RF 200-800 Vs 800 f/11 Vs 100-500 With 1.4x TC Test Chart Comparison using Canon R7
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 31 июл 2024
- I photograph test charts with the RF200-800, RF 800 f/11, RF 100-500, and the RF 100-500 with a 1.4x Teleconverter Extender. I think the results are interesting. We'll also discuss whether or not the 200-800 is really 800mm and teleconverter color cast issues.
K&F Concept Gimbal Link: bit.ly/46vO26F
Coupon: PHIL (10% OFF ON ALL PRODUCTS - Deadline: 2024.12.31)
Look for me on Vero @philthach
Heather is on Vero too @heatherbrie
My Gear www.amazon.com/shop/philthach
If you would like to make a much-appreciated donation to help keep this channel going, send it to miataphil@gmail.com on Paypal or @phil-Thach on Venmo.
Thank you Phil. I found your comparison to be enlightening and very helpful. Keep up the good work!
Thank you!
I'm glad you decided to shoot the test charts. I think it helps when comparing lenses.
Thank you, Stephen!
Interesting results! I own the 100-500 +1.4x and 200-800 and love the images I get with my R3. Glad I stay away from "unforgiving" crop sensor cameras. Cheers!
I think the R3 would be a great camera to use with either of these budget 800mm lenses.
Really really good stuff. Really important. Well done. Interesting to see how your test results will parle in the field with your birding. Many thank yous to you and Heather.
Thank you! I'll link a video so you can see those results in action in the field.
ruclips.net/video/RCIKjbp-NR4/видео.htmlsi=ll6C9mLYI8lWMw3W
@@PhilThach I would think you’d go back into the field and retest these particular results.
BTW for those seeking more info, comments, & image samples from the 200-800 & 800/11, there are about 3 FB groups dedicated to these lenses, one is a combined group for both.
Can't use FB with all of it's advertisements. Long stopped using it.
Thanks so much for sharing another wonderful video like always Phil 👍
Thank you!
Tanks for your video, helps a lot people like me that are stil looking for lens. I loved comparation.
Thank you!
Big thanks for your video Phil!
Thank you!
Great video, Phil. Loving the R5 with RF 100-500 + RF 1.4x when the light is good. If I'm shooting in low light I opt for the bare lens and make use of the 1.6x crop in camera to help the AF system out (mostly shoot wildlife). I barely notice any IQ impact in the field with the RF 1.4x on.
The only thing people should bear in mind is that the R5 is a camera full of compromises. I owned the R3 for 2 years and moved to the R5 when I stopped shooting sports. I love the extra MP but I need to be much more aware of which shutter mode to use when.
Thank you!
Thanks for the effort, phil!
Thank you!
Lovely comparison, i like your videos without charts though but good to see both uploaddd. It will be nice to see a comparison of the 100-500, the 200-800, the sony 200-600 and nikon 180-600.
Thank you!
LOL, "I don't do test charts" then "I've decided to do a test chart". Sometimes you need a test chart and controlled settings to give a definitive answer, which you have here. Probably no surprises with the TC making things worse, but disappointment again with the 200-800. As I said on the other video, this would push me towards the 800mm F11 as the best value solution for that focal length. Actually now you've done a test chart here I think this could be useful for other comparisons in the future. Thanks again for another great video.
Thank you!
Nice video but I would like to see this test done at a constant distance since in the field you would likely have to crop to the 100-500 in order to get the subject to fill the frame as much as the 200-800
ruclips.net/video/RCIKjbp-NR4/видео.htmlsi=47trN9hvFNR4ARa2
super helpful video, thanks m8!
Thank you!
Great video! I know test charts are boring, but this is need-to-know information for the masses. Thank you. :)
Thank you!
Great stuff here. Interestingly enough, I just yesterday ordered my R6 Mk II, a few accessories, and the 800 f/11. I have been using DSLRs for 20 years, and finally decided to bring an R-series into my gear bag. I always work hard to improve my photography skills, but there's no way I can justify buying something like the 800 f/5.6 at neary $17k. I opted for the 800 f/11 because it seems to be a reasonable way to get that extra length without breaking the bank. I also did quite a bit of research and determined that I can use my EF lenses on the R6 Mk II via the EF > RF converter, and can even use a 1.4x extender, so it was a fairly easy decision. Looking forward to getting the new gear!
Thank you!
Thank you. Great comparisons. It has always been my contention that when considering white Canon lens (including 200-800 now) that the most important considerations are practical ones like fstop, zoom, ease of 1.4x, a/f speed - not iq. They are all good enough (especially in centre) that the practical overwhelms the theoretical (iq in perfect conditions). A good picture requires good light (sun behind you), reasonable ISO (less than 12,000 with R7 and 24,000 with Rf now), and filling at least 50% of the frame, and good focus (eye, dof). I think this video demonstrates this - the differences are small (if you fill the frame) and I think 800/f11 is a good choice if you have two bodies (R7/800f11 and R8/200-500) on a budget. But my 200-400f4 (R5) and 600f4v2 (7dii/1.4x) will crush any of these choices when the light is low because of the f4 (higher shutter speed). Further 800/fixed for me is "Hail Mary" shooting with atmospherics and cropping (because zooming is required when you fill the frame or luck), so while I bring my 600f4 the 200-400 usually gets more use.
But if you are on a budget and can’t swing that 600mm, is the RF 800mm f/11 a better choice overall? I have an R6 and have been considering the R7 as a back up camera. I mostly shoot birds and at various times of day. Will the 800 f/11 on a tripod do better in lower light if you can slow down your shutter speed?
@@arcadiancreationsmodelhorses If you have stable hands you can even shoot the 800 F11 handheld at 1/50 shutter speed, the thing is which kind of wildlife can be shot at 1/50 except completely still standing animals?
I shot once a rabbit sitting still with 1/30 shutter speed in pretty weak light, supported on a (running, diesel) car, not even Autofocus worked anymore with R7. Its abysmal to shoot that slow shutter speeds just that you know!
If you really want better low light performance, there is no way around a expensive white canon (super)tele or at least lets say the average 150-600 6.3 lens on a budget with its own downsides.
I am also on a budget, even more than you considering you have a R6 and i rock the 800 F11 as well the Sigma 150-600C. Pretty amazing lenses for its price and you will hardly find more value for the money. I got both lenses 2nd hand and paid about 1500€ for both!
@@harrison00xXx I’m very much on a budget - the R6 and 100-500 I am still paying in and had to sell some gear to fund. I love this combo but reach is always a problem out in the field. I might look into the 800 to rent before taking a dove to buy. I still have six months of payments on my camera and lens still to go
@@arcadiancreationsmodelhorses I had the R6 as well, but just for 2 weeks before i sold it again.
Price/Performance ratio was just not ok, especially for wildlife and cropping further in.
Thank you for this great comparison. You confirmed what I suspected. I will stick with the 800f11 for my R5 and the ef 100-400II for the R7. If I need a replacement for the EF, it will be the 100-500.
Thank you!
great video - thanks for the effort
Thank you!
3:28 You're right that at 29 feet the 200-800 isn't actually 800mm because with some lenses the effect of focus breathing means the optics are only calibrated for the correct field of view at infinity focus.
Hi Phil, nice comparison. I have the 100-500 and the 800 f 11 on R7. I'm still amazed at the quality of the 800 and its handling
The 800 f/11 punches well above it's price point.
handling?
I sold it because my useability rating for the 800mm f/11 is about a 1 star.
You can only focus in the middle and not the full sensor like most lenses. Minimum focus distance is very far out.
Pretty sharp, but I did not find it to be a fun lens to use.
@@Matt90541I use it quite easily with the R7 due to its lightness and fast shutter speeds..
Thanks for the excellent comparison. Would love someday to see how visible the differences would be on the R6 Mark II & R5 -- even with the 45mp R5 the resolution differences wouldn't be nearly as visible as it was with the R7 with its absurdly small pixel pitch. Using the bare 100-500 without TC as the benchmark really puts a spotlight on just how absurdly sharp and effective a combo the R7 + RF 100-500L is. 800mm Full Frame Equivalent with that level of sharpness and detail? Hell yes.
Thank you!
Thanks so much for the video Phil. I know it killed you to make it 🙂. That 100-500 is an amazing lens for sure. That color cast on the TC is interesting. I wonder what is going on with that 200-800 lens. There has to be some dynamic involved with the differences in the focal length. I wonder how this test would play out on the R5 at full frame. Thanks so much for the video.
Thank you!
Very Interesting Phil, does make me wonder though that the 200-800 should of been an F10 lens at 800 looking at your results, also makes me wonder if Canon went with F9 to make the lens more appealing and also makes me wonder if it had been an F10, would it be in such demand only being 1 stop difference to the 800 F11 considering the price difference ~ I'll be trying out F9 & F10 at 800mm when I'm next out with either the R7 or R5 ~ maybe as you have already done this with the R7 I'll try it on the R5 just for a comparison ~ Maybe it's just the R7 with it's pixel density that is showing the flaws keep up the great work that you & Heather do for this channel 👍
Thank you!
Great comparison Phil. That 100-500mm would have my name on it if I shot Canon. Thanks for sharing the results
Thank you!
Your videos are amazing. Every video, I see I am convinced that I do not need to buy the 200-800. I am keeping my ultra-light RF 800 mm.
Thank you! The 800 f/11 continues to be amazing in every area except minimum focus distance. Price, weight and even image quality are all very good.
True but very rarely I get birds within the minimum focus distance. That happened only once when a winter wren sat 5 feet away from me on a tree trunk.
Regarding having to back up more on the 800 f11 to fill the frame compared to the 200-800, I believe that is due to "focus breathing". I believe the change in the effective focal length should be a lot more apparent when focusing closer up to objects (like the tests in the video) rather than objects further away.
Indeed. But again I was nearly 10 meters away from the target. Look for a video about the 200-800 lens and is it really 800mm soon.
Agree. Lens focal length is defined at infinity for each lens, which I should think is further than 10 meters. The closer to your subject you deviate from infinity, the more focus breathing zoom lenses will have.
@@PhilThach 10 meters is not very far for 800 mm.
And what does it matter? You would normally be at about that distance when shooting small birds anyway, not at infinity where it's just too far.
@@vitaminb4869 It does not matter but it does show that you can't rely on focal length alone when buying a lens.
What matters are the MFD and the magnification at the distances you use.
Super helpful. Thanks. From what I see on my screen, the differences are minor, and any of these choices would be a good one. Despite the colour cast, the 1.4x TC on the RF 100-500 isn't as bad as I feared it might be, which is reassuring.
Thank you!
Yes, 100-500 with 1,4x TC holds up very well, despite being easily visible compared to the other 2 lenses, especially the light and cheap 800 F11.
I personally tested the 100-500 on R7 and RP with and without 2x TC, even on the RP with "just" 26MP Full Frame the 2x TC reduced sharpness. On the R7 the 2x TC was a pain with the 100-500 even during a sunny day the AF struggled and was slow.
Im nearly thankful that as i purchased the 800 F11 that there was no 200-800. Choices are always a good thing, but i would be overwhelmed by them nowadays and struggle to pick 2 different teles for different purposes or going for the 200-800 solo.
Thanks, that's good to know about the 2x TC. For birding, I'm thrilled with the R7/RF100-500, and I would hate to abandon this amazing combination for those rare instances where l may want more than 800 mm field of view. For me, I will stick with this as my primary set-up, with a 1.4x TC in my bag for those occasional outings where more reach may be needed.
Thanks for really good and informative video! 200-800mm lens seems to have similar focus breathing issue as most 150-600mm telephoto lenses. You need to have distance of 10m or more to have full focal range. 800mm f11 prime had surprisingly good image quality, I expected that diffraction would have degraded image more. Interesting results.
Thank you. My shots with the 200-800 and the 800 f/11 we pretty close to 10m. 10m converts to 32.81 feet.
cheers for the follow up! i am watching now. lets see how this goes
ok to prove a point the test chart is fine. but again missed the opportunity to include the shots you had from outside. lets say the 200-800 is 5-10% less sharp than a fixed lens so be it. i can totally live with this and do some artificial sharpening in post to have the advantage to zoom out if needed.
thanks again for looking into this and i hope the next video will be a outdoor adventure with a little side by side comparison.
if results are super terrible and the 200-800 is for example 50% more blurry then yes. i will agree with you. but until that time... couldnt care less about charts. so many factors can play into the results. i also think strong daytime light should have a positive effect. there is one more thing i forgot to ask: test chart photos are made with stabilizer on or off? some lenses go nuts on a tripod and the build in stabilizer hates that. not trying to find reasons why the lens is better than you say. just really curious because your video will at the end have a big impact on the decision to buy this or not.
I continue to urge you to watch my video from the blackpoint wildlife drive. It's the one with the spoonbill on the thumbnail. See next comment.
ruclips.net/video/RCIKjbp-NR4/видео.htmlsi=ll6C9mLYI8lWMw3W
Some of those combos are definitely better than others, but they're all sufficiently sharp and eminently passable. Worse image by far being the 100-500 w/ the extender. You've just reinforced my pre-order of the 200-800 for my R7 was a good decision, which I was kinda doubting after watching you previous video.
The 200-800 did do better than I was expecting especially at 707mm and f/10.
For me, he reinforced me to keep my 800 F11 instead of going to a 200-800. It was anyways a hard decision if i even need the F9 or just use a 150-600 F6.3 lens for worse light.
I personally really love the light weight and selling 800 F11 and Sigma 150-600 for a single 2kg "monster" isnt really what i want when i lose sharpness especially.
I’ve been using the 200-800 with the R7 for just over a month, photographing the birds on migration thru Canada, and I’m very happy with it. It is quite sharp in that 500-700 range, and 800 when needed can produce very good results. 800 (on crop especially) is quite zoomed in, so I wouldn’t want to be stuck at 800 all the time…often dialing back to 500-600 for BIF to help.
@@IntothewestOkotoks same for me.
400-500mm on the 1.6 crop is good reach and somewhat short enough to handle it for fast BIF
Many thanks for that, it must have been very time consuming. After watching one of your previous videos I was doing some tests with my 100-400 with and without the 1.4 teleconverter and also noticed the colour cast. For a number of reasons like size and weight I'd prefer the 100-500 but with the teleconverter whilst it still isn't large the reduced zoom range and especially as the minimum of the R7 is now 720mm not sure that would allow me to zoom out enough to find what I'm looking for. Think it will be the 200-800 for me, that's if they ever reach the UK.
Thank you!
You was right all along. Other test charts I have seen gets the same results.
Thank you!
I looks like you were shooting at different shutter speeds at the very slow end so I wonder if the comparison is not entirely even. Shooting the 100-500 at 1/125 will be better than the other two at below 1/60 or 1/80. I think changing the ISO (within safe ranges) and keeping the shutter speed constant might be a better measure of actual sharpness. Also wonder if lens correction profiles may have an impact on actual magnification as they seem to be a factor in the construction of many new lenses. Thank you for the comparisons.
I also own the R7 and 200-800mm, and I agree it does struggle at the full focal length and wide open. I guess I'll try 600mm more often now. I was super excited for that extra reach, coming from the EF 100-400mm mk II with ef-rf converter, which STILL holds up great. I may have to do my own tests.
However, sometimes it does manage to produce some very sharp images at 800mm F/9.0. Like, very comparable to L series. Not sure how to explain it.
Can we see a comparison of these setups at a fixed distance from the chart? Like if a warbler is 40 ft away and none of the lenses will get the bird to fill the frame, which combo should I be reaching for?
800 F11 and R7 hands down, but for me personally the 1280mm as i switched from FF (RP) to APS-C (R7) were too "limiting" so i got a Sigma 150-600C additionally which fits the R7 much better (240-960mm...)
But in the near future, i think i wont sell the 800 F11 as i wanted the last weeks, because its light weight is too convenient to carry, especially for hikes and you can stay much more behind and care less about scaring the animals away. Especially since the 200-800 seems to be the "weaker" lens regarding to sharpness, and if i always have to stop down to F10, there is the last reason gone to buy the 200-800 as 800 F11 replacement.
price/performance wise, 800 F11 is still king. Probably paired with a R5 its a pretty perfect combo where you have still 800mm FoV, yet you can crop in much more than you could on R6/R6II.
I messed up already many shots, mainly moving/flying birds with the 1280mm where i could have cropped easily manual with a full frame camera such as the R5 to a good framing without cutting anything off.
It mainly depends on your budget i would say, 600 F4, 1,4x TC, R5 and R7 sounds like the best "combo" to be honest, from there you have to pick what you wanna lose depending on your budget.
Thanks for this comparison Phil ! The focal lengths are defined when focusing at infinity. Around the 30ft you were testing, focus breathing certainly still plays a role. Without zoom, the 800/11 isn't affected, and the 100-500 is known to be suffering only very minimal focus breathing. Its predecessor 100-400Lii however was rather 370mm as estimated by Duade and Garry the Galaa in similar conditions. Maybe you should have borrowed Garry instead printing a test chart ;-)
Your testing was assuming one can approach the bird as close as you want. When using the 100-500 at 30 ft and cropping, the 500/7.1 result would have been less outstanding.
I take home f10 is about the sweet spot at the longer part of the 200-800.
In general, to me this test confirms the 100-500 is to be preferred when you can get close enough. For larger distances I'd say the 200-800 should be preferred over the 420-700.
After your previous video, I'd also think my R5 is more forgiving to the 200-800 with its 'inferior' pixel density compared to your R7 ;-) Of course, on FF you already need the 200-800 to match the reach of the 100-500 on the R7. So I'd assume Canon designed the 200-800 more for the FF bodies rather than for the R7.
I actually have Jean-Luc PiCardinal for that type of testing. This is a test chart test and to properly do a test chart test, you adjust the distance from the frame so that the frame is filled by the test chart. You are the second person who has suggested that prime lenses do not focus breathe. I don’t believe that is true though it may be true that they focus breathe less than zooms. I think I’ll be making a short video where I show the patent for the 200-800 and how it is actually designed to be less than 800 mm which could help explain the 3 1/2 foot difference more accurately than assuming it is focus breathing.
@@PhilThach You're right that primes also may breath a bit, but the breathing is much harder to iron out when you've got a zooming mechanism. The 100-500 is in this regard exceptional for a zoom. People were wondering why the 200-800 isn't an L, and I believe the focus breathing and fewer coating are the main reasons. Still the 200-800 offers amazing value for money for the reach-hunters among us ;-)
A proper test chart test has its value, but it's more designed for stuff like product photography or portraits.
Also for birders this provides some insights, but the variation with shooting from the same distance and then cropping the same area is more relevant for how to decide when to use/buy which lens.
And that canon really wanted happy APS-C users as well with the 800 F11.
As i switched completely from FF to APS-C and had the 800 F11 already, i was scared that i will have to sell the lens for sure, but in the end, 1280mm in that tiny and small formfactor.... unbeatable when you want some decent image quality on a budget.
For a while i though Nikon will take this place, but all their newer, longer primes or the 180-600 as well might be outstanding (good), but their price, ouch!
The sharpness of the 100-500 (without TC) was anyways well known since long ago and how well it fits the R7s high pixel density, i think it was a hefty overestimate of the 200-800 since we learned any better RF lens is tack sharp. It sounded anyways too good to be true and less sharpness/details as well not quiet 800mm at the long end sounds now at least reasonable.
@@PhilThach The 100-500 is for sure "less than" 500mm, as the 100-400 II EF was. Same goes for the 200-800 with a high chance.
The only longer lens i ever measured to be very close to the offical specs (by astrophotograpy software) was, well, a newtonian telescope, 750mm F4, being reported as 744mm by the software after proper collimation.
I would guess the 200-800 has something like real 210-770mm, probably even "just" 750mm. Doesnt matter much tho, the difference to 800mm is negliable.
@@harrison00xXx From all reviews I saw, the 100-500 is way much closer to a true 500mm compared to the 100-400Lii being 400mm (which I used love on my old 70D, but which was disappointingly short on the R6)
From the last review of Duade, it looks the 200-800 is still longer than the Sony 200-600 with 1.4x which was supposed to provide 840mm ! I assume the internal zoom makes it even harder to avoid focus breathing.
Sorry for nitpicking but the best way to evaluate a teleconverter is to shoot from exactly the same position and then compare a cropped image from the lens alone against an un-cropped image with TC.
(Sorry if you actually did do this and I might have missed that part, I am tired right now but I love test charts and your video is keeping me awake.)
I agree, but this is a test chart video and the correct way to shoot a test chart is to move the camera to the point where the test chart completely fills the frame.
I think I’m content on the decision passing on the 200-800. Thanks for video. Any chance for a follow up video showing results midframe and corners?
Thank you! I'll refer you to Christopher Frost's videos on these lenses for corner views.
Would be interested to see you run your test shots thru DXO Pure Raw 4 new lens corections to see if it equalizes the sharpness. Can use the software for free on a 30 day trial.
Phil: Thanks for doing this! You have saved me a lot of money! I will keep my 800 F11
Thank you!
@PhilThach I own a R6 Mark II and R7 with 100-400 RF, would you suggest 200-800 RF as a longer lens purchase vs 100-500. They seem similar but I have used 100-500 in the past and was quite impressed with weight and performance. It’s confusing with 200-800 being so close in many ways but 7.1 wide open sometimes helps to shoot faster birds at higher shutter speeds.
To me the 100 to 500 is the way to go on an R7 and if you want to use your R6 Mark II for smaller wildlife. You might be best served with the 800 F11.
A very useful comparison, because whichever lenses I get, it will probably be on the R7, because even if I get a FF R camera, I will be mainly using long lenses on the R7 for reach. My understanding is that the focal shortening, focus breathing, of zoom lenses, happens not just at minimum focus distances, but at all closer distances. In other words, the 200-800mm, would only be a true 800mm at longer distances, close to infinity. Your results seem to be consistent with other comparisons I've seen between the 200-800mm and the 800mm f11. I found the 100-500mm + teleconverter combo, to be what I expected. In my experience, teleconverters have more of a hit on image quality, than is generally realized. For instance when I put the 1.4x III on my EF 100-400mm mk2, whilst acceptably sharp, it is nowhere near as sharp as the bare lens without the TC. But if you have to crop to fill the frame, the TC is overall better
I'd already decided I was getting the 100-500mm, and would get a 1.4x extender for more reach. But was thinking of the 800mm f11, for shooting small birds, on a wide open site I spend most of my time on. Mainly because it'd have more effective focal range at the type of distances, I'd probably be shooting at. For those of us, not predominantly using a hide/blind in the field, we're usually stuck to a certain distance. I've never been a fan of FF for field long lens, or field macro photography, simply because of the reach thing. If you have to crop most of your FF shots, you are effectively using a crop camera, with far less pixel density, and no image quality advantage. It's not that I've never had a FF camera, because I've had a 5Ds for some years now, and I used to shoot 35mm film, back in the day. The 5Ds is great for landscapes, and for macro shots of larger subjects, where you can get to the distance you want, but if you have to crop, it's no better than my 7D mkII which has exactly the same pixel density.
Great comment.
All of these look plenty sharp enough to me!
Surprised at the 800 F11, in theory from MTF charts, that lens should have been the softest.
Currently on the R7+sigma 150-600C. I'm gonna upgrade the lens to the 200-800 eventually. But I'm not sure if I should change to an R6ii or R8 first. Seems like this lens is better suited to FF.
Thanks for sharing!
Thank you!
Hi, usefull video as usual!! maybe my fault, Do you have a charts comparision between 100-500+ 1,4x and 200-800?
Thank you! Yes, in this video I compared the 100 to 500 alone with the 200-800 and the 800 F11 and the 100 to 500 with the 1.4
Hello Phil good review. I do have a question. Have seen the item with Heather and you with the R6M2. Heather than is using the RF 100-500mm f 4.5-7.1 l with the R7. Do you also have an item with the R6M2 with the RF 100-500mm combined with the RF 1.4 extender? This for wildlife and bird photograpfy. I now use the R6M2 with the RF 100-500mm and the RF 24-105 and think about buying the RF 1.4 extender. Greatings Leo Lengton
I might prefer the 800 f/11 on the R6 Mark II in situations where the long minimum focus distance of the 800 f/11 doesn't mess things up. Still, my favorite Canon birding combo is the R7 with the 100-500 even with the problems the R& has with consistent focus.
Phil When you're using the 800 F11 what is the minimum focusing distance of that and does it get to be kind of far back when you're doing birds like Warblers .
Minimum focus is 19.69' / 6 m. I have had to step back a few times to get a shot but usually, it is not a problem.
This is what I suspected - at 800mm, the fixed f11 lens is sharper than the 200-800mm lens!! I plan to get 100-500mm lens and for the reach I plan to use 800mm f11. The issue with my setup is I need to switch lenses which I hate but the 200-800mm lens is not sharp at 800mm. Your review was very helpful and addressed the question that other RUclipsrs didn't.
Thank you!
Great video! I have both the R7 and the R8. I may save me a few bucks as I was trying to decided between the 200-800 and the 800 f11 lens. I already have the 600mm F11 lens but have mixed reviews on that lens. I also have the great value RF 100-400 lens. Can you compare the 200-800 or the 800 F11 fare on the R8 (or the similar R6 MKII)? Thanks again!
Thank you!
I was expecting diffraction to be the deciding factor. I wonder if the camera is sharpening the raw file based on the lens?? It might be easier to sharpen geometric shapes?A big ask would be to rent a 600f4 and add that to the list of charts.
Maybe with the lessons of the 90D they have added some in camera sharpening?
Good morning Phil
consider that with these zooms the maximum focal length is calculated at infinity, at short distances the maximum focal length is never the one declared but lower, which does not happen in a fixed focal length lens.
HI
Good morning! So you are saying prime lenses never have focus breathing? I'm not sure I agree with that.
@@PhilThachI don't know if fixed lenses don't suffer completely but I certainly know that zooms suffer in a particular way... obviously not all in the same way if I'm not mistaken the Sony 200/600 zoom is a lens that suffers particularly.
I don't have the chance to do a test because at the moment I don't have a fixed focal length lens, for example the RUclipsr Duade Paton talked about it in one of his videos.
HI
Icona di Verificata con community
I agree. My understanding is that primes don't focus breathe by definition, but manufactures do commonly misrepresent the true focal length of primes simply based on the size of the lens glass and physical optics they design into it (although the advertised and actual are usually close on primes). Two different issues. Zooms can suffer from both misrepresentation and focus breathing.
Hello,nice comparison.with interesting results.(f11 softer tham f10.. ).Are the photos taken with the electronic shutter ?, and with stabilisation turned off ,and with delayed shooting ? (i find it the best to shoot this way to an acurate results (with this low shutter speeds ),and also i take multiple shots (at least 3 ) and chose the sharpest results to compare.Keep up the good work.
Electron shutter was used. I did a burst of 10 with each combination and picked the best shoot from each burst.
F11 is softer because of diffractions. The more you close down the aperture past a certain point, the softer everything becomes.
Very interesting Phil and thank you very much for sharing. It is not a surprise to me that the RF100-500 L Lens performs better than the RF200-800 non-L lens. It is not a surprise to me that the RF800/F11 prime lens performs better than the RF200-800 zoom lens. I was wondering if the R7 IBIS was on during these shoots? Should all stabilisation be turned off during such a test? How would the same test turn out on another camera ie. R6mII or R5? I am still happy for my RF200-800 and I have seen lots of great footage shot using that lens. So I will keep it together with my RF100-500 and use them for the reach needed. I hate using my 1.4 converter on the RF100-500 bad use of the restriction it gives me. I love the flexibility of the RF200-800. I admire your photography and methodology, but I will certainly get rid of my current R7 and see what new cameras have to offer using these lenses. Thanks again - keep up the good work. / Per Christensen, Denmark
Thank you!
Interesting comparison, I use the 100-500 with the 1.4x on my R7 all the time and my copy is really pretty darn sharp at F10 (or F8 on the short end), as long as I use electronic first curtain for the shutter. Using electronic shutter only is hit or miss because the rolling shutter on the R7 is pretty terrible even on static subjects. That 800/F11 is a bargain, a lot of lens for the money.
I continue to be happy with the 800 f/11.
Wow thank you so much for boring yourself with charts haha.. I really appreciate this video as it just proved to me my 800 f11 is just fine and I’m not wasting my money on the 200-800. I’ll be sharing this like crazy.
Thank you! I assumed that the 200-800 would be better so I bought it and then it came in and turns out it isn't.
Do you have any plans to do a test of the 200-800 in a sports setting? I know you shoot on an R7, but it would be nice to see how it does on an R5 at a baseball or softball game. Just an idea. (Since I have an R5 not an R7 😏)
That is a possibility I haven’t gotten out to any softball so far this season, but I may make it to a game at some point.
Thanks for the video. However, I'd like to see it taken even a little further. In your last video it sounded like the 100 to 500 was much superior to the 200-800 on the r7 in your opinion. However, in this video the 200-800 was nearly identical at 600 mm to the 100-500 at 500 mm. How do they compare as you go down further, to 100 400 or 500 mm? Also, wouldn't it be better to go with the 200 to 800 if they are virtually the same at 500 versus 600 mm. You still have the 600 to 800 to use on the 200 to 800 while you are maxed out at 500 mm on the 100 to 500. After watching your video, it seems like the 600 mm of range makes the 200 to 800 a superior lens since the bigger lens is nearly identical to the smaller lens when you get down to the where the smaller lens operates. Thanks for your input. I really appreciate it.
If talking about wider end, the 200-800 is about 2/3 stops behind the 100-500. Plus the IQ will still be better on the 100-500. The 200-800 on the long end of 800mm seems quite soft, so you probably can get similar result just by cropping the 100-500 to 800mm FOV. Then consider the weight and size difference too, which is going to reflect how much joy you get out of using each lens. The 600/4 has great IQ and F4, but I can guarantee you would hate using it compared to the 100-500 just because of the size.
Phil, since you have all 3 major Brands, plus your channel is growing, what are the odds of you start getting lens to test like for instance, the TTArtisan 500mm f/6.3 Lens which is now available for 5 different mounts which also includes Fuji. B and H Photo can't seem to keep them in stock these days. But we see very few reviews. However it is a Manual Only Lens. For folks on a tight budget, the majority of folks, that might be the only thing they can afford, New.
They offered that lens to me to review and I turned them down. I didn’t want to do manual focus bird photography. It would be a good moon lens.
Well I have the R5 and the R7 and the 100-500 and the 800mm f11. For birds I’ve ended up using the 100-500 with the R7. To be honest I feel that anything much longer than 500mm on a Canon crop camera is a bit too much (except maybe for really exceptional circumstances). I kind of feel that if 800 mm equivalent is not good enough perhaps you should get closer or give up! So, while I find these results interesting I think they’re mostly on the wrong camera! I would be interested in a comparison between the R7 with the 100-500 and the R5 with the 200-800. (Not asking Phil to do this)
I have had two copies of Rf 800mm f11 and both were very sharp with R6 mark I and ll. So this test reveals the same thing ,thank you
Thank you! While the test was on the wrong camera for your uses, it was on the camera most likely to reveal any flaws.
For jumpy songbirds i absolutely love the 800 F11 on the R7. Rarely i even go for 4k60 crop mode (1800mm) or even with enhanced digital IS for 2200mm+
I mean, yes if i need it wider, i would wish a R5 for the full 800mm field of view, but for those cases where i expect the need of less than 1280mm FoV or dont need the "maximum reach", i have a 150-600 lens as well for up to 960mm effictive FoV.
I think it all depends, and the circumstances where you want like 1000mm at least are not as exceptional as you think in a "point and shoot" usecase of wildlife photography during a hike/walk or when driving slowly around and looking out for birds.
I used a Tamron zoom at 600 at a R7 and I sometimes felt it was still too far away. I am afraid though issues like heat haze would become more apparent at a certain distance
@@dannyd.9637 yes anything above 800mm is prone to heat haze. Add aps c crop and you have to know when it works and when not
That was a great comparison, thank you for the work on this. It seems that the huge pixel density difference between the R5/R6 vs R7 is definitely working against the R7 with the RF200-800mm. I would love to hear someone explain the physics on this and why higher pixel density causes this. I could see how higher pixel density sensors would be less tolerant of camera shake but I do not understand why the poorer lens "sharpness" is so apparent with these and not noticeable with lower pixel sensor cameras like the R6&R5.
There is something called diffraction, it happens when light passes a small aperture. Thats why the 200-800 looks best at F10 (sweet spot?!) but worse than F9 at F11.
This diffraction is basically a transition of the light at a given spot, spreading around its nearby places (it should not go)
The higher the pixel density (aka smaller pixels), the more "blur" you are catching from the imperfections of the lens. Something you can avoid when the resolution of the lens "matches" the sensors pixel size.
A good example are older film day lenses. They look often amazing and "sharp" on film, but if you use them on a digital camera with a high resolution you pick up imperfections you didnt even know of since film cant catch them at all because of the grain size. A cameras sensor basically have some "demands", some differ even by the fact how the filter layer on the sensor is applied, if and HOW (!!!) the microlenses are placed,...
In fact what some people dont realise, with lets say a vintage lens which lacks sharpness, you can use for example 10MP mode and the cameras imaging processing is "binning" the pixels, basically making out of it a 10 MP camera and the vintage lens produces better images on 10MP mode compared to the full 32. Post processing the 32MP image to 10 MP would btw not be as effective as "in camera binning".
I would also be interested in some more facts, im also not yet that experienced in the technical aspect of how light works and travels in lenses and how it affects IQ.
@@harrison00xXx I do understand the diffraction issue but there should be no difference between R6/R5 vs R7 on the diffraction. Pixel density difference should not affect the diffraction aspect.
@@seb2549 Not if the diffraction would be extreme thats true.
You can see it similar to old CRT monitors which had a grid of like 1280x1024, but you could set them to 1600x1200.
You might got a little bit more sharpness out of the 1600x1200 resolution, but in the end the image looked „wrong“ or just worse.
The optics performance should exceed or at least be similar to the pixel density of the sensor behind it
@@seb2549 See it on a „pixel level“, as soon you have any optical problem light beams are not going where they should and go nearby pixels.
If your sensor resolution is too high, you capture all this (wrong) information.
On a R5/6 the resolution is less, and so the camera captures less (or none in the best case) of this wrong information, leading to a better recreation of the scene you captured.
Its by far also a big difference as i said in the first comment how the sensors filter and microlenses are made, making especially much vintage glass worse than on film.
Its a highly complex theme
Interesting & very useful review, thanks Phil. However, there are a few issues that maybe you could clarify & expand on so we can get even more from these results:
1. The images were "shot raw"; yes, but how were they rendered for viewing, and in that process was any digital lens correction applied, which the consumer lenses rely on quite heavily to give their apparent high performance?
2. When comparing shots using test charts it's common to also look at the corners. This is actually very important for those of us who shoot birds in flight, as with these long lenses tracking can be tricky and your best shot has often to be cropped from way off center. It's also where the consumer lenses tend to show their weaknesses; my own comparisons of the 800/11 & 100-500 indeed show that this is really where they differ in performance. Without having to re-shoot, is there any possibility to see the comparative corner results, please?
3. There was no discussion of the effects of diffraction on these results. The R7 is a real tough test camera be because of its resolution, but that high resolution (80Mp FF equivalent pixel density!) also implies a diffraction-limited aperture of around f/5.2, so a lot of the de-sharpening that we are seeing as the apertures increase beyond about f/8 is likely as much from this source as it is from the inherent sharpness of the lens itself. (In comparison, the R6s have a DL aperture around f/10).
We have been using the 100-500, 800/11 & 1.4x TC in various combinations with the R6, R7, & R6ii since the R6 came out in 2020, and our conclusion ties in well will Phil's findings, namely that the consumer lenses like the 800/11 are excellent when used with the lower-resolution & lower-noise cameras like the R6s, but the R7 can make the most of the sharpness and larger aperture of the 100-500. The 800/11 + R6i/ii combo can even benefit from adding the 1.4x in good light, it just about takes the system its limits!
I shoot birds and reach is always a problem. I have the R6 and thought about the rf800 as a second lens and wondering is I shouldn’t give it a try over the 200-800 now. What issues did you find shooting the 800 with the 1.4x? I love birds in flight imaging most of all so does this combo affect the AF system negatively?
I really wonder the same as you have pointed out in paragraph 3 above. diffraction seems to be killing the R7 in this case very much nad that has been something observed by others in the field.
@@arcadiancreationsmodelhorses Birds in flight are going to be tough with a fixed 800mm. I'd get the R5 instead or R7 for more reach over the 20mp FF of R6.
@@vitaminb4869 R5 is not even remotely close to budget friendly for me. My R6 is giving me way more hits than I ever had on any dslr I’ve owned. My R6 needs to last me a while hence why I’m asking if based on these tests is getting an 800 f/11 would be better over the 200-800.
@@vitaminb4869 just remember that if you add reach by cropping you will be both lens quality & potentially diffraction limited, so it really means using L-level lenses wide open, and that's certainly our experience with the R7; and as confirmed by Phil's results here and in his other videos.
With a red dot or other external sight BsIF are relatively easy to acquire & track @800-1200mm.
Interesting test. Please do it again with a FF Camera like the R6II
Thank you!
I was already very close to selling my 800 F11 and Sigma 150-600C in favor of the 200-800 (thinking the 200-800 beats both lenses)
Seems like i should stick to the comfortable and light 800 F11 and in case i need the zoom, the Sigma 150-600C is also just fine as long i dont want to make handheld videos.
I may have missed it, but did you do this with a tripod and remote trigger? It seems you would need to in order to be sure you were still when taking the shots. And you might get mad at me but watching those charts and your voice saying the results put me to sleep. I may just be very tired but I had to re-watch this lol. And I feel like the blind man you mentioned because my vision is so bad now, I always laugh when people show noise comparisons and now you with chart comparisons, I am not able to see any difference. Pretty sad huh Thanks for your testing these.
In order to see the difference, you really need to be sitting close to a large 4K monitor and watch the video in 4K.
Nice video I am a dual system user Nikon Z8 and Canon R5, I have the 200-800 and must say I like it a lot, My 800mm shots are sharp, Maybe your copy is a little soft. With my Nikon I use the 600 f6.3 PF lens but how would you compare your Nikkor 180-600 to the RF 200-800 at 600mm and with the 1.4 converter on the Nikon?
when you move forward 35%-40% closer to the subject to fill the frame like in this test for the 100-500 compared to the 200-800...gives the 100-500 a big advantage in this specific test environment.
...but that doesn't simulate real life wildlife shots, because if you're shooting birds, you'll be cropping.
I haven't purchased the Z 1.4x TC yet and after I saw how bad the Canon 1.4x brought down the image quality of the 100-500, I may never buy one. I have worried that my 200-800 was a bad copy until I saw the results Christopher Frost got with his 200-800 that was hand picked by Canon for him to test.
I agree Matt, but that is how test chart shooting works. Watch my blackpoint wildlife drive video that I will link in another reply.
ruclips.net/video/RCIKjbp-NR4/видео.htmlsi=ll6C9mLYI8lWMw3W
@@PhilThachI don’t notice much difference with Z 1.4 TC on teleprimes and 70-200. I do notice a difference when I use a 1.4x on my RF set up. Your results may vary but I think the Z tc is a higher quality.
Please make a video of this comparison in the field, with bird photographs
ruclips.net/video/RCIKjbp-NR4/видео.htmlsi=ll6C9mLYI8lWMw3W
Rf800 f11 and rf200-800.... I know the rf 100-500 is unbeatable ❤️
I was a bit surprised that the 800/11 lens seems a bit sharper than the 200-800/9.
I was thinking that the f/11 would be deep into diffraction territory for the R7...
Maybe I will experiment with the 800/11 in air shows instead, despite the loss of flexibility. We'll see...
I was also thinking diffraction would be the deciding factor.
That just goes to show how much better it is.
@@vitaminb4869 in general, well-built prime lenses are better optically compared to the complex and heavy zoom lenses (the difference in weight of my 400/5.6L to the 100-400/5.6L II IS is staggering - you can keep the former lens all day long in your hands without suffering from the weight)
I got a rental 200-800 a few days ago. been testing on my r7 vs my 100-500. I do get why youd test at different distances to see how it looks filling the frame with paper but ive been doing the opposite. Since you cant usually pick subject distance with wildlife photography Ive been switching lenses and shooting from same spot. At 500mm and cropping vs 800mm the 200-800 so far does appear to be slightly sharper than 100-500.
At first glance the 100-500 looks sharper but its just because the dof is larger than 800 f9. If you look at the actual focus point the 800mm f9 shot is a bit sharper.
However its not a night and day difference and i think 8/10 times id still rather have 100-500. The weight, af, travel ability, and the slightly faster aperture of over 2/3rd a stop difference are all very nice. Also the mfd and it almost doubling as a semi macro lens on r7.
Thanks for testing these lenses like this. good to see 800 f11 too.
Thank you! For a test chart test, you fill the frame with each lens/camera combination. However, If you'd like to see some real-world photography with Heather and I both shooting from the same car, both using R7s and Heather using her 100-500 and me using the 200-800, be sure to watch the blackpoint wildlife drive video that I'll put a link to in a comment after this comment.
ruclips.net/video/RCIKjbp-NR4/видео.htmlsi=RjIF9LuSoXgleNq_
@@PhilThach yep I had watched it already! Good video too
Good comparison and test, Prime lens reaches further than zoom lens is expected. However 800 f11 is sharper than both 200 800 f9 and f10 at 800 is a little bit surprised. But at least now I know the sweet spot of 200 800 is at 600 wide open, and if needed try to shoot at 800 f10 for slightly sharper😂😂😂 eventually most time I still used f9 without any problems.
Thanks for watching!
@@PhilThach after watch your video I also did some iso 12233 chart testing on R6, from wide open aperture down to f11 on each zoom, turn off the stabilization, iso stays at 100, 2 sec delay shot, on tripod, and view the raw file with 100% zoom in. I can’t tell too much different from 200mm 250mm 325mm 450mm 500mm 600mm, they all looks sharp for me. However mine worse zoom range is at 707mm slightly but noticeable softer at f9, my 800mm is slight better than 707mm but still softer than any zoom before 600mm. I even feel like it more looks like some fringe. But if I took it from the closest shoot distance I can see some slightly improvement at 707 and 800mm. I think my sharpest zoom is at 200mm not 600mm, they are pretty close though. All of the difference on R6 is less noticeable than what you show on R7.
At infinity focus the difference in AoV would be smaller so it is definately some focus breathing, still the true reach of 200-800mm is disappointing.
cool video. I found the color cast difference with and without the teleconverter to be interesting. Easily fixed in post but still interesting how the TC changed the color cast.
Thank you! I was surprised by the color cast and the poor image quality with the TC.
I had just bought the 100-500 a day ago
Great choice!
This is certainly helpful, but shouldn't you also compare them being at the exact same distance like you would in a real world scenario? The reason to use 800mm is because 500mm is too short from the same distance and there is no way to get closer. In this case if you shot it at 500mm, you will have to crop to get closer. So if cropping 500mm to the same FOV as 800mm, which one would look better in this instance?
Not on a test chart. In a test chart test, you move until you fill the frame. Watch the video linked in my next comment for what you are looking for.
ruclips.net/video/RCIKjbp-NR4/видео.htmlsi=iSHKfgRWrFaYv8GU
Surely Canon did not exaggerate the focal length on that lens. I have always wondered if these manufacturer might do that for marketing competition. Just like the Nikon 180-600. Perhaps it's not 180 but really a 200-600? Who knows and who is going to challenge that.
I think maybe Canon did exaggerate the focal length. That point from this video seemed to hit home with many commenters. Maybe I should make a video about that....
@@PhilThach I would say you should do a video about it. Not sure how you would accomplish the testing tho. What to compare it to?
Could be you have a poor copy of the 200-800? Thanks for the video - very interesting.
That's what I thought until I watched Christopher Frosts video. He had similar results when looking at a test chart. His lens was a review sample sent to him by Canon. Surely his hand selected lens was a good copy.
We've got to remember that the 200-800 is a substantially less expensive lens than the 100-500. I think there is more sample variation with the cheaper lens. I've used my 200-800 only a couple of times but in no way would I class it as unsharp.@@PhilThach
Enjoyed the comparisons Phil but…why test an 800 mm lens on a 1.6 crop or with a 1.4 TC? What you should try is the 200-800 on an R5 or an R62 and crop the images…I think that you just might change your view a bit. In the end paper results mean nothing to me…how do my birds look; that’s all I care about. Just a thought and just another view and nothing more.
Thank you! I made this video after there was a great response to a video that came out a week earlier. In that video, I recommended not using the 200-800 on the R7 and suggested it is still probably ok for use on cameras like the R6, R6mk2, R8, R3 and even R5. The reason I made that video is because the birds were not looking good enough to me from the 200-800 and R7 combo. So basically, we agree, you just didn't know the full backstory to this video and why I made it.
Thanks for the update…appreciate it and will continue as a dedicated subscriber!
Okay
In short👇🏼
(1) Rf 200-800 is sharper at ~ 700 mm than 800 mm
(2)@800mm f10 gives the best sharpness (better than f9 n f11)
(Rf 200-800 )
(3) 200-800 lens is not true 800mm at longer end
(4) 800mm f11 is sharper than 200-800 at long end
(5) 100-500mm is sharpest of all three, so be it with or without TC
(6) More MPs are unforgiving especially APSC sensors, demand way costlier lenses
(7) Phil worked to-the-point for this video
Thanks
Thank you!
I found a listing that shows Canon is rounding up on the 800mm number. I understand it, saying 199.97 to 784.76 is a mouthful.
I should probably try to replicate your test. I am curious how consistent Canon is in the build of the lens.
I will see if I can find the same test chart.
Indeed! I'll be making a short video about that soon.
Lots of comments for this topic. Here's another!
Thanks, Leon! :)
Anyone that thinks a 800mm FF equivalent should be more then adequate for Nature most times really doesn't know much about nature. Yet the just get closer crowd or just give up are always loud and present. Plenty of PROs want even more reach. Also, what if the 800 f/11 is actually longer than 800mm? Bad lighting good lighting plays such a huge role in photography, which why many never shoot in poor light when it comes to birding. I see every condition as a new challenge. It's just a hobby. One of many.
Yes, I often wish I had more than 800mm FF equivalent when I'm in the field.
When the internet forces you to prove what we all already knew was true. 😆
LOL, Welcome to my life. :)
Something is going on there with your 100-500 + 1.4x f10 shot. There is no way it's that bad compared to f11. I tested this myself, and they are virtually the same, looking more like what your f11 does. So I'd toss the f10 result you got and just use f11 for comparing the 100-500 + 1.4x vs other lenses.
I have found the real focal lengths of different lenses differ by sometimes a big margin, even from the same mfr. From my astronomy experience focal length should be from the front element to the surface of the film (sensor) plane, and you should be able to measure it exactly. That's why they have a film plane mark on cameras for the last 100 years. Telextenders aside. It should be no different in either photo or astro, focal length is focal length and FOV. But I'm thinking sometimes mfrs cheat. But why? Maybe they are thinking "Close enough"? Thanks for some real world testing. My RF 800 is on it's way. ;-)
Thank you!
All these lens are sharp enough. A good picture is not judged by the sharpness alone. Enjoy bird photography
I agree, a good picture is not judged by sharpness alone, but I submit that sharpness is certainly an import part of a good picture.
@@PhilThach of course, sharpness is important. We all have different definition of sharpness. We all see things differently. I do think that all the lens you tested are sharp enough for me.
THANK YOU FOR THAT WORK! Pure gold. Objectified assessment by someone who uses Canon but is not affraid to say anything. It reinforces my belief that 200-800mm is worse as a 800mm lens than my 800mm f11 that can be bought for 3x less money. Now I need a good test of OM-system 150-600mm lens on OM-1 and on G9II
Thank you!
200-800 is way overpriced now