These are the kind of reviews I want to see. No fluff, just pure experience. Thank you for a real review of this lens. Great work. Subscribed and liked.
Thanks for sharing this Scott! I make the same conclusions as you regarding the autofocus of this RF 200-800! The big differences that I encounter on my R7 with my "old" Sigma 150-600 contemporary: the autofocus is much more "sticky" and fast, I no longer have the worries in a series of having one photo out of two or three blurs, the sharpness is even better and above all what a pleasure to have completely silent autofocus in video mode and additional 320 mm! Honestly, what a pleasure to use this combo! I would like to take this opportunity to wish everyone my best wishes for health and happiness for 2024!
Thank you for sharing Scott. Nice to see how well the RF 200-800 performs at F9. Thanks also for the additional explanation regarding the operation of the AF on the R7.👍🏼
I love the 100-500mm. I usually have around 400-800 iso on largest aperture and 1/800s, even on overcast days. To me anything below 1600 iso is top tier. So even if I have to go up to 1200-1600 iso on the RF 200-800 I would be very happy with the light and amount of noise. As you said, iso only affects light. While aperture and focal length affect dof and shutter speed affects motion blur and camera shake. Out of the 4, iso has the least impact in changing the entire image.
Scott, I finally got my 200-800. My first outing with it was rainy and very overcast. On the R5, there are no issues at all in those conditions. Today was sunny, so I popped on the 1.4 extender and ducks even way far out were somewhat useable after denoise and resolution enhancement in Topaz Photo AI. Relatively close subjects did great. I'm glad to know the lens performs well on R7 even with the 1.4, so I'll have to try that out, too! happy new year! 🎉
Great video with practical comparisons and real world performance. I was pleasantly surprised to see how well the Canon 200 to 800 mm lens performed with the Canon R7! It would be interesting to see how both the 100 to 500 with the Tele converter, and the 200 to 800 perform on the R5 and R6/Mark II.
Well! That was precisely what I cared for in this Lens. I was torn between RF 100-500 and this one as I have limited budget. By chance the Canon dealer had one piece with him and offered me. I grabbed it and definitely not regretting it. Please also try to include your opinion on the weight difference, because for some folks that may be another deciding factor. Thanks for your video, waiting for the part-II.
Great review, one of the best actually. I really like how you focus on what is important. All other people seem to talk about is the f/9 aperture. However, for this price, could anyone expect like f/5.6 or similar? Absolutely not. Also there's very popular 600 and 800mm lenses which both are at f/11 and the results are quite impressive. Talking about low light situations, this is absolutely a lens for FF as it ends at 800mm. When mount on the R7 for example you get the reach you honestly simply don't need but you lose light and start to see diffraction even at wide open aperture. So when you mount this lens on 26MPx camera like R6II you can really pump up the ISO and the results will be great. Not best on APSC, not best on high resolution cameras, but when you know what to mount it on you gonna get really great photos!
I totally agree with you that the F-stop is the control for Depth of Field. Exposure is a matter of the exposure triangle and how good your camera is, I think. I am convinced the both my RF 200-800 and my RF 100-500 are great lenses and I feel assured that when they are combined with the Canon R5 mark 2, we don’t need to worry about high F number and high ISO settings. Thanks for your video, your thoughts and great inspiration. Happy New Year. Greetings from Per Christensen, Denmark
Your videos are so helpful. You explain facts about the cameras and lenses in a way that make complete sense to me and help me get better photos. Thank you!
Great video Scott, thank you for the review and using it on the r7. I’ve been going out for the past week since I got it and I love it. It replaced my rf100-500mm. Like you, I don’t see any different other than the amazing reach on the new RF 200-800mm. Happy New Years to all.
Amazing shots here, man. Loving the channel so far and the stuff you upload. The R7 is quite impressive in good light; in not-so-good light, well… yeah, it struggles. I still think the original R5 is the best, most well-rounded mirrorless camera out there right now for the price. Sure the A1, R5m2, R1, Z8/Z9, etc., clearly outclass it in some aspects but I think many people would agree they were happy the R5m2 was released just to get easier, less expensive access to the original R5. I love the R7 but the cruddy EVF (small, poor resolution, and has less stable frame rate) and lack of a third wheel/dial makes it significantly less fun to use in the field compared to the full-frame counterparts. Also, the 100-500mm with the 1.4x extender is surprisingly good when it comes to sharpness. For those who own the 100-500mm already and are eyeing the 200-800, I would seriously consider just getting the 1.4x extender.
Thank you for the comparison test, but also the AF tips. Since watching your earlier videos on it, I’ve employed it, and what a difference. Now, to start saving my nickels and dimes for the 200-800. Happy New Year!
Another awesome video! Lots to learn with the R7 and extenders and I believe everyone has the same issues with the autofocus. I appreciate your videos and truly learning what this camera can and cannot do. Someone here said full auto will help, but I haven't use that mode since I started photography. Maybe something worth investigating. Thanks for all you do and Happy 2024!
Full auto stinks. Gets it wrong 90% of the time. Once you understand what types of exposure triangle settings do what for intentional blur, bokeh predictions, color, etc. you will never shoot any manual settings again.
Great explanation of the effect of aperture. I have seen many comments where people say “f9 is a show stopper for me”. On the R7 at 20’, a distance I can get with small birds, the DOF at 800mm is 0.7” at f9. I think these people want f5.6 and still pay under $3000. 😅 I have used your focus method and have had great success. I haven’t put my 1.4x on this lens yet but I am going to. I normally start with my RF 100-500 on my R5 and my RF 200-800 on my R7.
Nice! Great tips there. One day I might move to bbf but for now, I’m all good. I’m looking for the 100-400L ii to pair with my R7 to give my 70-200/2.8 a break and I don’t like my 70-300L dimensions. Although the RF100-400 is tempting along with the 100-500 / 200-800. The R paired with RF glass is so fast, I like the shooting distance you can configure too. Iv not looked at assigned eye focus to a back button but eye focus really is where dof is critical. I think when you have the correct plane of focus on your subject and it’s the whole subject in focus, eye focus is less of an issue. Head/body is fine and probably “quicker” if we can perceive that difference. Look forward to the next part and unlucky with the Sony filming kit
Yes the 'eye' focus is just the critical focus point in theory. I just use it to judge how deep I want that DoF and adjust aperture or my focal distance through the zoom lens or my feet with a prime 😄
Hi Scott, great video! I preordered the 200-800 but I have to wait until February 2024. No problem, at that time I will also order the Canon R5 Mk II so that will be a great combo!
Dang man - I lost my 24-105 to a similar incident as your Sony lens. But I was able to sell the busted lens on EBay for a decent price given the damage - so definitely something you can do to recover some of the value. Just subbed to the channel and looking forward to more content.
Great video, again. Awesome!! Very educational. I understand/see in the video you don't use auto iso, but you controle it with the joystick. This for changing the contrast quick I presume? So: the ISO setting you use is "get what you see" through the viewfinder principle? I have to change my settings then. I was using the joystick for aperture and the ring for light compensation.
I use the scroll wheel by the joystick for ISO. I watch the image to see how it looks and watch the histogram in the viewfinder. When I get the exposure I think I want, I take a few shots, then I raise and lower the exposure and snap a few shots in each direction to get a bracket of shots. That way in post I have a few more renditions of exposure on the same subject
Merci merci Scott, for your vidéos. I am learning so much. Votre capacité pédagogique et votre savoir sont de vraies qualités que vous avez. Bravo ! I still struggle with my canon R7 (100-500mm) in low light situation or auto focus. I shoot often in the FV mode and try now the technique of “letting go” for non moving birds. I was in Costa Rica tropical forest in a very dark environment. I got some of the birds coming out of nowhere but often the birds were blurry and the iso (auto) was sooo high. Maybe it is normal and I still have to learn more and more. I might get the 200-800mm however I have to see if i can handle it with my small size. Thank you again.
Great review Scott, and thank you for explaining slow/fast, aperture, and DOF! I’ve seen too many people talk down on this lens for being f9, but at 800mm, most likely one would want to be at f9 or above due to the shallow DOF.
My issue with the aperture is more to do with how it impacts the use of extenders. For example, the F will become an F12-ish on the 1.4 and an F18 on the 2x, wheres the 100-500 will stop at F14 with the 2x. It's less about the DOF and more about the amount of light. When you are working in low light, like woodlands, every lumen helps.
@@OhhhhhhhBuggeron my 100-500, @ 500mm I normally stop down the f9 any how for better dof, and increased sharpness. Wide open f7.1 is not as sharp as f9. Same is true with the 1.4x tc on. Stop down a little eg to f14 for better sharpness and better dof.
@@nordic5490 I vehemently disagree. F7.1 should be plenty enough DOF to capture most subjects in their entirety. How do I know? Thousands and thousands and thousands of photos. Also, I am fairly certain that F9 is not anymore sharp, (noticeably, if at all), than F7.1. How do I know? Again, thousands and thousands and thousands of photos. Photos taken on the R7 and R5. Photos taken in low light, noon light. Photos taken at night. etc. There is just no reason to stop down to F9 unless you need a MORE busy background than you already get with F7.1. I just don't understand that at all... But hey, you do you.
So sorry to see that happen to your lens and filter :( But let’s hope the New Year will bring you way more! Great video as always, thank you! Greetings from Eastern Europe
Very good review. appreciated your effort. Really deep review. Subscripted and liked. Looking forward to the part 2. I am expecting mine in couple of days!
Fantastic video Scott :) TY. I like that you spoke so much about DOF. I've been shooting almost exclusively with the R7 + 800 F11 (1280mm equivalent) for a year and a half, about 150K shots worth. The majority of my shots are 21-30 ft from the camera. What I have found, is that at 21ft, with a 1280mm equivalent, my DOF is SO freaking thin, that F11 is "just barely small enough", and if I had enough light, I might stop it down to F13 sometimes, if I could. I don't have to have the entire bird sharp, and in focus, but at least from the tip of its beak, to the base of its tail. I used to dream about those Big White F4 lenses, but how goofy would it be to be shooting with a $15K lens, and having to stop it down to F11 or F13, to get enough DOF ??? Long story short, while a lot of folks are wondering if F9 will be fast enough, I'm wondering if I'll be able to shoot F13, without too much diffraction ? Here shortly, when I get my 200-800 rental, all of my initial testing, with be done from 21-25 ft @F11 @800mm, so I can compare Image quality directly with my 800 F11. Apples to apples. I'm definitely going to be buying another long birding lens, but there is still a chance I'll just get another 800 F11. For me, the 200-800 is not going to be an easy sell. Oh, and the Grey Crowned Rosy Finch !!! Whoo Hoo :) I SO need these..... But for me, it would involve an 8 hr round trip, its still not a very solid shot :( Hmmm.
Sorry to hear about the lense and filter. I'm also feeling pretty unlucky. I picked up the R6MII and the 100-500 before April and it come Black Friday there are discounts on both that amount to around $600 total. Plus it looks like the resell value of the 100-500 has dropped alot. Only real benefit I can see with the 100-500 is the lighter weight/size (and maybe tracking) since I would likely be shooting beyond 500mm. Some other reviewers seem to be saying that the 200-800 is same or slightly sharper than the 100-500 on the longer end though it suffers from chromatic aberrations.
I luckily was able to purchase the 200-800 used. I also have the 100-500 with the R7. So far I am super impressed with the 200-800! Biggest difference so far is the weight and balance, also not as good weather sealing. Can't wait to test it out more and also I look forward to your next video to see what else you discovered about its usability and the difference between the lenses.
So weather sealing that everyone keep saying is not as good.... The 100-500 has 14 weather seeing points and the and the 200-800 has 19 points. And I soaked the thing in the last video with ice and water. 0 issue. not advisable, but it happened lol
Nice video. I am on the list for the 200-800 in the meantime jumped on a super sale at Canon USA for the 100-500 for $1,899, couldn't say no. I have the RF 1.4x already, now trying to decide will the 100-500 be the best or easiest for me or should I also get the 200-800. I use both a R7 and R6ii. Only downside to 100-500 is starting at 300mm with the 1.4x. The weight of the 200-800 I think will be an issue, being an old weak guy, my 150-600C was tough due to the weight and it was slightly less than what the 200-800 is. I shoot mainly for the web, social media and my yearly 8 1/2 x 11 calendar for friends and family. Leaning towards just the 100-500 (i have other lenses as well) but the 200-800 sounds so cool... I guess I have G.A.S !
So the 200-800 vs the rf 100-500 with the TC on weight difference is 1 pound. Shouldn't be that much of an issue really. Both great lenses. Just depends on the distance and subject size you shoot. Rent the 200-800 when you can and test the 2 out.
@@WILDALASKA That is my plan, rent to try. I am trying to decide whether to sell my 70-200iii and 100-400Lii I rarely use the 70-200 so it makes sense to sell it, The 100-400 is used with my DSLR's while the 100-500 is used with the R7 and R6ii. I could see a use for both the 100-500 and 200-800, the 500 would be an all around lens used for the most part without the extender while the 200-800 would be good at the beach at Newport RI and a lake I go to in Mass both places where there will be birds at 400 yards away and 10 yards away and larger flocks of them. Or I am I trying to justify to feed my G.A.S. ?
@@WILDALASKA The other part of the issue is having to use a walker if I go more than a few yards from the car, but I have one that will hold my camera bag. I have already started trying to do upper body exercises to get so I can hand hold better.
@@peterb.7437 I took it out yesterday even though it was way too dark for my R7, very high ISO, I wanted to try it and also try it with the 1.4x, the 300-500 with the extender is awkward and going to take getting used to. I could see having the 100-500 for most things and then for BIF the 200-800. Time will tell
I want to call out for people taking photos for fun rather than a living: Taking shots at 1200mm, 1600mm (2560mm equivalent on APS-C) isn’t PRACTICAL but it can be really FUN. I’ve just picked up a 200-800 and had an 800mm f11 with a 2x, and taking photos of stuff literal miles away from a high vantage point is fun. It can get you visibility into places you can’t get to, or subjects you can’t approach, or just don’t feel like going over to. Are you going to win sharpness awards? No, of course not. But a crappy photo of a subject is better than no photo of a subject.
Maybe it is time to get your hands at some micro 4/3 gear f.e the OM-1 paired with the 150-400 f5.4 or 300 f4. No depth of field issues there. And the problem with the presumed lack of background separation is also hugely exaggerated on that system. Nowadays you can easily get background separation/blur within the Lightroom app on your phone. Maybe a little bit of topic..but anyway😊. Love your channel..keep on posting..regards Ron.
The fake blur looks horrible in Lightroom to me personally. Natural fall off, bokeh, and playing with the light diffraction is the real key to amazing photos. The 4/3 stuff DoF is not ideal for the type of photography I do also
I get the sharpest photos I've ever gotten on the R5 with the 100 to 500L. I still think overall it's the better of the two lenses. The 200-800 would be nice to have too but I'm in no rush.
Bet money most folks if you had the images side by side at same focal range would get it 50-50 right. The IQ is extremely close. I had to look back at the EXIF a lot when working on the video and images.
Thanks for the video Scott, I'd learnt a lot about autofocusing practice and you made the point on depth of fielad. You're absolutely right! You made me hasitate again to choose my next (first mirrorless) body. Do I choose R7 or wait and ear more money and buy the R6 MII (my dream body, it would be mine first FF). I'm currently using 80D + Sigma 150-600 and I still love it, but the new mirrorless eye AF is another league. Anyway the 200-800 is a beast for the price. :-)
Seems to be a superb lens, if you don't mind the limitations that come along with f/9. I know it isn't practical, since canon has no such lens, but it would be interesting to see how the Sony/Nikon 600mm Zooms at 600mm f/6.3 would stack up at something like ISO 3200, cropped to 800mm, vs the Canon 200-800 at 800mm, f/9 and ISO 6400. Because realistically, that's the difference you're going to see with a full stop less light. So, if the additional focal length even gives you much of an advantage in the real world, early in the morning or during bad light, or if the advantage is (partially) eaten up by having to shoot at twice the ISO.
Does all this make sense... you compare a fixed Nikon lens to an ultra versatile Canon telephoto lens, the most versatile on the market itself... You compare 2900 dollars difference which is enormous, you are not going to crop the image you will virtually increase the size of your image to simulate an 800mm... You will simulate the Bokeh gap between the 2 too... if it were that simple... Now if you want "really" compare to 800mm and not go for a crazy comparison since you use the term "realistically" what are you going to do? you are going to add a 1.4x extender to your 600 f6.3 at more than 5000 dollars, here you are with an 840mm F9 less versatile and 2.5X more expensive... Here is the reality at 800mm...
@@ludowild what are you talking about, the "Sony/Nikon 600mm Zooms" are zoom lenses. Where I live, the Nikon is 500€ cheaper and the Sony is 900€ cheaper than the canon.
I thought you were talking about the latest Nikon 600 F6.3 -) My apologies for this error! Indeed this changes everything for the prices but basically it changes nothing... If we really want to compare a Sony 200-600 or a Nikon 180-600 at 800mm with the Canon RF200-800 the only way is to add a 1.4x extender so we go to 840mm F9@@cy9nvs
@@ludowild No, I mean just cropping. The 600mm zooms will give you half the ISO for the same exposure. Would be interesting to see, how they stack up. I've seen comparisons, where an image shot with a TC looks worse than just cropping, because of the added noise. Jared Polin did a great video about that. In good light, the Canon 200-800 will definitely give you more details, that's for sure, but I'm wondering how it's going to look once the aperture disadvantage really starts to show, at higher ISOs.
I don't think so. I think it would be worthwhile to compare the Nikon/Sony 600 zooms cropped to 800 and with the teleconverter to ~800. If they are comparable to the Canon then the only real benefit of the Canon would be to lack of need for the teleconverter or getting more pixels on the subject. With 45mp cameras the pixels likely wont matter as much. But also the Nikon/Sony will do much better in low light situations if you shoot that 2/3 of a stop is a much bigger difference.@@ludowild
I've noticed something interesting with the r7. If I'm in a low light situation and my autofocus just won't lock either on eye detect or spot (owls after sunset), I switched to full auto mode on the dial and bingo, the autofocus worked. This was r7 with 300 2.8 ii. Worth some investigating
@cathco9 lol. I'm not the biggest fan either, but I have captured some amazing images with it. I'm really really hoping the r7 ii will be worthy!!!!!!!
Why does that work? Because the contrast of the subject increased due to probably brighter exposure. So the tip I suggested that works for me is in this situation, bump the ISO up a few stops and you will get lock. Since it's an owl and its probably not moving , once you have lock get off the af button and shoot away. you only need lock for a second and now you are in the plane of focus on the owl. Hope that helps
@alknightbird4902 does disabling exposure simulation help as well? The AF system uses the exposure you see in the EVF, so brightening that helps a lot.
Danke für deine Informationen mit dem 200-800mm und der R7! Fast alle Reviews in Deutschland sagen nur schlechtes über die R7. Das ärgert mich sehr. Ich habe auch eine R7 und ich denke das ist eine sehr gute Kamera! Ok, die R6II ist Top, deshalb ist die R7 nicht schlecht. Fotografieren muss man lernen und seine Kamera richtig bedienen, dann ist auch eine R7 eine sehr gute Kamera. Das 200-800 werde ich mir kaufen. Danke nochmal für dein Video! Viele Grüße aus Bayern, Germany nach Alaska 👍✌️
I’m still learning, but my impression is shooting the 100-500 w/o a tc, at 7.1, doesn’t provide enough additional light (thus a lower iso), to give you better image quality after cropping to an 800mm equivalent in post, vs the native 800mm at f9. I guess my curiosity is whether the 1.4 on the 100-500 is worth it, as conventional wisdom is TC’s aren’t worth it unless you’re using a giant prime lens and fr sensor? That may be from the DSLR days though. I look forward to part 2!
You are pretty much spot on in your reasoning. The next video will answer form my experience and testing those questions. Should be out Tuesday morning on Jan 2.
would have liked to have seen how the RF200-800 goes vs the 500f4 prime with 1.4x TC in terms of sharpness and bokeh (at f8, so 1 stop stopped down from wide open, half a stop on the RF200-800).
Oh it’s going to be compared. I’m not sure of the stop down but we’ll be comparing it. Along with some other lens options also. We’re just getting started, like the Nikon 180-600 series I made recently
@@WILDALASKA excellent Scott. Looking forward to the videos. As an aside, have you any experience with the mark 1 500f4 prime and how it compares to the mark 2?
Wonder if anyone will manufacture a rf 400-800mm aps lens would have less zoom slide possibly faster lens, and lighter weight. Happy New Year great video.
@@WILDALASKA Been shooting rf 800 f11 most of the time would nice to have the zoom for getting on target. Wonder how it compares to 200-800 for image quality.
The weird thing about Canon is that I find the AF on their most professional R3 camera the easiest to use. The more beginner it gets the harder it is. I still find Canon to be the easiest for beginners.
I have noticed multiple UA-camrs that are somehow recording video and snapping photographs at the same time on Canon cameras. I have an R7 and an R5 mark two, but I cannot figure out how y’all are doing it. If I hit the red record button it will jump to my Custom video profile, but then I have to hit it again to jump back to photo mode to take stills.
I just shoot video then switch to stills , back an forth. I have setups on all the cameras I use and I talk about how the camera is set up for video to stills and vice versa.
The autofocus and image quality on the 1-500 is amazing, especially when you consider how light it is. Shooting action requires shutter speed and in low light you will need low apetures to gain light to lower ISO, gain detail and to improve the autofocus overall. If you can get close and have descent light, the lens requirements are minimal hence the 800 F11.
1/3 of stop difference in aperture @ 500mmm on both lenses is not a big advantage in action shots really. Everything I shot in the last 2 videos was in light most wildlife photographers would never shoot in and the IQ and in flight action shots were very good.
Nope. The Siggy 150-600 lenses were never as sharp and never focussed as fast or as accurate as the EF 100-400 MKii. No EF lens focusses as fast or as accurate as a native RF lens. Canon make sure fo that. Canon want to sell new glass.
These are the kind of reviews I want to see. No fluff, just pure experience. Thank you for a real review of this lens. Great work. Subscribed and liked.
Thanks. I can only go by what I see and experience personally. They don’t always jive with everyone else out there sometimes lol
Praise the dudes that can get to the F point!!!
Thanks for sharing this Scott! I make the same conclusions as you regarding the autofocus of this RF 200-800! The big differences that I encounter on my R7 with my "old" Sigma 150-600 contemporary: the autofocus is much more "sticky" and fast, I no longer have the worries in a series of having one photo out of two or three blurs, the sharpness is even better and above all what a pleasure to have completely silent autofocus in video mode and additional 320 mm! Honestly, what a pleasure to use this combo! I would like to take this opportunity to wish everyone my best wishes for health and happiness for 2024!
Thanks and great info. The ks for sharing
Thank you for sharing Scott. Nice to see how well the RF 200-800 performs at F9. Thanks also for the additional explanation regarding the operation of the AF on the R7.👍🏼
Glad it was helpful!
I love the 100-500mm. I usually have around 400-800 iso on largest aperture and 1/800s, even on overcast days. To me anything below 1600 iso is top tier.
So even if I have to go up to 1200-1600 iso on the RF 200-800 I would be very happy with the light and amount of noise.
As you said, iso only affects light. While aperture and focal length affect dof and shutter speed affects motion blur and camera shake. Out of the 4, iso has the least impact in changing the entire image.
👍 until you hit that stupid 12K plus range 😳
Scott, I finally got my 200-800. My first outing with it was rainy and very overcast. On the R5, there are no issues at all in those conditions. Today was sunny, so I popped on the 1.4 extender and ducks even way far out were somewhat useable after denoise and resolution enhancement in Topaz Photo AI. Relatively close subjects did great. I'm glad to know the lens performs well on R7 even with the 1.4, so I'll have to try that out, too!
happy new year! 🎉
👍 Happy New Year
Great video with practical comparisons and real world performance. I was pleasantly surprised to see how well the Canon 200 to 800 mm lens performed with the Canon R7! It would be interesting to see how both the 100 to 500 with the Tele converter, and the 200 to 800 perform on the R5 and R6/Mark II.
Will be doing a R8 Video ( same as r6mkII minus IBIS) and a R5 one also in next couple weeks.
First , yeah buddy!
Mr. Wild, thank you for all your hard work, videos and comparisons. You are one of best photo reviewers in my book !
thx
Best tip ever on R7 on AF, let go of the AF and not give it a chance to jump around, Thank Scott I can’t wait to try it out. Thanks
Glad you liked it
Well! That was precisely what I cared for in this Lens. I was torn between RF 100-500 and this one as I have limited budget. By chance the Canon dealer had one piece with him and offered me. I grabbed it and definitely not regretting it. Please also try to include your opinion on the weight difference, because for some folks that may be another deciding factor. Thanks for your video, waiting for the part-II.
Grats on the lens. Tuesdays video will have weight and handling in it
Great review, one of the best actually. I really like how you focus on what is important. All other people seem to talk about is the f/9 aperture. However, for this price, could anyone expect like f/5.6 or similar? Absolutely not. Also there's very popular 600 and 800mm lenses which both are at f/11 and the results are quite impressive. Talking about low light situations, this is absolutely a lens for FF as it ends at 800mm. When mount on the R7 for example you get the reach you honestly simply don't need but you lose light and start to see diffraction even at wide open aperture. So when you mount this lens on 26MPx camera like R6II you can really pump up the ISO and the results will be great. Not best on APSC, not best on high resolution cameras, but when you know what to mount it on you gonna get really great photos!
thx
I totally agree with you that the F-stop is the control for Depth of Field. Exposure is a matter of the exposure triangle and how good your camera is, I think.
I am convinced the both my RF 200-800 and my RF 100-500 are great lenses and I feel assured that when they are combined with the Canon R5 mark 2, we don’t need to worry about high F number and high ISO settings. Thanks for your video, your thoughts and great inspiration. Happy New Year. Greetings from Per Christensen, Denmark
Thanks
Another great tutorial, this type of work is what separates you from the other channels I watch. Keep 'em coming!!
Much appreciated!
Your videos are so helpful. You explain facts about the cameras and lenses in a way that make complete sense to me and help me get better photos. Thank you!
Happy to help!
Great video Scott, thank you for the review and using it on the r7. I’ve been going out for the past week since I got it and I love it. It replaced my rf100-500mm. Like you, I don’t see any different other than the amazing reach on the new RF 200-800mm. Happy New Years to all.
Good to hear. The lens is very nice and very welcome addition
Amazing shots here, man. Loving the channel so far and the stuff you upload. The R7 is quite impressive in good light; in not-so-good light, well… yeah, it struggles. I still think the original R5 is the best, most well-rounded mirrorless camera out there right now for the price. Sure the A1, R5m2, R1, Z8/Z9, etc., clearly outclass it in some aspects but I think many people would agree they were happy the R5m2 was released just to get easier, less expensive access to the original R5. I love the R7 but the cruddy EVF (small, poor resolution, and has less stable frame rate) and lack of a third wheel/dial makes it significantly less fun to use in the field compared to the full-frame counterparts.
Also, the 100-500mm with the 1.4x extender is surprisingly good when it comes to sharpness. For those who own the 100-500mm already and are eyeing the 200-800, I would seriously consider just getting the 1.4x extender.
Thanks.
Thank you for the comparison test, but also the AF tips. Since watching your earlier videos on it, I’ve employed it, and what a difference. Now, to start saving my nickels and dimes for the 200-800. Happy New Year!
Glad it was helpful!
Another awesome video! Lots to learn with the R7 and extenders and I believe everyone has the same issues with the autofocus. I appreciate your videos and truly learning what this camera can and cannot do. Someone here said full auto will help, but I haven't use that mode since I started photography. Maybe something worth investigating. Thanks for all you do and Happy 2024!
Full auto stinks. Gets it wrong 90% of the time. Once you understand what types of exposure triangle settings do what for intentional blur, bokeh predictions, color, etc. you will never shoot any manual settings again.
Great video mate, sorry to see your Sony camera fell over tho!
Love your videos and channel as I use the r7 and helps me alot.
Glad you like them!
Great explanation of the effect of aperture. I have seen many comments where people say “f9 is a show stopper for me”. On the R7 at 20’, a distance I can get with small birds, the DOF at 800mm is 0.7” at f9. I think these people want f5.6 and still pay under $3000. 😅
I have used your focus method and have had great success.
I haven’t put my 1.4x on this lens yet but I am going to. I normally start with my RF 100-500 on my R5 and my RF 200-800 on my R7.
Thanks and the 1.4 works great. Working on that video today ;)
Fantastic information, thanks for sharing! Look forward to part two!
Glad you enjoyed it!
Nice! Great tips there. One day I might move to bbf but for now, I’m all good. I’m looking for the 100-400L ii to pair with my R7 to give my 70-200/2.8 a break and I don’t like my 70-300L dimensions. Although the RF100-400 is tempting along with the 100-500 / 200-800.
The R paired with RF glass is so fast, I like the shooting distance you can configure too. Iv not looked at assigned eye focus to a back button but eye focus really is where dof is critical. I think when you have the correct plane of focus on your subject and it’s the whole subject in focus, eye focus is less of an issue. Head/body is fine and probably “quicker” if we can perceive that difference.
Look forward to the next part and unlucky with the Sony filming kit
Yes the 'eye' focus is just the critical focus point in theory. I just use it to judge how deep I want that DoF and adjust aperture or my focal distance through the zoom lens or my feet with a prime 😄
Both lenses are great and will not let you down. I wish everyone a Happy New Year.
Very true
Hi Scott, great video! I preordered the 200-800 but I have to wait until February 2024. No problem, at that time I will also order the Canon R5 Mk II so that will be a great combo!
Fingers crossed!
Thank you for all the technical details you share with us...and for the view of Alaska too...Happy new year...❤❤❤
Happy new year!
Dang man - I lost my 24-105 to a similar incident as your Sony lens. But I was able to sell the busted lens on EBay for a decent price given the damage - so definitely something you can do to recover some of the value. Just subbed to the channel and looking forward to more content.
I sent it off to Sony to have it fixed. Welcome aboard.
Great video, again. Awesome!! Very educational. I understand/see in the video you don't use auto iso, but you controle it with the joystick. This for changing the contrast quick I presume? So: the ISO setting you use is "get what you see" through the viewfinder principle? I have to change my settings then. I was using the joystick for aperture and the ring for light compensation.
I use the scroll wheel by the joystick for ISO. I watch the image to see how it looks and watch the histogram in the viewfinder. When I get the exposure I think I want, I take a few shots, then I raise and lower the exposure and snap a few shots in each direction to get a bracket of shots. That way in post I have a few more renditions of exposure on the same subject
Merci merci Scott, for your vidéos. I am learning so much. Votre capacité pédagogique et votre savoir sont de vraies qualités que vous avez. Bravo !
I still struggle with my canon R7 (100-500mm) in low light situation or auto focus. I shoot often in the FV mode and try now the technique of “letting go” for non moving birds.
I was in Costa Rica tropical forest in a very dark environment. I got some of the birds coming out of nowhere but often the birds were blurry and the iso (auto) was sooo high. Maybe it is normal and I still have to learn more and more.
I might get the 200-800mm however I have to see if i can handle it with my small size.
Thank you again.
👍
Thanks again for the explanations! Happy new year! 🎉🎉✨🎶
Happy new year to you also!
Great review Scott, and thank you for explaining slow/fast, aperture, and DOF! I’ve seen too many people talk down on this lens for being f9, but at 800mm, most likely one would want to be at f9 or above due to the shallow DOF.
My issue with the aperture is more to do with how it impacts the use of extenders. For example, the F will become an F12-ish on the 1.4 and an F18 on the 2x, wheres the 100-500 will stop at F14 with the 2x. It's less about the DOF and more about the amount of light. When you are working in low light, like woodlands, every lumen helps.
Thanks
@@OhhhhhhhBuggeron my 100-500, @ 500mm I normally stop down the f9 any how for better dof, and increased sharpness. Wide open f7.1 is not as sharp as f9.
Same is true with the 1.4x tc on. Stop down a little eg to f14 for better sharpness and better dof.
@@nordic5490 I vehemently disagree. F7.1 should be plenty enough DOF to capture most subjects in their entirety. How do I know? Thousands and thousands and thousands of photos. Also, I am fairly certain that F9 is not anymore sharp, (noticeably, if at all), than F7.1. How do I know? Again, thousands and thousands and thousands of photos. Photos taken on the R7 and R5. Photos taken in low light, noon light. Photos taken at night. etc. There is just no reason to stop down to F9 unless you need a MORE busy background than you already get with F7.1. I just don't understand that at all... But hey, you do you.
So sorry to see that happen to your lens and filter :(
But let’s hope the New Year will bring you way more!
Great video as always, thank you!
Greetings from Eastern Europe
Happy new year! 🎉
Very good review. appreciated your effort. Really deep review. Subscripted and liked. Looking forward to the part 2. I am expecting mine in couple of days!
Very cool. Let me know how you like it after using it for a bit
Fantastic video Scott :) TY. I like that you spoke so much about DOF. I've been shooting almost exclusively with the R7 + 800 F11 (1280mm equivalent) for a year and a half, about 150K shots worth. The majority of my shots are 21-30 ft from the camera. What I have found, is that at 21ft, with a 1280mm equivalent, my DOF is SO freaking thin, that F11 is "just barely small enough", and if I had enough light, I might stop it down to F13 sometimes, if I could. I don't have to have the entire bird sharp, and in focus, but at least from the tip of its beak, to the base of its tail. I used to dream about those Big White F4 lenses, but how goofy would it be to be shooting with a $15K lens, and having to stop it down to F11 or F13, to get enough DOF ???
Long story short, while a lot of folks are wondering if F9 will be fast enough, I'm wondering if I'll be able to shoot F13, without too much diffraction ?
Here shortly, when I get my 200-800 rental, all of my initial testing, with be done from 21-25 ft @F11 @800mm, so I can compare Image quality directly with my 800 F11. Apples to apples.
I'm definitely going to be buying another long birding lens, but there is still a chance I'll just get another 800 F11. For me, the 200-800 is not going to be an easy sell.
Oh, and the Grey Crowned Rosy Finch !!! Whoo Hoo :) I SO need these..... But for me, it would involve an 8 hr round trip, its still not a very solid shot :( Hmmm.
very well said
Sorry to hear about the lense and filter. I'm also feeling pretty unlucky. I picked up the R6MII and the 100-500 before April and it come Black Friday there are discounts on both that amount to around $600 total. Plus it looks like the resell value of the 100-500 has dropped alot. Only real benefit I can see with the 100-500 is the lighter weight/size (and maybe tracking) since I would likely be shooting beyond 500mm. Some other reviewers seem to be saying that the 200-800 is same or slightly sharper than the 100-500 on the longer end though it suffers from chromatic aberrations.
Next video will have the IQ comparisons and the other details you discussed here. Thanks for watching.
I luckily was able to purchase the 200-800 used. I also have the 100-500 with the R7. So far I am super impressed with the 200-800! Biggest difference so far is the weight and balance, also not as good weather sealing. Can't wait to test it out more and also I look forward to your next video to see what else you discovered about its usability and the difference between the lenses.
So weather sealing that everyone keep saying is not as good....
The 100-500 has 14 weather seeing points and the and the 200-800 has 19 points. And I soaked the thing in the last video with ice and water. 0 issue. not advisable, but it happened lol
Outstanding, watched a couple of your videos and subscribed
thanks and welcome aboard
Nice video. I am on the list for the 200-800 in the meantime jumped on a super sale at Canon USA for the 100-500 for $1,899, couldn't say no. I have the RF 1.4x already, now trying to decide will the 100-500 be the best or easiest for me or should I also get the 200-800. I use both a R7 and R6ii. Only downside to 100-500 is starting at 300mm with the 1.4x. The weight of the 200-800 I think will be an issue, being an old weak guy, my 150-600C was tough due to the weight and it was slightly less than what the 200-800 is. I shoot mainly for the web, social media and my yearly 8 1/2 x 11 calendar for friends and family. Leaning towards just the 100-500 (i have other lenses as well) but the 200-800 sounds so cool... I guess I have G.A.S !
So the 200-800 vs the rf 100-500 with the TC on weight difference is 1 pound. Shouldn't be that much of an issue really. Both great lenses. Just depends on the distance and subject size you shoot. Rent the 200-800 when you can and test the 2 out.
@@WILDALASKA That is my plan, rent to try. I am trying to decide whether to sell my 70-200iii and 100-400Lii I rarely use the 70-200 so it makes sense to sell it, The 100-400 is used with my DSLR's while the 100-500 is used with the R7 and R6ii. I could see a use for both the 100-500 and 200-800, the 500 would be an all around lens used for the most part without the extender while the 200-800 would be good at the beach at Newport RI and a lake I go to in Mass both places where there will be birds at 400 yards away and 10 yards away and larger flocks of them. Or I am I trying to justify to feed my G.A.S. ?
@@WILDALASKA The other part of the issue is having to use a walker if I go more than a few yards from the car, but I have one that will hold my camera bag. I have already started trying to do upper body exercises to get so I can hand hold better.
Me too jumped on that sale of their refurbished 100-500mm good luck to us 😊
@@peterb.7437 I took it out yesterday even though it was way too dark for my R7, very high ISO, I wanted to try it and also try it with the 1.4x, the 300-500 with the extender is awkward and going to take getting used to. I could see having the 100-500 for most things and then for BIF the 200-800. Time will tell
Thank you, Scott, for sharing this valuable information with us.
Thanks
It so nice watching your videos, it helps things click!
Thanks for the kind words 😄
Great Video scott sure ready to be back in AK!!!!
You need to visit in the winter. My favorite time to shoot.
I want to call out for people taking photos for fun rather than a living: Taking shots at 1200mm, 1600mm (2560mm equivalent on APS-C) isn’t PRACTICAL but it can be really FUN. I’ve just picked up a 200-800 and had an 800mm f11 with a 2x, and taking photos of stuff literal miles away from a high vantage point is fun. It can get you visibility into places you can’t get to, or subjects you can’t approach, or just don’t feel like going over to.
Are you going to win sharpness awards? No, of course not. But a crappy photo of a subject is better than no photo of a subject.
🦅
Maybe it is time to get your hands at some micro 4/3 gear f.e the OM-1 paired with the 150-400 f5.4 or 300 f4. No depth of field issues there. And the problem with the presumed lack of background separation is also hugely exaggerated on that system. Nowadays you can easily get background separation/blur within the Lightroom app on your phone. Maybe a little bit of topic..but anyway😊. Love your channel..keep on posting..regards Ron.
The fake blur looks horrible in Lightroom to me personally. Natural fall off, bokeh, and playing with the light diffraction is the real key to amazing photos. The 4/3 stuff DoF is not ideal for the type of photography I do also
I get the sharpest photos I've ever gotten on the R5 with the 100 to 500L. I still think overall it's the better of the two lenses. The 200-800 would be nice to have too but I'm in no rush.
Bet money most folks if you had the images side by side at same focal range would get it 50-50 right. The IQ is extremely close. I had to look back at the EXIF a lot when working on the video and images.
Thanks for the video Scott, I'd learnt a lot about autofocusing practice and you made the point on depth of fielad. You're absolutely right!
You made me hasitate again to choose my next (first mirrorless) body. Do I choose R7 or wait and ear more money and buy the R6 MII (my dream body, it would be mine first FF). I'm currently using 80D + Sigma 150-600 and I still love it, but the new mirrorless eye AF is another league. Anyway the 200-800 is a beast for the price. :-)
Check out the r8 also. Rent them all and see which works for you
Thank you Scott for a detailed review
My pleasure!
Seems to be a superb lens, if you don't mind the limitations that come along with f/9.
I know it isn't practical, since canon has no such lens, but it would be interesting to see how the Sony/Nikon 600mm Zooms at 600mm f/6.3 would stack up at something like ISO 3200, cropped to 800mm, vs the Canon 200-800 at 800mm, f/9 and ISO 6400. Because realistically, that's the difference you're going to see with a full stop less light. So, if the additional focal length even gives you much of an advantage in the real world, early in the morning or during bad light, or if the advantage is (partially) eaten up by having to shoot at twice the ISO.
Does all this make sense... you compare a fixed Nikon lens to an ultra versatile Canon telephoto lens, the most versatile on the market itself... You compare 2900 dollars difference which is enormous, you are not going to crop the image you will virtually increase the size of your image to simulate an 800mm... You will simulate the Bokeh gap between the 2 too... if it were that simple... Now if you want "really" compare to 800mm and not go for a crazy comparison since you use the term "realistically" what are you going to do? you are going to add a 1.4x extender to your 600 f6.3 at more than 5000 dollars, here you are with an 840mm F9 less versatile and 2.5X more expensive... Here is the reality at 800mm...
@@ludowild what are you talking about, the "Sony/Nikon 600mm Zooms" are zoom lenses. Where I live, the Nikon is 500€ cheaper and the Sony is 900€ cheaper than the canon.
I thought you were talking about the latest Nikon 600 F6.3 -)
My apologies for this error!
Indeed this changes everything for the prices but basically it changes nothing...
If we really want to compare a Sony 200-600 or a Nikon 180-600 at 800mm with the Canon RF200-800 the only way is to add a 1.4x extender so we go to 840mm F9@@cy9nvs
@@ludowild No, I mean just cropping. The 600mm zooms will give you half the ISO for the same exposure. Would be interesting to see, how they stack up. I've seen comparisons, where an image shot with a TC looks worse than just cropping, because of the added noise. Jared Polin did a great video about that.
In good light, the Canon 200-800 will definitely give you more details, that's for sure, but I'm wondering how it's going to look once the aperture disadvantage really starts to show, at higher ISOs.
I don't think so. I think it would be worthwhile to compare the Nikon/Sony 600 zooms cropped to 800 and with the teleconverter to ~800. If they are comparable to the Canon then the only real benefit of the Canon would be to lack of need for the teleconverter or getting more pixels on the subject. With 45mp cameras the pixels likely wont matter as much. But also the Nikon/Sony will do much better in low light situations if you shoot that 2/3 of a stop is a much bigger difference.@@ludowild
Thanks for the great review of the two lens
Thx
200-800 f/9 and r7 with miniscule buffer nice combo
😉
I've noticed something interesting with the r7. If I'm in a low light situation and my autofocus just won't lock either on eye detect or spot (owls after sunset), I switched to full auto mode on the dial and bingo, the autofocus worked. This was r7 with 300 2.8 ii. Worth some investigating
@cathco9 lol. I'm not the biggest fan either, but I have captured some amazing images with it. I'm really really hoping the r7 ii will be worthy!!!!!!!
@@AlKnightbird432I just keep using my R5. Fingers crossed for a great R5 II.
Why does that work? Because the contrast of the subject increased due to probably brighter exposure. So the tip I suggested that works for me is in this situation, bump the ISO up a few stops and you will get lock. Since it's an owl and its probably not moving , once you have lock get off the af button and shoot away. you only need lock for a second and now you are in the plane of focus on the owl. Hope that helps
@alknightbird4902 does disabling exposure simulation help as well? The AF system uses the exposure you see in the EVF, so brightening that helps a lot.
Following @@KoenKooi
My question is, if you already have the 100-500 with a 1.4x do you think its worth getting? cheers great video
Tuesday's video is about that at least for my shooting needs
Danke für deine Informationen mit dem 200-800mm und der R7!
Fast alle Reviews in Deutschland sagen nur schlechtes über die R7. Das ärgert mich sehr. Ich habe auch eine R7 und ich denke das ist eine sehr gute Kamera! Ok, die R6II ist Top, deshalb ist die R7 nicht schlecht. Fotografieren muss man lernen und seine Kamera richtig bedienen, dann ist auch eine R7 eine sehr gute Kamera. Das 200-800 werde ich mir kaufen. Danke nochmal für dein Video!
Viele Grüße aus Bayern, Germany nach Alaska 👍✌️
very true
Exactly. AF needs a certain amount of sharpness on the sensor to make a decision.
👍
I’m still learning, but my impression is shooting the 100-500 w/o a tc, at 7.1, doesn’t provide enough additional light (thus a lower iso), to give you better image quality after cropping to an 800mm equivalent in post, vs the native 800mm at f9. I guess my curiosity is whether the 1.4 on the 100-500 is worth it, as conventional wisdom is TC’s aren’t worth it unless you’re using a giant prime lens and fr sensor? That may be from the DSLR days though. I look forward to part 2!
You are pretty much spot on in your reasoning. The next video will answer form my experience and testing those questions. Should be out Tuesday morning on Jan 2.
@@WILDALASKA Sounds good!
Finally a video that explains in simple words what dept off field actually is. thanks for that.
Glad it was helpful!
@@WILDALASKA 👍
well that was way over my head....but lots of good info that I will need to watch again,,,,,thanks
👍
Great video. I really appreciate it. Thanks
Glad you enjoyed it!
Thank you! I struggle with finding a lens I love, and have been considering this one. Where in Palmer is this? Looks like Homer.
Homer, AK
Awesome review 😄👍 📸💥
Thanks! 👍
Thanks for the great videos.
thanks
Bedankt
THANK YOU !
What do you mean when you say "leave it on default?" Were those last shots on one-shot or servo? AF point, no tracking?
The tracking features. You can tweak them to stay on the subject more or switch subjects and such.
Very informative video, thank you
Thanks
would have liked to have seen how the RF200-800 goes vs the 500f4 prime with 1.4x TC in terms of sharpness and bokeh (at f8, so 1 stop stopped down from wide open, half a stop on the RF200-800).
Oh it’s going to be compared. I’m not sure of the stop down but we’ll be comparing it. Along with some other lens options also. We’re just getting started, like the Nikon 180-600 series I made recently
@@WILDALASKA excellent Scott. Looking forward to the videos. As an aside, have you any experience with the mark 1 500f4 prime and how it compares to the mark 2?
Wonder if anyone will manufacture a rf 400-800mm aps lens would have less zoom slide possibly faster lens, and lighter weight. Happy New Year great video.
LOL I have been saying the same thing for a long time. Just give me a 400-800 lens as its where I live most of the time.
@@WILDALASKA Been shooting rf 800 f11 most of the time would nice to have the zoom for getting on target. Wonder how it compares to 200-800 for image quality.
Sorry about your lens and filter! This is a great series! Take care
Thanks
The two eagles would make a great 13x19 print IMHO.
👍🦅🦅
Happy new year to everyone around the world!!
👍
The weird thing about Canon is that I find the AF on their most professional R3 camera the easiest to use.
The more beginner it gets the harder it is.
I still find Canon to be the easiest for beginners.
True.
I have noticed multiple UA-camrs that are somehow recording video and snapping photographs at the same time on Canon cameras. I have an R7 and an R5 mark two, but I cannot figure out how y’all are doing it. If I hit the red record button it will jump to my Custom video profile, but then I have to hit it again to jump back to photo mode to take stills.
I just shoot video then switch to stills , back an forth. I have setups on all the cameras I use and I talk about how the camera is set up for video to stills and vice versa.
@@WILDALASKA Awesome thank you!
Excellent video, sad to see lens breaking.
Me too 😭 Lens still works, it just has no front 'cowling' anymore 🤪
The autofocus and image quality on the 1-500 is amazing, especially when you consider how light it is.
Shooting action requires shutter speed and in low light you will need low apetures to gain light to lower ISO, gain detail and to improve the autofocus overall.
If you can get close and have descent light, the lens requirements are minimal hence the 800 F11.
1/3 of stop difference in aperture @ 500mmm on both lenses is not a big advantage in action shots really. Everything I shot in the last 2 videos was in light most wildlife photographers would never shoot in and the IQ and in flight action shots were very good.
Thanks!
👍
Great Potogrephy
thx
Save money and get a sigma 150-600 just as good and better f stop
Nope. The Siggy 150-600 lenses were never as sharp and never focussed as fast or as accurate as the EF 100-400 MKii.
No EF lens focusses as fast or as accurate as a native RF lens. Canon make sure fo that. Canon want to sell new glass.
Bru wut? The 150-600 sucks in sharpness at 600mm next to the 100-500 Canon. You get what you pay for.
Just.....No. 🤦