens.
Thanks so much for watching and adding your experiences. Really is appreciated.
Awesome video Ron. One question... What shutter Mode do you prefer (Mechanical, 1st curtain, or Electronic) with these combo? Thanks!
Hey, thanks for watching. What shutter mode I use depends on the type of subject/scenario I am shooting. The R7 has a lot of rolling shutter affect when electronic shutter is used, but it is much easier to pan with a flying bird while using electronic shutter versus mechanical. So, if the subject has very fast wing movements and/or the background has vertical elements that will be noticeably distorted by this issue, I will use mechanical shutter. If I think I can shoot the scenario and not have these issues then I will use the electronic shutter to increase ease of panning and to gain frames per second if needed. This camera presents a compromise that needs to be dealt with given the rolling shutter affect associated with the electronic shutter. I hope this helps.
Fantástic! Really helpful 🤝
Winter and overcast in South Wester Norway is ISO 25 600. That is with a EF 600 F/4 + 1.4 TC.
Yep, not a good place for this combo. Thanks for watching and commenting.
Where do you get the lens camouflage?
Awesome video. Thyou, i would like to ask what is that camouflge material for this lens? Th you
Thanks Ron! We get a mixture of good and bad light here, including snowing today 4/5/24.
I get it. We all deal with both the good and the bad.
Ron, thank you for once again providing some great insight on Canon gear. Always appreciate hearing your point of view 😊
My pleasure! Thank you for continuing to watch my channel. I look forward to hearing you.
I was about to disagree with you, but when you said "in good light", then I totally agree with you. R7 and 200-800 is a great combo in good light. In low light or heavily overcast, I will use R5 and 200-800 because R5 has way better noise performance. I use mechanical shutter, especially hummingbird in flight, with the R7 which has poor rolling shutter. Do you use electronic shutter full time with this combo?
The R3 on the 200-800 is even better in low light. That combo is my favorite for a zoom combo right now. I do not use the electronic shutter (ES) full time on the R7 for the reason you stated. I pick my times to use the ES so I can take advantage of the better panning performance as seen through the viewfinder and the higher frames per second. Otherwise, I use the mechanical shutter to deal with rolling shutter issues. Thanks so much for watching and commenting. Always good to hear from you.
@@whistlingwingsphotographyI am so torn. I have the 600mm f4 II and I love it so much that using the 100-500L with the 1.4x never gives me what I’m used to (obviously). You can sometimes get a decent background and make it work, but the big glass is so addictive. Do you think the 200-800 is worth selling the 100-500L for? I use the R3 also but don’t like using the TC combo with 100-500 so debating selling it. Did you end up selling your 100-500? Thanks I’m debating buying the 200-800.
@@gary_michael_flanagan_wildlife I sold my 100-500. The 200-800mm range is so much more useful for what I do, which is mostly birds and birds in flight. I love the 200-800, but as you state, you will find it more challenging to get the creamy backgrounds. However, sometimes have a bit more detail in the BG to give your image context is not a bad thing.
@@whistlingwingsphotography thanks. Yeah that does make a lot of sense. Sometimes it just gets so laborious luggging a big rig around also. I was deep in the forest in this one location here in NC and the warbler is so close that the 200-800 is much easier to get into position and help me seek through the thickets to get him on his perch. It’s a lot harder to move the big lens around to get the bird. I definitely have missed a few shots because of the movement needed to use the bigger lens. I’m selling the 500mm now so I think the 200-800 would be perfect. Especially for my beach images with more light. You sold me haha thanks
It's ok to say Hell on RUclips. :) You have some nice shots in this video but they don't seem quite as sharp as what you normally share. I had a comment about my images not being as sharp as usual on one of my first videos about the 200-800. It took me a while to admit it, but it's true. But, if you really like the results you are getting with the 200-800 on the R7, go for it! I'm still on the fence about selling mine. I'll never sell the 100-500.
I think the lack of tack sharpness is more due to how I resized the images for the video. Did you go to my Smug Mug gallery. The images are pretty sharp. Thanks for watching and commenting. Always appreciated.
Any lack of sharpness in the images taken with the 200-800 are definitely an issue with the photographer (i.e., me) and not the capability of the lens. If it were the lens then I would not be getting any tack sharp images from the lens and this is certainly not the case. The R7 and 200-800 combo is a very capable but demanding system to shoot.
@@whistlingwingsphotography I appreciate your humility in taking the blame instead of putting it on the lens. However, in my experience, I can get tack-sharp images with many lenses on the R7 including the budget 800 f/11 but the images from the 200-800, especially wide open at f/9 are always just a little below the level of sharpness I can get with other lenses. Using the 200-800 with a lower resolution body like the R6 Mark II I can get results that are much closer to the level of sharpness that I'm used to getting with other lenses. This is the reason for the resolving power versus pixel density theory. My video was shared in a 200-800 group on Facebook and many people became upset about my questioning their new lens and how it worked on the R7. Then they posted examples of their images made with the 200-800 and the R7. Every one of them was soft. Every single one. So, I don't know, maybe the problem is me and you and all of those people but I think it's more likely that the problem is the lens and its lack of ability to resolve enough for a 32.5mp 1.6 crop sensor.
Could be the case. I will keep testing the combo and maybe I will come around to the same conclusion. Thanks for providing input. It is valuable for others to get all the information possible.
@@PhilThach Facebook immensely degrades the sharpness/quality of photos once they're posted, could be a reason for the softness?
Another really useful ,informative video Ron, thanks a lot.
Very welcome. I am glad you found it informative. Have a wonderful day.
I'm going to California soon and am planning on renting a more powerful camera to take pictures of various wildlife, mainly birds. But I can't figure out if the r3 or the r7 would be best... honestly not sure which of the cameras has a longer focal length?
No problem in low light photography.
The advancement in chip capabilities is going very fast.
In no time we will have Very light sensitive chips.
Then tbere will be no need to use high ISO😊😊😊
Ron interested to know how you have setup the control ring and button selection on the Lens ( RF 200-800mm ) maybe for a future video 👍
I have never really used lens buttons much. I tend to hit them when I don't want to and so I don't set them to do anything major. The control ring I use to change my focus area. I find it quick and thus like that set up. Thanks so much for watching.
@@whistlingwingsphotography Thank you Ron 👌
Unfortunately I can't say the same as you, today I returned this lens which I have been waiting for since February,. On my R5 it works almost perfectly but on my R7 it is not the heavenly combination as you say.. the photos are not sharp no matter what speed or aperture is used... So.. I dreamed so much about this combination because as you say it could be the heavenly combination.. for me it is the other part, the same one that you don't even want to mention..Thank you so much for your videos and nice information,,
The R7 and 200-800mm is a very demanding combo to use there is no doubt about that. I still produce some very nice images with the combo, but it is def. not my go to combo. Thanks so much for watching and the kind words. My goal is to provide real-world input that is useful.
@whistlingwingsphotography thank you so much. Maybe my copy wasn't good enough to match my R7. You are right; many people say it is a great combo, and I believed it, but for me, it didn't work. Instead, I bought a Fujifilm XF 150-600mm (much, much better than the 200-800). It's a great combo with my Fujifilm X-T5.
Beautiful photos! Hoping to have my lens by fall migration since it doesn't look like it's coming anytime soon.
I feel your pain. I hate how it is taking so long for companies to make available the products they announce. I hope you get yours soon. Thanks for watching and commenting.
Always find good information in your videos even though I don't shoot Canon. However, I have learned enough from watching you to help a friend set up her new R6 and 100-500mm lens. I'll reconsider Canon as a camera for me when the R7 Mk 2 comes out and, perhaps, they smooth out some of the rough edges in the current model.
Hey, thanks so much for the kind words and for watching. I agree, the R7 as it stands leaves a lot to be desired. The rolling shutter with the electronic shutter is the main issue I have. That should be gone with the R7II.
I have heard some say it doesn't resolve on the R7 but I wonder if it's not to much lens for them with the R7
I think it is exactly that for some folks. I find it a very demanding combo to shoot, but when I concentrate and pay attention to what I am doing and the conditions I am shooting in my results are very good with this combination.
You always have great content, but..... I absolutely hate it when people claim that crop sensors give you a longer effective focal length. The resolution of your system depends on the focal length of the lens, the CMOS element sensor sizes, and the quality of the lens. Focal length is focal length, period. Why not just take your camera body, hook it up to an 8" Celestron tube assembly, and hand hold it for bird photography????
Wow! No need to get angry. Of course, 800mm is 800mm. A lens' focal length is what it is and will never change. Questions, so I may grow in my knowledge and understanding. If putting a lens made for a full-frame sensor camera on a cropped-sensor body does not give a photographer more realized focal length from said lens, then what is happening? Why does the bird look so much larger in the frame as compared to when the lens is mounted on a full-frame sensor body? Given all the pixels on the sensors are being used (we are not cropping the sensor/image) in both cases (cropped versus full-frame sensor body), would there not be more pixels on the bird with the cropped sensor, given the bird is filling much more of the frame. Would the increase in pixels on the bird not result in more potential resolution/detail on the bird? Is this not at least similar to using a longer focal length lens? I understand that pixel "quality" is affected by many things including lens quality, sensor design, shake, atmospheric conditions, etc. And whether the potential increase in resolution is actually realized depends on the many aforementioned factors. Thank you for helping me understand this issue.
Great unbiased opinion, thanks for the information. I'm still on the fence about: 100-500 or 200-800.
@@TheNewMexicoMan Thank you for that. I shoot the R5 and R7 so I can get 800 reach with my R7.
I did a lot of testing comparing the 100-500 and the 200-800. I am a professional wildlife photographer that started out shooting film way back when. The lenses being produced today are just so good, especially the zooms, as compared to just a few years ago. Don't go by "L" versus non-"L." Pro quality versus consumer? Labels do not matter. You will miss out on some great lenes if you go by price and label. I sold my 100-500 and kept the 200-800 because the IQ is great (show me a real world difference between the two lenses) and the zoom range fits bird photography much better than the 100-500 for me. I have always taken advantage of teleconverters when needed, but they can slow you down and cause issues at times. The 200-800 gets me to 800mm without any of these potential issues and all the way down to 200 when the birds fly close. In the end, you need to try each lens for yourself and then make an informed decision based on your use cases. Videos like this one can help, but they are no substitute for using the lenses. Thanks so much for watching and commenting.
@@whistlingwingsphotography much appreciated.
Pretty good combo. Thanks.
Thanks for watching and taking the time to comment.
У меня объектив 200-800 работает в связке с R5 для съемок дикой природы очень доволен!
Jan Wegener images with this combo are tack sharp and he compared it with the RF 100-500 with teleconverter in various focal lenghts. It was always consistent. In reality the RF 100-500 and the RF 200-800 similarly work good and bad with the R7. There's practically no difference except a slight advantage on IQ as for RF 100-500 when it has no TC and reach as far as the 200-800 . IQ is even better on the 200-800 when 100-500 has TC on the far end of the focal range.
I have found that my images are just as sharp with the 200-800 as with the 100-500 on the R7. I sold my 100-500 and kept the 200-800, so I guess that says something. If nothing else it signals I value the 200-800 range more than the 100-500 range for the work I do. There just are not many "bad" combos out there among the newest mirrorless bodies and lens. If I can't make good images I certainly do not look at the camera and lens, I look in the mirror. Thanks for watching and commenting.
In reality, no one camera or one lens can do everything perfect in all situations. There will be compromises but this combo is not too bad for this reach has relatively high resolution.
Absolutely agree, their is no one perfect tool. For the price this combo is pretty nice for bird photography as long as you have the light.
we all suffer from the low light issues, you gotta get a little more creative inthose situations use your disadvantage as an advantage.
I agree. There is nothing wrong with creative blurs for example. Thanks so much for watching and commenting.
By no means its a perfect lens. By no means it's a perfect camera. Because there's always going to be the $15k us. 600 F/4 and R5 or R3. But this whole combo costs around $3.5k depending on where you're in the world but no matter where you are, it costs significantly less. Will I buy this lens? maybe, cause I already have sigma 150-600 and I'm pretty happy with it. But man if the autofocus system works better with the R7 with that lens, It's well worth it. F9 sounds bad but it's no big deal for daylight. And to be honest the only reason why I'd pay a fortune for a 600 F/4 is because of the ability to take 2 times converters with not much of an IQ reduction and therefore get even more reach. However it's light. It's cheap. It may really be well worth the buck. I just need to lend one and see for myself how I can handle the thing to decide to pay a fortune or pay 2k.
Every You-Tuber is hawking the 200-800. Been waiting for mine since Nov. 3, 2023 and there is no delivery date on the horizon. Nice video that is totally irrelevant to the consumer. Might as well do a promo for the R5 MkII.
Well, at some point the lens will be widely available and then videos like this and others will have served a purpose as you will know at least a bit more about what type of performance you can expect. Thanks for watching and taking the time to comment. It is much appreciated.
Im puzzled why they still make TC for digital it was original popular for 35mm film cameras 30 years ago. With digital you just don't need them as the penalty is loss of light slower shutter and higher ISO no good for freezing action or sunset early morning shooting . Clearly your set up is optimised with no penalty and save money on these really expensive TC's accessories a waste of money and time .Nikon and Canon really push them with Z and Rf mounts, I think they are targeting the hobby people all the gear no idea people who still don't get, iso, shutter and f stops penalty when these are used .
You are joking, right? The penalties are the penalties, same as they have always been. If you are shooting with an f4 supertele, which is what teleconverters are designed to be used with, a 1.4 teleconverter isn't that much of a penalty (f5.6). Many photographers would rather be optically closer in the camera than crop in post. It helps visualize the final image easier. I'm not a big fan of 2x's, and clearly, with a lens like the 200-800, even a 1.4 is impractical, but with a prime 2.8 or f4.0 lens they can be invaluable tools....even for pros!
@@r2hildur there is you loose a full stop of light your iso and shutter speeds are compromised in lower lighting situations forces up iso or slows shutters plus iq is not same focus points can be compromised due to higher f stop numbers. Fixed focal lengths, better to set you 45 mp to DX 1.5 crop becomes 20mp is still plenty , then you get 750mm @ f 4 much better your shutter and iso better . faster and lower not slower and higher too get correct exposures . It's camera physics, not a point of view or a feeling it's real .
I have an R3 with 100-500, and the 1.4x almost lives between those two. There’s very little drop in image quality. Ok, autofocus may struggle in low light, but I don’t fit it if I think that will be an issue.
As ever, it’s nice to have choices, and mirrorless is light years ahead of dSLR tech when it comes to lens choices and maximum apertures.
Move on, it’s a beautiful world out there.
A tc with a fast prime is always better than a slow zoom. Not even a debate about IQ and focus performance. The only downside is size.
@@christophercarlimages9003 I think you’re missing the elephant in the room:
Price
Have you seen the price of the RF telephoto primes, and then the RF 100-400, 100-500 and 200-800 lenses?
Also, with a 600mm prime, I’d find it very difficult to find a bird in flight in the first place.
£15,000 is beyond the reach of ‘normal’ photographers, whereas £2,000-3,000 is achievable.
I’ve spoken to a few bird photographers recently who still carried their big EF primes for a while, to use with their RF zooms. They don’t anymore, they’re all selling them while they still have value.
I attended Catholic elementary school and we were always allowed to name the other place.
Ha! Well, just in case, I need to make sure I don't offend anyone.