At this point I am going to keep my 100-500 RF mated with my R5. I love the size of it and can maneuver around quickly. Most I have ever need to go with it is a monopod and it doubles as a walking stick. Part of the enjoyment for me is moving around and getting as close as I feasibly can get to the wildlife. The 100-500 is that lens for me.
Great video Brent. I will for sure get this lens. For me, I don't see any problems with the f9. I mostly use f8 for my bird photos, to get the dof i need to get the whole bird in focus. And when it comes to the picture quality, i am sure that Canon would not release this lens if it could not compare to the Sony 200-600, and the Nikon 180-600. About the f9: A lot of people are complaining about it and say that it's unusable, and the same thay did when the 100-500 did come. f7.1 was not usable neither. But when they see the results it did give, the opinion changed. So to all you people out there complaining. Stop with that until you see the results from real life use. Then you can give your opinion about how it is. Cheers, Bjoern. A Norwegian living in south Brazil
Brent, after i got off of the floor from falling over in shock i gave you a super thanks for a great review (as usual) . my shock was over you selling your 100/500. i think i have convinced at least ten people to buy this lens. " brent hall says this is the best lens ever!". And i totally agreed. rarely is any wildlife so close that a 100mm doesn't work and as you have stated many times, just because you have a big zoom lens doesn't make it great for distant wildlife shots. 50% of all my wildlife photography come from this lens alone another 40% come with a 1.4 attached. the last 10% comes with my rf 600 mm f4. i did watch the video twice to make sure i heard correctly. thanks for all the great info and your honest opinions.
Agree with what you say. I’ve got a mark i 500mm f4 and it’s a beast, but is epic at the same time. Also got the 100-500 which I like for hiking around with, the 600f11 I rarely use and the 800mm f11 is nice for that reach. Another bonus with the older 500mm is that I can use an extender or stack the x1.4 and x2! It’s crazy! Yet I’ll probably go for the 200-800 for it’s versatility. I certainly don’t mind the apertures out at that distance.
This past summer I downsized and sold my Canon RF gear to pick up some used Panasonic micro 4/3(G9 and 100-400 in particular). If I still had a Canon, I'd certainly consider selling some stuff(I had the 800/11 and the 100-400) to buy this, but I'm happy to have the same reach in half the size/weight on my Lumix system.
Thank you for a very rational and balanced discussion of what this lens offers and given the very limited real life data so far :). Renting is a very good option for sure. BTW do you ever get out a bit further away to Bitter Lake Refuge outside of Roswell? I expected it to be a cc of Bosque but it surprised me to be a little different with more terrain variety.
Great logic! I really love everything about my 100-500. Size ✅ Image Quality✅ Versatility✅Payed For✅. I might try one of the teleconverters at some point. Thanks Brent!
Nice one Brent, I saw those images also and to be honest, I felt the lens looked too much like the 800 F11 to make it worthwhile for me. On a FF camera, with a wildlife shooter using it, this lens will 'live' in the 600-800 range as us guys always want more reach so i honestly feel it needs to be a bit sharper. Plus the bokeh really looks terrible, just like the f11. Well done on passing 100k subs by the way!
Yeah, I can understand that. I will say though, after having owned the 800 f11 for so long, if you can get some solid subject separation and have a fairly distant background and a close subject, it will blow the BG out pretty well. It's when you have the bg too close to the subject or a subject that's too far away when that particular lens really looks bad.
I agree and with BIF against a nice sky it's fine. But I'm bringing my Sigma 500 out way more to be honest. Even though it's like 5 times the weight!@@BrentHall
So I’m currently paused at 11:05. You’re talking about picking up the RF100-400 a small lens capable of wildlife photography. I just want to put this on your radar. Consider picking up a used EF 70-300L IS. These used seem to be at a similar price point to a new RF100-400. You will regain L series weather resistance, AF speed and optical quality all while being able to be used with your 1.4x III putting you at 420mm F8.
@@tonysvensson8314 actually above 250mm the TC’s do mount and work. It’s quite similar to the 100-500 not being able to fully retract with TC’s attached.
The RF 100-400 is actually a bit sharper, lighter and much faster/accurate AF than the EF 70-300mm L IS, so if I had to pick between the 2, it would be the RF 100-400 any day.
@@gavthane to each there own I suppose. I have used each and find the stm motors in the 100-400 inferior to the usm motors of the 70-300 L. Sharpness is pretty close. Shooting backlit subjects the L glass will retain more contrast. I personally prefer a weather resistant lens not just for weather but dust intrusion as well. Lastly is adaptability. Canon EF glass is the most successfully adapted lens mount around. Fringer adapters for example allow these lenses to work nearly as well as native on Nikon and Fuji. That being said let’s say you travel and your camera has a catastrophic failure you potentially have more opportunity to get up and running again.
You're welcome, I hope it helped! And funny you should mention that. I have a video about it right here: ruclips.net/video/Ifu_mLiL9Q8/видео.htmlsi=i10AxRsdzPvOI4au
I'm just a hobbyist, use the Sigma 150-600 and RF100-400 most the time with the R6mII and R7. The atmospheric distortion is a real problem I have encountered at the 600mm range. My issue is I live in middle USA, same birds, same wildlife, don't travel, everyone has the same photos of the same birds. I'm not an arca guy either, all my plates are RC200 and I use them for everything so not sure how that work with that lens. It will be an interesting lens to follow and see how the performance is on the final released version. Just not sure I want to spend 2k after taxes on another lens.
Really interesting video. I'm glad you mentioned the weight issue. It is an amazing lens and hats off to Canon for developing it but it is still too heavy for me. I emphasise, for me. For younger photographers who are in better shape (I am in my 7th decade) it will be fantastic. BTW, you mention hand holding your new super prime tele, or possibly using a monopod. I cannot recommend enough the Wimberley mono-gimbal for the monopod. I'm not a shill for the company but it is probably one of the best pieces of non-camera camera kit I have bought. Really helps me cope with heavier lenses when I need support without needed to lug around a full tripod. Would work well with your super lens.
Yeah, I think the weight of the 2-8 will probably really surprise some people, especially after hiking with it for a couple miles, or having it in the bag all day. I'll probably still look into a gimbal head and monopod at some point. It would be nice for certain things, for sure!
That was the deciding factor for me. Compared to my 100-500 and the Sigma 150-600 i tried and couldn’t carry and the weight is the killer. I can’t imagine at my age holding that weight to shoot long or hike. Sad. But that’s what you have to have for that much zoom.
good video yes that 500mm f4 is a beast. my dream lens. hope you enjoy it. I agree the RF 100-400 would be a good choice. or pick up another ef 100-400 II you wont notice much difference in image quality as their so close regarding the RF 100-500mm. cheers for the video.
Very interesting discussion of what is sure to be a popular lens with us bird photographers. I share a similar gear journey to you, having traded up almost everything last year (5D3 + lenses) to get an R5, then took out a loan for a used prime (400mm f/4 DO IS II) and 1.4x III tc. No regrets whatsoever and the performance with the tc is more than acceptable when I need the extra reach (560mm @ f/5.6). Watching your video recently "Changing My Mind About Wildlife Photography" really made think about gear and challenged my desire for a second camera body and/or tele-zoom at the time; I instead *sold* a Tamron 15-30mm lens this week that I realised I'd not used in over a year! Thank you for sharing your experiences so candidly, a lot of what you say really makes me rethink my entire approach to photography.
Have all the big whites, and my favorit is the 500 f4. Why? Becauce I then have a 500f4 and a 700 f5,6 and a1000 f8. With the 2 times converter I use f9 and its superscharp!
I shoot wildlife with the 600 f4 and the only reason I'm considering getting the 200-800 is for airshows since I use the 100-500 for those with a 1.4 effectively making it a 420-700. But we'll see what the iq is like on the 200-800 once the masses can start putting out images with it
The MTF charts published by CanonRumors predict the IQ at 800/9 to be better than the 700/10 we get from our 420-700. And for some reason, Canon themselves the 200-800 keeps better IQ using convertors than the 100-500 does.
Thanks Brent for your common sense approach in your review. My wife and I have our RF 100-500 and 1.4x and the RF 800 F11. As intriguing as the new 200-800 lens is, we have decided that we won't jump on the band wagon (for now). We are positive that the new lens will do extremely well for Canon sales and is a good lens. Thanks for another great review.
Well you've certainly got a solid setup there, so you won't be missing out really. For all those who don't have the 1-5 though, this is definitely going to be a great option.
I just got a R8 for $1200 with a 100 coupon on amazon and it has the same sensor as the R6 II but there are a few compromises, no IBIS, 1 sd card, smaller battery, lower rez efv, smaller body size(could be good if you have small hands like I do), and 6fps with the first curtain shutter. But ngl the electronic shutter at 40fps is awesome and I have only seen rolling shutter with really fast moving birds! I plan on getting the 200-800 and I'm pretty excited! I did upgrade from an old Rebel T5i so my only comparison is almost a decade old.
Oh that's awesome! I really hope to get an R8 for a travel and backup camera at some point. It's definitely an amazing camera for the price, and I'm totally cool with the lack of certain features.
Great video. I appreciate your thoughts. I bought an R on Friday from MPB, to go with my 5D iii. While the RF L lenses are amazing, I’m going to stick with EF glass for awhile. I’d rather buy a 400 f/4 DO or the 500 that you have and learn techniques to get closer that the 200-800. I am not a fan of variable aperture glass. I want lenses that work on the 5D iii and my 1-n film camera.
Oh interesting. Yeah, given that you have 3 different systems, either of those to EF lenses would make sense, being able to use them on all three mounts.
Thanks for the vid. I am considering selling my 100-500 to get a 400 2.8. I might keep it after hearing your regret in selling yours. I don’t want to carry around a $13k lens everywhere 😬
Hi Brent Would you choose the Canon 100-500 F7.1 or the Canon 200-800 lens for wildlife photography? I would be using it on the R7 for bird photography?
That depends on what you need. Do you want more reach, or less weight, slightly better IQ, better weather-sealing, wider focal length on the short end, and faster aperture? If it were me, I 'd go get my 1-5 back in a heartbeat. It was my favorite overall lens of all time and I now have my 500 as my main wildlife lens so I just need something smaller and lighter for travelling, scouting, and landscape, and for me, the 1-5 would fit that need better. But I highly doubt I'm in the same situation as you, so you just need to decide whether you want to save some money or some weight.
Thank you for sharing, your point of view is very interesting! Damien Bernal's review is very complete with the added possibility of downloading several RAW images to get an idea -) For me a test with raw images to download is always a plus! Best from France, Ludo PS: when I saw in the RAW to download in particular the image of the Cheetah with the R7 I ordered the RF200-800 directly
This will be on my radar since I shoot mostly aviation and I’m not big on 150-600’s by other manufacturers. If I’m going to lug something to an air show flight line, it might as well have Canon AF. Sigma and Tamron 150-600’s come in at just over 4 lbs. The Canon RF 200-800 is 4.5 lbs. If I’m shooting a twilight demonstration, I have a 400 2.8 and I get closer. 😉
Hi Brent. You said the tripod mount collar is non removable. Are you sure? I saw a spec somewhere that rated the weight with and without collar. I don't want it for two reasons; 1) weight and 2) I use an IFoote Cobra 3 monopod that firmly grips its mount screwed into the body base. You might want to consider that rig for your F4. It's awesome. Don't need my heavy gimbal tripod any more. Make sure it's the Cobra 3 version. Anyway, if I can't lose the tripod mount on the 200-800, it will queer me buying it which I was about to do. Please advise if you get more info on that. Thanks.
I´am definitely going to buy it. Right now a have the famous and illustrious 100-500 with either a 1,4 or a 2,0 teleconverter because I often can't get close enough to my subject. These times I don´t have to use a teleconverter I really see where this lens shines. I don't expect the same from this new 200-800 but I expect it to be better than using the teleconverters.
I use the Rf100-500 as my primary lens (I shoot nearly everything with it). I also have the 800mm f/11 which meets my "need" for detail. I would probably buy this new lens if I didn't already have the range covered. I would miss the 100-200 range and am not sure what would fill that other than buying yet another lens.
Thanks for this thorough thoughts on the 200-800. I pre-ordered one here in the Netherlands. Did you have problems with diffraction using the R5 and the Rf 800 and the Rf100-500 ??
I have the 500 II, the RF 100-400 and the 800 f/11. I will absolutely be buying this and selling the 800. It's the perfect middle ground for when I want more reach than the 100-400, but don't want to bring the 500.
I have the Tamron SP 150-600/5 - 6.3 and the RF800/11. I have looked at the RF 200-800, but Im not sure if that lens are better for me then the Tamron. Put the adapter on the Tamron, and they both weight the same. The Tamron has better apertures, image quality are probebly worse but not bad, and AF may struggle more than the RF800. Lack of money is an issue to me too, so I think I will be happier buying a used R5, and keep my lenses as they are.
If you have a lower megapixel body that does not allow for more extreme cropping, I think the RF 200-800mm makes a lot of sense, even if sharpness and contrast aren’t perfect out to 800mm. To me, there’s less of a case for the R5 or R7, particularly if you own the RF 100-500 or an older EF prime.
So far some noted the 800 quality could be better but is better than then 800 f/11 which is a win so us the zoom option and AF is. Ery good all reminiscent of RF 100-400. Yes, the primes like the 500 f/4 are always better (even EF ones) but many have to consider budget and/or weight. It looks to be a great option 🙂 Looking forward to more info and test results .
Yeah, I really do think it will be the best all around wildlife lens that Canon has moving forward. Also true, the 500 is way better, but is very niche, expensive, and heavy, and that just isn't for most people.
Hi Brent, over in Europe, Canon does state the 200-800 has L-level weather sealing. Not sure whether this is an exclusive feature for the old continent, but they charge us (including the taxes) about 25% more for this lens compared to the US and even Japan. In fact it would cost me now exactly the same amount I paid my 100-500 early last year. This doesn't help me to convince my own Camera Lady I need the long zoom to complement my current zoom for our upcoming trip to Scotland (a month too late to join you). For the Puffins on Lunga I won't need it (but you might regret you can't zoom back your 500/4, heheh), but for owls and osprey the 800mm would be welcome !
@@andreas_rr I'm afraid that's wrong. Japanese prices including taxes for this lens are equal to US price without taxes. Euro price is as if we had to pay 39% taxes in the US .. but I think on average it's rather like 13%, and our tax is around 19%, not 39% !
@@WernerBirdNaturewell, i've tried putting the lens in the cart on B&H, it said the price after taxes, duties and shipping is 2498,7$. And this sounds pretty similar to EU prices. Feel free to try that out yourself, but the numbers dont lie
@@andreas_rr Euhm, shipping to which location ? When you ask B&H to ship to Europe, I'm not surprised the extra duties and shipping neutralize most of the price difference. But when you're inside the USA, you should be able to get this lens much cheaper, nope ? The most frustrating thing is next weekend I'm heading for a Japanese business trip, but I'll have to return a week before the lens will be in stock in the stores.
@@WernerBirdNature yes and no. Shipping is calculated to europe and accounts for 50$, but it doesnt really matter. the whole point is, the price is not higher because canon wants more profit from EU than for other locations, but other reasons, such as taxes, import fees and so on. And debating werther it's fair (or not) that different countries have different taxes is also absurd, as the money is (in the ideal case) coming back anyways through public healthcare etc. etc. My whole point is, the prices are not too different and there's no reason to complain that it's "cheaper" over there. And by the way, if you'd buy the lens in Japan, you'd legally speaking have to pay custom duties anyways. I dont know the numbers and so on, making the price probably not that much better. And if you'd choose to try to dodge custom duties, that will mean a risk that you'd have to take willingly. I hope thinking of that can appease your disappointment, because the worst case might have been a fine making you regret having bought it in Japan.
Ugh.. I was impressed enough to impulsively pre-order the 200-800mm, but I think I'm going to cancel the order. When it comes down to it, 800mm f/9 isn't THAT much more than the 700mm f/10 I get with the 100-500mm + 1.4x TC, and I'm thinking the image quality of the latter combo will still be just slightly superior as well. Maybe I'll talk myself into following you down the 500mm f/4 road. :) The new lens I definitely want is the 10-20mm f/4L. That makes more sense to me than the 14-35mm f/4L, especially when paired with the 24-70mm or 24-105mm options.
@@glennschiffer1742 I'll definitely be watching the reviews when the 200-800mm is officially in the wild. I've found the 1.4x TC to be excellent optically, no obvious loss of sharpness at all. My main issue with it is the f/10, of course, and how it physically restricts the zoom range--that's just annoying! :)
If I didn't have the Tamron 150-600, then I would be extremely tempted by this lens. Since I already have the 150-600, it comes down to money, which I simply don't have. For someone considering the Sigma 150-600 sport, this is a better value, however the Tamron and lower Sigma are still much lower in price. I'm sure this lens will sell like crazy and maybe I'll be in a position to add it in a few years, but there are some other lenses that I think I would prioritize at this point.
Same. Money is the only reason I'm not getting it either. I just don't need it right now, and that money would be of much more use to me for other gear. I am looking forward to renting it though!
New bodies and lenses will continue to be released every now and then. The manufacturers need to do that. As a photographer; my concentration is on creating images and not to be concerned about new releases. Because I don't need any. Thank you for the video.
I think it's not a smart lens. 200-600mm Sony for example with 1.4x sits at 840mm at slightly less than f/9. Internal zoom is very critical to me as I film mostly during constant drizzles/moist in the monsoon season. But also I got Sigma 24-70mm mostly soaked in rain/drizzles and no problems so far. I think such problems will appear after some years.
i've had the chance to try out the lens myself, and it's definitely an amazing lens that will sell really well. It has very compareable image quality to the 100-500 combined with the range of the 800 F/11, at still about 1000 bucks less than the 100-500. if extrenal zoom is not your cup of tea, thats ok and the lens wont be anything for you, but for most people the lens will be pretty much a bargain.
Thanks Brent. I have 400mm f2.8 and it fits in my Manfrotto bumblebee 320 and Peak Design 45L but both have their cons. Manfrotto protects best gear but no thing else fits except gear 400mm and 100-500L with one body. Its comfortable to wear. Peak design fits the gear and other stuff but prime without cube and its not invented for long hikings. Shimoda x70 has the best belts and very deep dv cubes and a lot of space but its 3-4cm to long for flights and you can pass through or not dependent on the gate people.
I'm not so sure about the 200-800mm. I will wait until it has been properly vetted by the large cadre of accomplished wildlife photographers, such as yourself, before I consider adding it to my gear. Personally I would have rather have had an internal 200-600mm zoom. I'm sure this lens will satisfy many photographers and Canon will sell quite a few of them. Cheers!
Simple reason for not having Arca Swiss mount it related to Patents. They’ll have to pay to use it why spend money when someone can just adapt it. It will never be a priority for them. Just like Apple with their Lightning port they held out as long as they could because they made money on their patent instead of using USB-C.
I've seen reviewer photos from the 200-800 and it can't hold a candle to the 500 f/4 even with the 1.4x. The out of focus areas have extremely busy rendering and ugly in my eyes.
Yeah, the 500 is hard to beat, for sure! But I wouldn't expect this lens to compete with the 500 at all, especially in terms of IQ. I still think it'll be great for most people who want an all-in-one wildlife lens with a ton of reach and versatility though.
On the one hand, I'm a little concerned with how well this lens will render render the BG bokeh. On the other other, I have come to see that a soft bokeh, has SO much more to do with separation between the subject and the BG, than it does the aperture of the lens. I have a bunch of beautiful, 100% blurred BG shots with my 800 F11. I hope the 200-800 can almost match that.
I mean, "disappoint" is a relative term... For some, it most certainly will disappoint (as with most everything), but for the majority (which is where Canon is focused) I think it will do very well.
At this point I am going to keep my 100-500 RF mated with my R5. I love the size of it and can maneuver around quickly. Most I have ever need to go with it is a monopod and it doubles as a walking stick. Part of the enjoyment for me is moving around and getting as close as I feasibly can get to the wildlife. The 100-500 is that lens for me.
Great video Brent. I will for sure get this lens. For me, I don't see any problems with the f9. I mostly use f8 for my bird photos, to get the dof i need to get the whole bird in focus. And when it comes to the picture quality, i am sure that Canon would not release this lens if it could not compare to the Sony 200-600, and the Nikon 180-600. About the f9: A lot of people are complaining about it and say that it's unusable, and the same thay did when the 100-500 did come. f7.1 was not usable neither. But when they see the results it did give, the opinion changed. So to all you people out there complaining. Stop with that until you see the results from real life use. Then you can give your opinion about how it is.
Cheers, Bjoern. A Norwegian living in south Brazil
Brent, after i got off of the floor from falling over in shock i gave you a super thanks for a great review (as usual) . my shock was over you selling your 100/500. i think i have convinced at least ten people to buy this lens. " brent hall says this is the best lens ever!". And i totally agreed. rarely is any wildlife so close that a 100mm doesn't work and as you have stated many times, just because you have a big zoom lens doesn't make it great for distant wildlife shots. 50% of all my wildlife photography come from this lens alone another 40% come with a 1.4 attached. the last 10% comes with my rf 600 mm f4. i did watch the video twice to make sure i heard correctly. thanks for all the great info and your honest opinions.
Agree with what you say. I’ve got a mark i 500mm f4 and it’s a beast, but is epic at the same time. Also got the 100-500 which I like for hiking around with, the 600f11 I rarely use and the 800mm f11 is nice for that reach. Another bonus with the older 500mm is that I can use an extender or stack the x1.4 and x2! It’s crazy! Yet I’ll probably go for the 200-800 for it’s versatility. I certainly don’t mind the apertures out at that distance.
You should sell all those lenses and put it towards an RF 600 f4.
This past summer I downsized and sold my Canon RF gear to pick up some used Panasonic micro 4/3(G9 and 100-400 in particular). If I still had a Canon, I'd certainly consider selling some stuff(I had the 800/11 and the 100-400) to buy this, but I'm happy to have the same reach in half the size/weight on my Lumix system.
Thanks for doing this, great to hear your thoughts on the 200-800.
You bet, thanks for watching!
Always very relevant and practical true-to-life thoughts that make a difference to photography, thank you. Ian (UK)
Hey thanks Ian, I really appreciate that!
Thank you for a very rational and balanced discussion of what this lens offers and given the very limited real life data so far :). Renting is a very good option for sure. BTW do you ever get out a bit further away to Bitter Lake Refuge outside of Roswell? I expected it to be a cc of Bosque but it surprised me to be a little different with more terrain variety.
I have been there, but it's been well over a decade since the last time I visited that area.
Great logic! I really love everything about my 100-500. Size ✅ Image Quality✅ Versatility✅Payed For✅. I might try one of the teleconverters at some point. Thanks Brent!
Yeah, the 1-5 is just so good!
Nice one Brent, I saw those images also and to be honest, I felt the lens looked too much like the 800 F11 to make it worthwhile for me. On a FF camera, with a wildlife shooter using it, this lens will 'live' in the 600-800 range as us guys always want more reach so i honestly feel it needs to be a bit sharper. Plus the bokeh really looks terrible, just like the f11. Well done on passing 100k subs by the way!
Yeah, I can understand that. I will say though, after having owned the 800 f11 for so long, if you can get some solid subject separation and have a fairly distant background and a close subject, it will blow the BG out pretty well. It's when you have the bg too close to the subject or a subject that's too far away when that particular lens really looks bad.
I agree and with BIF against a nice sky it's fine. But I'm bringing my Sigma 500 out way more to be honest. Even though it's like 5 times the weight!@@BrentHall
So I’m currently paused at 11:05. You’re talking about picking up the RF100-400 a small lens capable of wildlife photography. I just want to put this on your radar. Consider picking up a used EF 70-300L IS. These used seem to be at a similar price point to a new RF100-400. You will regain L series weather resistance, AF speed and optical quality all while being able to be used with your 1.4x III putting you at 420mm F8.
The 70-300 L can´t take any canon extenders.
@@tonysvensson8314 actually above 250mm the TC’s do mount and work. It’s quite similar to the 100-500 not being able to fully retract with TC’s attached.
The RF 100-400 is actually a bit sharper, lighter and much faster/accurate AF than the EF 70-300mm L IS, so if I had to pick between the 2, it would be the RF 100-400 any day.
@@gavthane to each there own I suppose. I have used each and find the stm motors in the 100-400 inferior to the usm motors of the 70-300 L. Sharpness is pretty close. Shooting backlit subjects the L glass will retain more contrast. I personally prefer a weather resistant lens not just for weather but dust intrusion as well. Lastly is adaptability. Canon EF glass is the most successfully adapted lens mount around. Fringer adapters for example allow these lenses to work nearly as well as native on Nikon and Fuji. That being said let’s say you travel and your camera has a catastrophic failure you potentially have more opportunity to get up and running again.
@@travislucas7483only to say the RF 100-400 has usm and is very quick
Thanks for a thoughtful review. You mentioned hiking with the 500 f4 v2, How do you pack it for hiking?
You're welcome, I hope it helped! And funny you should mention that. I have a video about it right here:
ruclips.net/video/Ifu_mLiL9Q8/видео.htmlsi=i10AxRsdzPvOI4au
I'm just a hobbyist, use the Sigma 150-600 and RF100-400 most the time with the R6mII and R7. The atmospheric distortion is a real problem I have encountered at the 600mm range. My issue is I live in middle USA, same birds, same wildlife, don't travel, everyone has the same photos of the same birds. I'm not an arca guy either, all my plates are RC200 and I use them for everything so not sure how that work with that lens. It will be an interesting lens to follow and see how the performance is on the final released version. Just not sure I want to spend 2k after taxes on another lens.
Really interesting video. I'm glad you mentioned the weight issue. It is an amazing lens and hats off to Canon for developing it but it is still too heavy for me. I emphasise, for me. For younger photographers who are in better shape (I am in my 7th decade) it will be fantastic.
BTW, you mention hand holding your new super prime tele, or possibly using a monopod. I cannot recommend enough the Wimberley mono-gimbal for the monopod. I'm not a shill for the company but it is probably one of the best pieces of non-camera camera kit I have bought. Really helps me cope with heavier lenses when I need support without needed to lug around a full tripod. Would work well with your super lens.
Yeah, I think the weight of the 2-8 will probably really surprise some people, especially after hiking with it for a couple miles, or having it in the bag all day. I'll probably still look into a gimbal head and monopod at some point. It would be nice for certain things, for sure!
That was the deciding factor for me. Compared to my 100-500 and the Sigma 150-600 i tried and couldn’t carry and the weight is the killer.
I can’t imagine at my age holding that weight to shoot long or hike. Sad. But that’s what you have to have for that much zoom.
good video yes that 500mm f4 is a beast. my dream lens. hope you enjoy it. I agree the RF 100-400 would be a good choice. or pick up another ef 100-400 II you wont notice much difference in image quality as their so close regarding the RF 100-500mm. cheers for the video.
Very interesting discussion of what is sure to be a popular lens with us bird photographers. I share a similar gear journey to you, having traded up almost everything last year (5D3 + lenses) to get an R5, then took out a loan for a used prime (400mm f/4 DO IS II) and 1.4x III tc. No regrets whatsoever and the performance with the tc is more than acceptable when I need the extra reach (560mm @ f/5.6). Watching your video recently "Changing My Mind About Wildlife Photography" really made think about gear and challenged my desire for a second camera body and/or tele-zoom at the time; I instead *sold* a Tamron 15-30mm lens this week that I realised I'd not used in over a year! Thank you for sharing your experiences so candidly, a lot of what you say really makes me rethink my entire approach to photography.
Thanks, I'm really glad my videos are helping!
Have all the big whites, and my favorit is the 500 f4. Why? Becauce I then have a 500f4 and a 700 f5,6 and a1000 f8. With the 2 times converter I use f9 and its superscharp!
Would of loved this see a review of the 200 - 800 vs the 100 - 500 l.
Yeah, that would be cool. I'm sure they'll be more than a few people out there making those comparisons when it comes out though.
I shoot wildlife with the 600 f4 and the only reason I'm considering getting the 200-800 is for airshows since I use the 100-500 for those with a 1.4 effectively making it a 420-700. But we'll see what the iq is like on the 200-800 once the masses can start putting out images with it
Oh yeah, I think the reach and versatility of the 2-8 will do very well for air shows!
The MTF charts published by CanonRumors predict the IQ at 800/9 to be better than the 700/10 we get from our 420-700.
And for some reason, Canon themselves the 200-800 keeps better IQ using convertors than the 100-500 does.
Thanks Brent for your common sense approach in your review. My wife and I have our RF 100-500 and 1.4x and the RF 800 F11. As intriguing as the new 200-800 lens is, we have decided that we won't jump on the band wagon (for now). We are positive that the new lens will do extremely well for Canon sales and is a good lens.
Thanks for another great review.
Well you've certainly got a solid setup there, so you won't be missing out really. For all those who don't have the 1-5 though, this is definitely going to be a great option.
Me too. The 200-800 would replace my two current lenses, but I would miss the 100-200 range.
I just got a R8 for $1200 with a 100 coupon on amazon and it has the same sensor as the R6 II but there are a few compromises, no IBIS, 1 sd card, smaller battery, lower rez efv, smaller body size(could be good if you have small hands like I do), and 6fps with the first curtain shutter. But ngl the electronic shutter at 40fps is awesome and I have only seen rolling shutter with really fast moving birds! I plan on getting the 200-800 and I'm pretty excited! I did upgrade from an old Rebel T5i so my only comparison is almost a decade old.
Oh that's awesome! I really hope to get an R8 for a travel and backup camera at some point. It's definitely an amazing camera for the price, and I'm totally cool with the lack of certain features.
Great video. I appreciate your thoughts. I bought an R on Friday from MPB, to go with my 5D iii. While the RF L lenses are amazing, I’m going to stick with EF glass for awhile. I’d rather buy a 400 f/4 DO or the 500 that you have and learn techniques to get closer that the 200-800. I am not a fan of variable aperture glass. I want lenses that work on the 5D iii and my 1-n film camera.
Oh interesting. Yeah, given that you have 3 different systems, either of those to EF lenses would make sense, being able to use them on all three mounts.
Thanks for the vid. I am considering selling my 100-500 to get a 400 2.8. I might keep it after hearing your regret in selling yours. I don’t want to carry around a $13k lens everywhere 😬
Be interesting to see actual images. If they're good, it will definitely go to the top of my list of wants.
Yeah. I'm definitely looking forward to trying it out!
Thanks! Enjoy your thoughts.
Thank you so much, I really appreciate that!
Hi Brent Would you choose the Canon 100-500 F7.1 or the Canon 200-800 lens for wildlife photography? I would be using it on the R7 for bird photography?
That depends on what you need. Do you want more reach, or less weight, slightly better IQ, better weather-sealing, wider focal length on the short end, and faster aperture?
If it were me, I 'd go get my 1-5 back in a heartbeat. It was my favorite overall lens of all time and I now have my 500 as my main wildlife lens so I just need something smaller and lighter for travelling, scouting, and landscape, and for me, the 1-5 would fit that need better. But I highly doubt I'm in the same situation as you, so you just need to decide whether you want to save some money or some weight.
Thank you for sharing, your point of view is very interesting! Damien Bernal's review is very complete with the added possibility of downloading several RAW images to get an idea -) For me a test with raw images to download is always a plus! Best from France, Ludo
PS: when I saw in the RAW to download in particular the image of the Cheetah with the R7 I ordered the RF200-800 directly
Oh nice, I'll definitely check it out! This lens will be pretty awesome on the R7 too!
This will be on my radar since I shoot mostly aviation and I’m not big on 150-600’s by other manufacturers. If I’m going to lug something to an air show flight line, it might as well have Canon AF. Sigma and Tamron 150-600’s come in at just over 4 lbs. The Canon RF 200-800 is 4.5 lbs. If I’m shooting a twilight demonstration, I have a 400 2.8 and I get closer. 😉
I think this will be great for airshows!
Hi Brent. You said the tripod mount collar is non removable. Are you sure? I saw a spec somewhere that rated the weight with and without collar. I don't want it for two reasons; 1) weight and 2) I use an IFoote Cobra 3 monopod that firmly grips its mount screwed into the body base. You might want to consider that rig for your F4. It's awesome. Don't need my heavy gimbal tripod any more. Make sure it's the Cobra 3 version. Anyway, if I can't lose the tripod mount on the 200-800, it will queer me buying it which I was about to do. Please advise if you get more info on that. Thanks.
Well I'm definitely not 100% sure. I was just going off what I saw in another video. Maybe it was Gordon's video? IDR...
I´am definitely going to buy it. Right now a have the famous and illustrious 100-500 with either a 1,4 or a 2,0 teleconverter because I often can't get close enough to my subject. These times I don´t have to use a teleconverter I really see where this lens shines. I don't expect the same from this new 200-800 but I expect it to be better than using the teleconverters.
The extra reach without the TCs should be quite nice!
I use the Rf100-500 as my primary lens (I shoot nearly everything with it). I also have the 800mm f/11 which meets my "need" for detail. I would probably buy this new lens if I didn't already have the range covered. I would miss the 100-200 range and am not sure what would fill that other than buying yet another lens.
Yeah, the 1-5 really is an incredible lens!
Thanks for this thorough thoughts on the 200-800. I pre-ordered one here in the Netherlands.
Did you have problems with diffraction using the R5 and the Rf 800 and the Rf100-500 ??
Oh nice, I'm sure you'll enjoy it! I wouldn't say I had any issues with diffraction that were out of the ordinary with the RF 800.
I have the 500 II, the RF 100-400 and the 800 f/11. I will absolutely be buying this and selling the 800. It's the perfect middle ground for when I want more reach than the 100-400, but don't want to bring the 500.
That'll be a perfect middle-ground lens for sure!
I have the Tamron SP 150-600/5 - 6.3 and the RF800/11. I have looked at the RF 200-800, but Im not sure if that lens are better for me then the Tamron. Put the adapter on the Tamron, and they both weight the same. The Tamron has better apertures, image quality are probebly worse but not bad, and AF may struggle more than the RF800. Lack of money is an issue to me too, so I think I will be happier buying a used R5, and keep my lenses as they are.
With your current lenses, as long as the Tamron isn't giving you too many AF issues, I think you'd be very happy with an R5.
If you have a lower megapixel body that does not allow for more extreme cropping, I think the RF 200-800mm makes a lot of sense, even if sharpness and contrast aren’t perfect out to 800mm. To me, there’s less of a case for the R5 or R7, particularly if you own the RF 100-500 or an older EF prime.
Oh definitely, this is going to be great for people with R6s and R8s for sure!
But f9 !, lower mp also with lower İSO...
So far some noted the 800 quality could be better but is better than then 800 f/11 which is a win so us the zoom option and AF is. Ery good all reminiscent of RF 100-400.
Yes, the primes like the 500 f/4 are always better (even EF ones) but many have to consider budget and/or weight. It looks to be a great option 🙂
Looking forward to more info and test results .
Yeah, I really do think it will be the best all around wildlife lens that Canon has moving forward. Also true, the 500 is way better, but is very niche, expensive, and heavy, and that just isn't for most people.
Hi Brent, over in Europe, Canon does state the 200-800 has L-level weather sealing. Not sure whether this is an exclusive feature for the old continent, but they charge us (including the taxes) about 25% more for this lens compared to the US and even Japan. In fact it would cost me now exactly the same amount I paid my 100-500 early last year. This doesn't help me to convince my own Camera Lady I need the long zoom to complement my current zoom for our upcoming trip to Scotland (a month too late to join you). For the Puffins on Lunga I won't need it (but you might regret you can't zoom back your 500/4, heheh), but for owls and osprey the 800mm would be welcome !
US prices are without taxes, so that pretty much cancels out the difference 😉
@@andreas_rr I'm afraid that's wrong. Japanese prices including taxes for this lens are equal to US price without taxes. Euro price is as if we had to pay 39% taxes in the US .. but I think on average it's rather like 13%, and our tax is around 19%, not 39% !
@@WernerBirdNaturewell, i've tried putting the lens in the cart on B&H, it said the price after taxes, duties and shipping is 2498,7$. And this sounds pretty similar to EU prices. Feel free to try that out yourself, but the numbers dont lie
@@andreas_rr Euhm, shipping to which location ? When you ask B&H to ship to Europe, I'm not surprised the extra duties and shipping neutralize most of the price difference. But when you're inside the USA, you should be able to get this lens much cheaper, nope ?
The most frustrating thing is next weekend I'm heading for a Japanese business trip, but I'll have to return a week before the lens will be in stock in the stores.
@@WernerBirdNature yes and no. Shipping is calculated to europe and accounts for 50$, but it doesnt really matter. the whole point is, the price is not higher because canon wants more profit from EU than for other locations, but other reasons, such as taxes, import fees and so on. And debating werther it's fair (or not) that different countries have different taxes is also absurd, as the money is (in the ideal case) coming back anyways through public healthcare etc. etc.
My whole point is, the prices are not too different and there's no reason to complain that it's "cheaper" over there.
And by the way, if you'd buy the lens in Japan, you'd legally speaking have to pay custom duties anyways. I dont know the numbers and so on, making the price probably not that much better. And if you'd choose to try to dodge custom duties, that will mean a risk that you'd have to take willingly. I hope thinking of that can appease your disappointment, because the worst case might have been a fine making you regret having bought it in Japan.
For me doing it as a Hobby i preordered this Lens and i replace my Sigma with it. Get my Sigma back cleaned on Tuesday and than selling it
I think it'll be a solid upgrade from the Sigma!
Thanks!
Ugh.. I was impressed enough to impulsively pre-order the 200-800mm, but I think I'm going to cancel the order. When it comes down to it, 800mm f/9 isn't THAT much more than the 700mm f/10 I get with the 100-500mm + 1.4x TC, and I'm thinking the image quality of the latter combo will still be just slightly superior as well. Maybe I'll talk myself into following you down the 500mm f/4 road. :) The new lens I definitely want is the 10-20mm f/4L. That makes more sense to me than the 14-35mm f/4L, especially when paired with the 24-70mm or 24-105mm options.
I think for the price, size, and weight, it might be hard for a lot of people with the 1-5 to justify picking this one up. The 1-5 is just so good!
I have the 1-5 it's a great lens but I'm sure the 2-8 will be sharper at 800 thant the 1-5 with a tc1.4 at 700mm
@@glennschiffer1742 I'll definitely be watching the reviews when the 200-800mm is officially in the wild. I've found the 1.4x TC to be excellent optically, no obvious loss of sharpness at all. My main issue with it is the f/10, of course, and how it physically restricts the zoom range--that's just annoying! :)
@@glennschiffer1742 That will be the thing to watch.
If I didn't have the Tamron 150-600, then I would be extremely tempted by this lens. Since I already have the 150-600, it comes down to money, which I simply don't have. For someone considering the Sigma 150-600 sport, this is a better value, however the Tamron and lower Sigma are still much lower in price. I'm sure this lens will sell like crazy and maybe I'll be in a position to add it in a few years, but there are some other lenses that I think I would prioritize at this point.
Same. Money is the only reason I'm not getting it either. I just don't need it right now, and that money would be of much more use to me for other gear. I am looking forward to renting it though!
The 500 with a 1.4 is without a doubt my favorite setup. I have a 600 F4 III but I really feel the 500 ii has better IQ than the 600 iii
Yeah, I can't get enough of my 500. It's definitely hard to beat for IQ, but that's crazy too that it might beat the RF 600!
@@BrentHall it would be interesting to compare your 500mm to my 300mm f2.8 with 1.4x
New bodies and lenses will continue to be released every now and then. The manufacturers need to do that.
As a photographer; my concentration is on creating images and not to be concerned about new releases. Because I don't need any.
Thank you for the video.
Do you think that the 10-20 will be good for astrophotographery ?
I'm sure it will do fine for astro, albeit a bit slow. I use my wide angle f4 lenses for astro all the time and they do very well for what I want.
I think it's not a smart lens. 200-600mm Sony for example with 1.4x sits at 840mm at slightly less than f/9. Internal zoom is very critical to me as I film mostly during constant drizzles/moist in the monsoon season. But also I got Sigma 24-70mm mostly soaked in rain/drizzles and no problems so far. I think such problems will appear after some years.
i've had the chance to try out the lens myself, and it's definitely an amazing lens that will sell really well. It has very compareable image quality to the 100-500 combined with the range of the 800 F/11, at still about 1000 bucks less than the 100-500. if extrenal zoom is not your cup of tea, thats ok and the lens wont be anything for you, but for most people the lens will be pretty much a bargain.
@@andreas_rr It should sell good. I don't define the market, and the market needs variety. Thanks for your input.
Hi Brent. Does your 500mm fit into x50 bag?
Yes and no. I'm gonna do a video on that here pretty soon.
Thanks Brent. I have 400mm f2.8 and it fits in my Manfrotto bumblebee 320 and Peak Design 45L but both have their cons. Manfrotto protects best gear but no thing else fits except gear 400mm and 100-500L with one body. Its comfortable to wear. Peak design fits the gear and other stuff but prime without cube and its not invented for long hikings. Shimoda x70 has the best belts and very deep dv cubes and a lot of space but its 3-4cm to long for flights and you can pass through or not dependent on the gate people.
I have it on pre-ordered. Might cancel.
F9 is a deal breaker. F8 I would consider. Also it’s not L glass so probably a hard pass
So I've read it's really f8.5 rounded to 9. Not that it makes a big difference, but wonder if it's true?
I'm not so sure about the 200-800mm. I will wait until it has been properly vetted by the large cadre of accomplished wildlife photographers, such as yourself, before I consider adding it to my gear. Personally I would have rather have had an internal 200-600mm zoom. I'm sure this lens will satisfy many photographers and Canon will sell quite a few of them. Cheers!
Yeah, an internal 2-6 would be really nice. It seems as though Canon is almost hellbent on doing anything but a competing 150-600 (or 200-600).
Canon does not like playing follow the leader. They consider themselves "the leader" and want to do something different.
Simple reason for not having Arca Swiss mount it related to Patents. They’ll have to pay to use it why spend money when someone can just adapt it. It will never be a priority for them. Just like Apple with their Lightning port they held out as long as they could because they made money on their patent instead of using USB-C.
Yeah, that definitely makes sense. Highly unfortunate...
I never purchase anything from RUclips adds.
dont regeret buying the f4 its ther aperture that makes all the difference
The 100-500 never should have been 7.1. It should have been 6.3 max
For 1/3 a stop it's probably a pound lighter than it would have been. An equitable trade.
I've seen reviewer photos from the 200-800 and it can't hold a candle to the 500 f/4 even with the 1.4x. The out of focus areas have extremely busy rendering and ugly in my eyes.
Yeah, the 500 is hard to beat, for sure! But I wouldn't expect this lens to compete with the 500 at all, especially in terms of IQ. I still think it'll be great for most people who want an all-in-one wildlife lens with a ton of reach and versatility though.
On the one hand, I'm a little concerned with how well this lens will render render the BG bokeh. On the other other, I have come to see that a soft bokeh, has SO much more to do with separation between the subject and the BG, than it does the aperture of the lens. I have a bunch of beautiful, 100% blurred BG shots with my 800 F11. I hope the 200-800 can almost match that.
I think this lens is going to disappoint on the long end...I hope I'm wrong.
I mean, "disappoint" is a relative term... For some, it most certainly will disappoint (as with most everything), but for the majority (which is where Canon is focused) I think it will do very well.