Hi Jan. Thanks for the wonderful review. I have Canon R5 and 200-800 mm. Had the lens tested out in northern Norway for the last 3 weeks. Very sharp and performs very well in combination with the R5. Two things I would like to comment on. The Canon 200-800 mm is the lightest lens of these three. If you put a converter on the other two, the difference is even bigger. I only use and take pictures of birds, and is between 400mm and 800mm. This means that the coom area is significantly shorter than from 200-800mm. Very satisfied so far, and looking forward to the arrival of the Canon R5 mark 2.
Thank you for this comparison Jan. I have the Nikon 180-600 with the Z8. I love the combination, though occasionally would like a lighter setup, especially when hiking. Rather than an extender, for extra reach I use the DX crop mode. This essentially gives me 19mp images (rather than 45mp), though with all the focusing and stabilisation magic of the Z8.
How do you have your buttons and menus setup? Any tips? I have the 180-600mm arriving Tuesday for my ZF. I currently have the ZF set to back button focus via AF on for animal eye-AF. I have the display button set for 3D tracking (which I haven't used much yet) and the front lower button set for small single point AF.
I also have the Canon RF 200-800 mm combined with the low budget full frame R8 with best auto-focus and I love it. Almost all my shots are sharp. Works very well for BIF. Also good in low light conditions. I have tried many time to pair with the R7 and I didn’t like it compared to the R8.
hey man, I also own a R8 and currently using it with RF100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM, should I upgrade to 200 - 800 or any other lens in that price range. or should I go for the cheaper 800 f11 considering I already have a 100 - 400.
@@srijeshbiswal8737 I have all 3 lenses you have mentioned. The reach of 800mm is unmatched if you're into wildlife on full frame... the 800mm f11 is a great lens to intro into long lenses, but you may quickly find its limits in lower lighting (f11), long minimum focus distance (cant focus on small creatures up close) and the fixed/prime 800mm. I found myself missing shots due to not being able to locate my subject in the viewfinder. That said, my favourite picture ever taken was on this lens. It has great potential in the perfect scenarios. 200-800 you can zoom your way into a subject, has better light input, but comes at the cost of weight (SHE HEAVY) I'll be keeping my 100-400 as a walk around, 200-800 as a sniper and selling the 800 f11. The RF 100-500 is probably the best of them all as its an L, but is limited in reach on full frame IMO
@@smilerose952 I have the same camera and just recently bought the 200-800 and highly recommend it, the extra focal length is brilliant for birds and it beats the 100-500 on the long end even if you add the 1.4x the 200-800 outperforms the 100-500. The 100-500 has better performance at the wide end though
@@smilerose952 I have the EF 100-400 and got the RF 200-800 as the RF 100-500 is much more expensive for only 100mm more range The EF100-400 has better low light ability than both of the RFs. The only negative thing about the 200-800 I have found is on really fast flying planes at airshows it goes out of focus quite quick but I have found out that is due to the slow processor in the R7 I have. Possibly its biggest selling point is that there has been a long waiting list for it in many countries of the world this year.
It’s worth looking at the Z f as an option for Nikon. The AF has kept up with the Z 9 when shooting sports in my experience. It would make the whole lot much cheaper
I love the 100-400mm lens size and weight so much I can't see myself getting a bigger zoom. Instead I've just been cropping more, but with the high megapixel cameras, you still end up with a very detailed image.
Thank You Jan! Excellent Review! I’m staying with Nikon… Been there for 40 years. Have a Z8 & Z9 and just got a 180-600 and have a 1.4 TC for my 100-400.
Jealous, I’ve been waiting for mine for about 5 months now. Just waiting for that phone call from my camera shop to come pick it up. I also have a r8 and I’ve been using the 100-400 but I’d like to double my reach haha
Excellent video and comparison. I'm currently using the RF 100-500mm on the R5 while I wait for my 200-800mm pre-order. I've been on the fence on if I actually want the 200-800mm. It appears so bulky, especially when extended and the white color doesn't help. Also the long zoom throw and fixed tripod foot are annoying. I have the Nikon ZF (with smallrig grip) and the Nikon 180-600mm will be arriving Tuesday after a long wait, just in time for a trip to Florida. So I'll be comparing the 180-600mm (albeit on a 24mp sensor with worse bird eye-AF than a Z8) to the Canon R5 + 100-500mm. I also have the 1.4x TC for both systems. I also previously owned the Sony A9II and A7RIV with the 200-600mm. I'm hoping using both a Canon and Nikon setup side by side will guide me in deciding which system to go with later this year. I'm waiting to see what Canon does with the R5II. I'm guessing/hoping it will be good enough to keep me around. Otherwise I'll likely get a Z8 and eventually a 400TC or 600TC. The R5II has to exceed the Z8 in nearly every way to keep me away from going full Nikon (for birding).
Great video Jan. I tried out the 200-800 and the long zoom throw is just a no go for me since it made tracking that much more difficult. Ended up sticking with a 500mm prime + 1.4TC giving me 700mm f8 when I need more reach. The 180-600 would be an option since I shoot both canon and Nikon but I can’t find it anywhere. One area where I think is a differentiator is focus breathing. Like you said all lenses suffer from it but the 200-600 is absolutely terrible at it and gets nowhere near the close up framing of the 180-600.
I have the Z 9 with 180-600mm and I love it. I use the 1.4x teleconverter about 70% of the time and with enough light, I get results that I really like especially for aviation photography.
For my use cases, birds and my greyhounds, the internal zoom of the 180-600 was the main reason I upgraded from the older 200-500. It makes tracking fast moving subjects so much easier!
Thanks for posting. I recently added the Canon R6 Mk II to my gear bag, and bought their 800mm f/11 lens as a way to get that extra reach without spending all that much money. It's worked quite well and returned good results shooting the recent full moon. However, I do think I'm going to trade it in and pick up the 200-800, just for a bit of extra versatility.
Great video Jan :) For myself, reach is always the priority, so it would have to be the Canon 200-800. Even if Nikon made an xxx-800 zoom, they still do not make an APS-C equivalent to the Z8/9, which I also need. For myself, it would almost be more accurate to say that the 200-800 + R7 is the "only choice"... rather than "the best choice" even admitting all of the faults of this combo.... especially with the R7. I SO can't wait for an R7 Mk II, which will hopefully address about a half dozen faults. BTW, I 100% agree that a big, heavy, crazy expensive 600 F4 would be sharper than any of these zooms, but of course I'd still need to put a 1.4 TC on it 95% of the time... So then, viewing at 200% on a 4K monitor, it still might be a touch sharper. But sized down to 3 to 5 mp for digital viewing (99+% of folks typical uses) their will likely be "zero discernable difference". I have a friend who is a professional birding guide. On his last trip, he shot with a 500 F4 + 1.4 TC, the 800 F11, and the 200-800. About equal thirds of his shooting. After the trip, he processed several shots from each of these lenses. They all looked great, and nobody could tell what photos came from what lens. IMPO the super expensive, very fast lenses are making less and less difference with modern mirrorless cameras, with high ISO capabilities, and AI based noise removal programs.
I have told Canon repeatedly I need a R7 Mark II with more robust body, higher grade autofocus, a third control wheel, and taking an accessory battery grip (to fit my hand size and give a more positive grip). I get many super shots with the R7 but expected a mirrorless version of the 7D.
@@donh4907 yes + bigger buffer, and much faster readout speed to greatly reduce or eliminate rolling shutter. Stacked sensors would do the same thing + maybe more. And I'm willing to pay for it too. Honestly, I'd pay $2500 if Canon would make an R7 with all the changes we have discussed 👍
Recently came back from the Platte river shooting the Crane migration. I used the Z8, Z9 and mostly the 600pf with 1.4 tc. A great combo. Being able to use the 600 at 6.3 is a great advantage although I found myself very jealous of those with the 600 f4. F mount 600 f4 lenses with great IQ are now available on used market for reasonable prices
Thanks for comparing, I choose RF200-800 because I have been with Canon since film camera (EOS 50 EQD). I have 100-500 and wait for my 200-800 to come. I don’t like external zoom but no choice for Canon. It is so frustrated to use tele converter with 100-500, so the 200-800 would be my better choice when I need extra reach.
This is a terrific review and comparison. I do wish that the Canon lens had an internal zoom, but I'll manage once I get it. Thank you for also using the extenders on the lenses. You covered all the bases for all three brands. Thanks, Jan!
Wow. The stabilized video from the Nikon 180-600mm is really good. Canon's 200-800mm lens has really good range. The tele-zoom lenses from all 3 brands are really good.
Now that you have used both the 400mm f4.5 & the 180-600mm, which one would be your recommendation along with the Z8 regarding sharpness, background separation & overall rendering ? I own the 400mm f4.5, I like the sharpness & the less ISO I am getting at f4.5 vs f6 and also a bit more background blur. But sometimes I feel like i miss the 600mm, which I able to get in DX mode with 19MP on the Z8. Thank You 🙏🏽
@@jakesdewet3567 yes, I think you also shoot mainly predators and large mammals. The 300mm f2.8 I heard is a fantastic lens. I also bought the 400mm f4.5 for the same reason. But nowadays, what I observed is that due to increased tourism, vehicles who carry only mobiles or action cams and want to see the predators up close they get too close. The cats aged around 3yrs & above nowadays are keeping a lot of distance and seem scared to cross the small roads or walk for miles, specially here in India. The previous generation of tigers are fine and fearless but the pattern is changing rapidly and the young tigresses are also acquiring their mother's territory so their mother had to leave. In Maasai Mara, there is a strict restriction for off-roading is being implemented. In Serengeti there is no off-roading. The South African, Botswana, Zambia circuit is too far and costly for a solo traveller like me to get private bookings. Some tourists are just being too close and disturbing the cat's behaviour. I am seeing more of my photos are now in 500-600mm range than being in the previous 200-400mm range. This is just what I am seeing recently over last 6 months or so. That's why I am becoming extremely curious about the 180-600mm. I am thinking of rent it & test it side by side in June in Ranthambore Tiger Reserve. Thank You 🙏🏽
@@jan_wegener I shoot large mammals mostly bigcats so, 600mm would be too much for a considerable amount of photos. Thats why I am being curious of the zoom. The 600mm PF and 100-400mm Pf would be a great combo though but it would be too much costly for me. I will stick with the 400mm for a few more trips and see how it goes. Thank You 🙏🏽
Hi Jan, reach is king for small birds, so I'm already 3 months enjoying my 200-800 😀 You are right it's design is perhaps a bit less practical compared to this competition, but the extra 200mm easily makes up for it. If it were an internal zoom, it would be much longer and less practical to travel with. Of course ALL lensfoots should have arca-swiss capability, but size the foot of the 200-800 doesn't bother me. I've seen in another video the Sony has a lot of focus breathing (like my old 100-400Lii) meaning with the extender the Sony remains shorter than the 200-800.
Internal zoom lenses such as the Nikon and Sony are a much more modern design approach with better build quality which also avoids dust and moisture issues entering the lens. And you don't have to deal with weight balancing issues on a gimbal. Also the Canon lenses are a lot slower.
Hey Jan, I'm trying to figure something out. I know that putting a full frame lens on an APSC or using a teleconverter reduces light taking you from, for example, F9 to F13 at 1.4x -- but does it also come with the softness of F13 diffraction, or do you keep the crisper F9 image quality?
Mounting a lens on bodies with smaller sensor size does not reduce the speed of the lens, only the fov. Regardless whether you mount it on R7 or R6, it's still f/9 in both cases. Teleconverter, on the other hand, is a different story...
I don't think teleconverters would cause diffraction because physically the aperture blades don't change when you add a converter, they will slightly soften the image but that is because your adding more layers of glass, stretching the center of the lens and the ISO increases. In my opinion all these lenses are pushing the limits with APS-C, a 33MP sensor at a 1.6x crop would be 85 megapixels if it were full frame, sometimes I wonder if I can squeeze the full 61MP out of my 200-600mm and A7R IV.
Zf is a pretty decent body with great DR and AF/tracking works rather well. It’s not far off the z8/z9, which I both own as well, despite the non-stacked sensor.
Excellent video! You covered all the bases very equitably. You mentioned pairing the Canon 200-800mm lens with the R7 body but did not stress the fact that the crop sensor in that camera gives you an equivalent focal length of 1280mm at the long end (or did I miss that?). You fairly point out the issues with the R7 autofocus, but when it hits, it's amazingly good.
Hi Jan, thank you for your detailed review. I have a Z7ii and I am considering the 180-600mm. However, as you said, the auto focus is not up to par with the Z8 and Z9. Would you not then purchase this lens in your opinion?
Understand you asked Jan, but. If you need that lens, buy it. It keeps its value and will be compatible with future body upgrades. Don't postpone shooting your vision/dream because some ~irrelevant piece of hardware isn't there yet. Just don't expect the Z 7ii to be able to get pointed at something moving in lower light and reliably AF all the time. Note that photographers in the film past before AF shot a lot less frames and everything was MF. We would pre-focus a lot and fire the shutter when the subject was at the point we focused at - the only way to focus on an F1 car coming at you if you have 1 frame. Most wildlife shots don't need fast AF, just patience from the shooter. There's a video online from Nikon Ambassador Jasin Boland demonstrating how he uses AF in the case of the Z 6 (IIRC) and my reaction was, that he applied the old logic while blending in mirrorless (sensor based) AF into his process. There likely will be a Z 7iii and we will have to wait and see what innovations and improvements it brings. I shot both the Z 7 and Z 7ii and upgraded to the Z 8 recently. When Nikon released firmware 2.0 to the Z 8 a couple weeks after the upgrade I said, "thank you someone". The upgrades of the Z 7 firmware to 3.0 and 3.4, shortly after the release of the Z 7ii, made me feel I never needed to go to the Z 7ii. The moral is, the lens comes first. Second, when a new camera arrives, maybe wait until you can rent one and test it for a weekend. If your camera has a web-based reference guide, go to the section that lists the menu structure and with the default ("factory") setting for each menu line (Nikon doesn't allow copying from the pdf). Copy that maybe into an Excel file and review all (600?) and mark your customisation next to it. You may want different customisation variants for different use cases. I must say that Nikon's menu structures are not completely intuitive and as Jan demonstrated in earlier videos, in order for AF to work best, we may need to revert to tricks, like having a stored focus point in memory that is close by, that we can recall when the camera hunts in the distance when the subject is close by. Such tricks have great value and you must decide how and where to use them. Maybe you have to invent a new one yourself.
Grate comparison Jan. Not easy to decide which is the best, thats for sure. I wish that the canon was an internal zoom. Always a problem with dust sucked in with the external zooms. But thats their way of thinking. Anyway, i have to say that the 200-800 seems to be a very good lens. Hope that Canon will release the r7 mk II with a stacked sensor, and some great updates from the r7. Then this would have been an amazing combo. Wishing you and yours a great week. Cheers, Bjoern
@@jan_wegener It's amazing you compared these three side by side, but there is one thing missing: Canon 800mm vs cropped Sony/Nikon 600mm If 800 f/9 isn't as sharp as 600 f/6.3, then cropping the latter could be the way to go.
@@jan_wegener It's less of a crop than you did with the RF 100-500 in your other video, and on the A7iv you'd still be left with a decent 20MP. Some of these new AI upscalers are amazing, so the question is how much detail is the lens actually capturing? IMO it's the most important question for this lens, given that everyone is saying it loses some sharpness at 800mm, and the drawbacks you expertly noted. Can it significantly out-resolve a cropped 600mm F/6.3 shot from the same distance to the subject?
Interesting comparison. I am pretty embedded in Canon with landscape and wildlife so it's moot aside from whether I should get canon 200-800 or not. But even if I was not - zoom range without 1.4x (=canon), iq (pretty close at 600mm and 200mm bonus =canon), f9 vs lower (not a big difference), long zoom reach (the only big knock on canon but I am usually 400-600 and sometimes 800 or close so its not a big deal. Ext vs Int is just whatever you are used to. I bought the r8 for weight (backpacking) to complement my r5 - it is a gem. Fast focus, light, great video, better features than r5 (40fps, AEB/electronic, mechanical vid vs still). It only lacks 45mpx and it would be perfect. I would buy it over the r6ii (lighter, cheaper, missing c3). It has better a/f than r7. It's amazing our great choices available.
I wish Canon made the 200-600mm with same parameters as Sony. The external zoom is something I don't really like and Canon's f6.3 stops at 268mm...then f7.1...f8 starts at 455mm. So sad, because Canon could have done much much better here. If I were starting WL photography without any previous EF lenses, I would definitely go with Sony especially because of 200-600mm.
Exactly my thoughts! To me it seems like canon cant get this segment right. 600 and 800 mm are no good with fixed f11 aperture for any serious wildlife use. The best light doesnt come at noon. The 100-500 f7.1, yeah, thank you but just a bit too short for its high apperture. And with the 200-800, I had high hopes but then the high f stops hit again and I knew Canon missed it one more time, with not only high aperture, but external zoom, the collar, long throw...adding up the delayed bodies that didn't reach all the (sensible) expectations...ah, seems like I'll be swithing to sony, as well as my father.
Hello! Thanks for the video. I have a question that's been difficult for me to resolve. For this type of photography, what is better: using (1) an APS-C or Micro Four Thirds camera; (2) a full-frame camera with a teleconverter; or (3) an APS-C/Micro Four Thirds camera with a teleconverter. Thanks!
Received the RF 200-800 a little over a week ago! Amazing reach and sharpness at 1120 MM. I'm trying to decide if I want to keep the RF 100-500 for its close up ability. Thank You, for the reviews!!!
I shoot the R5 100-500. If the budget allows it, I would keep it. It’s just so versatile. The close focus is amazing. It also does decent landscape photography at 100 mm. It’s sharp, an L lens and weather sealed. Really it the best walk around lens I’ve ever had. I keep thinking Canon will come out with either a full frame with built in “decent” crop factor,like R5ii or R1, or upgraded crop sensor R7ii. In which case that lens would be even more amazing!
Yeah, as someone who owns the Z8 and Zf, as well as the 180-600, I can say that while the Zf doesn't quite equal the Z8 in tracking focus, and the new bird focus update on the Z8 is incredible, the Zf also is very capable with this lens, and a big step up from the Z7 II and Z6 II with regards to AF performance. I also previously shot Canon and Sony, and I think the Zf is not too far off from the R5, while the R8 and R6 II are actually a bit better than the R5 with regards to AF and subject recognition.
Thank you for the video! Prices in EU, including all taxes: Canon 2499€ Nikon 1999€ Sony (Amazon) 1669€ Sony 200-600 is quite a bit old lens and could be bought with discount: I was able to purchase the lens for 1450 Euro (all taxes included).
Nice comparison all around! One advantage for Sony is that the Nikon and Canon lenses both border on unobtainium on both the new and used markets currently. The lens you can get > the ones that you can't. One extra advantage for Canon is that the R5 is going for crazy low prices on the used market. (I got mine for $2000 on Black Friday and they've been going for only slightly more than that on Reddit, Fred Miranda, and eBay recently). That puts an extremely capable high res full frame camera with great autofocus in reach of a lot of people.
Great video (I love them all). I've had the Canon 200-800mm on order since December and can't wait for it to arrive (at present mid May for Melbourne) So in the meantime I'll keep shooting with my trusty 500mm f4 II with 1.4 converter on my R5.
In the UK the pricing is very different, with WEX having Sony the cheapest at £1,559, Nikon in the middle at £1,799 and the Canon the most expensive at £2,299. Since the Sony has been out sometime there is also a good secondhand market for the 200-600
Not “irregardless”, but ‘regardless” is the correct word 🙄 But regardless, I do have the Sony 200-600mm, got it just over a year after it came out and initially bought it with the Sony A7R4. Had issues with focussing with this lens, as some had noted at the time, so returned that camera body and got the older A7R3 and have been happy with it ever since. I’ve had the old Canon 100-400mm push/pull lens back in the day with a 5D2, but much prefer the internal zoom lenses. I also have used with a 1.4x teleconverter, and do find it is better to use with it at least one stop down … but of course only using it in the brightest of situations. Focus is great with the teleconverter, and excellent with the lens on its own. I’ve been very please with the backyard bird photography I’ve used it for, as well as photographing the sun and the mostly clouded over eclipse. It’s took some time to recognize the best settings for the lens, especially beyond 400mm, but still very happy to use it.
I wasn't at all thrilled about the non-removable tripod collar, but after trying to hold the lens itself... the collar is needed as a handle, more than an actual tripod mount IMO.
Great review i am still waiting for my 200 800 in the usa i ordered mine on nov 2 and i am still waiting what have you heard about the inventory??? now that it is spring time 6 months wait is really bad eric hansen
I shoot with a Canon R7 and a RF 800mm F11. It's a great combination but also a bit frustrating (not good in low light and sometimes 800mm is too much). I want to upgrade my lens and I am hesitating between the Canon RF 200-800mm (RF mount, up to 800mm but expensive and not very bright) and the Sigma EF 60-600mm (a bit cheaper, more versatile, a bit brighter but not EF mount and not as powerfull). What do you think ? Btw, great video, as always !!
I'd definitely recommend the 200-800 for the better autofocus accuracy and probably better stabilization as well in addition to more reach without a teleconverter or getting over 1000mm without using a 2x teleconverter.
Hi Jan Thank you for a nice review and comparison. I'm shooting R6ii with the 100-500 and have been considering buying the 200-800 for additional reach. I've read and seen quite a bunch of reviews where people complain about the long throw when zooming in and out. Can you do push/pull zooming like you can with the EF100-400 and the RF100-500 or do you have to use the zoom ring?
Great comparison Jan, im sure this video will help many people. The lens market is definitely changing with some examples being the F6.3 primes from Nikon, F11 primes from Canon and this 800mm F9! It's nice that people can now use lighter kits compared to the DSLR days but you will always have benefits from an F4 lens so they are not going anywhere.
One issue you did not discuss is product availability. I have been waiting more than 3 months for a Canon lens and it looks like Nikon is in short supply as well.
Thank you for another great video. I currently own a Sony A1 + FE 200-600mm + 1.4x TC and a Canon R5 + RF 100-500. To reach out to ~ 800 mm is it best to buy the Canon RF 200-800 or a TC on the 100-500 or a R7 body to use APS-C mode? Seems like there are lots of options but not sure where to go for Canon RF based systems. What do you think? Appreciate your feedback. Take care.
5:45 technically it adds some loss of light, but when you consider that the canon aperture is already a step below what the Sony’s is, it ends up being the same aperture as the canon. Not only that but the canon is 6.3 at 200mm, where the Sony is 5.6, so even though you get those extra 200mm, it’s at an overall trade-off in aperture.
I'd rather have the removable lens ring and non external zoom. The extra 200mm can easily be compensated for with modern software. Also. Nobody buys into a camera system for just 1 lens. All 3 manufacturers offer a variety of lenses and the best combination of them should determine what system to get into.
But if you already have 800mm natively, you can do even more I use the stupid non removable ring as a handle to walk around with the lens - it actually works very well 😂 Still, fuck canon for locking FF rf mount. I want some of the tamron and sigma lens so bad.
Question- I have the 200-500, but no FTZ (long story). Should I grab another FTZ this year for $200-$250, or just put that $ into the 180-600? The 180-600 is still a long wait. Trying to weigh my best option, any input is appreciated.
There’s a saying in sports, the greatest ability is availability. True for lenses as well. Which of these lenses are actually available? I ordered a Canon 200-800 in December 2023 from B&H and still have not received it. Calls to other US camera stores draw laughs and no info as to when it might actually be available. This “announce but don’t deliver” situation is simply an unfortunate and irritating aspect of the photo equipment business these days. So people should consider availability as well as specs. Thanks for the excellent review.
Interesting, sad to hear but there is something about that black plastic front which gives me a shivers. Each time I clean front element that plastic part squeaks like crazy even with gentle rubbing 😮
@@jan_wegener I have now received an answer from Canon Germany, they want 1000€ repair costs. I don't think that's right, as I once worked in service at Sigma and only the plastic housing is defective, I think the price is worthless. The lens works perfectly.
Jan, I have watched all of your reviews of the Canon lens and I am still struggling with which to buy. I want to keep my kit small in terms of number of items while providing me the greatest flexibility. I use R6MkII bodies and have the 24-70 2.8, the 70-200 2.8. If i add the 200-800 I would be able to go from 24 to 800 and only carry 3 lenses. But getting a 100-500 L lens is attractive. I am still trying to find my niche and am strictly a hobbyist, so I shoot a lot of different things. From landscape to sports and wildlife. So, the struggle continues. Someone, help me please!
We're getting screwed on prices where I live. The Sony and Nikon lenses are the same price and the price is fair. The Canon however is 50% more expensive then both.
@@jan_wegener Hi...Thanks for the reply. I am not big fan of extenders. That is the reason, I asked as I shoot mammals (like tigers) and as well as birds.
@@jan_wegener I am interested in buying one of these for use on an APS-C body at some point, so I'd like to know how they fare with 20+ megapixel APS-C sensors (the choice of many wildlife photographers).
@@matt88169 It this the 20mpix APS-C sensor isn't the issue here, they will all do quite well. The biggest difference will be what AF system you can get in these APS-C camera. On Canon for instance is this lens performing better on an R5 or R6 II, than an R7, mainly because the AF is more inconsistent on the R7. When it hits, the images looks fabulous
Many thanks Jan for this in depth review. I love my RF 100-500 paired with my R5. Not so sure I would ever buy the 200-800 though as I would defo have to hold on to the 1-5 as it’s an L lens and is better quality and so compact. Think I might wait for the R7 mk2 and just use my 1-5 on that whenever that will be. What are your thoughts on the OM1 mk2 with the OM 150-400. Would be great if you could get hold of that set up and do a review 😊 lots of wildlife photogs say it’s amazing despite it being micro 4/3, anyway thanks for all your hard work bringing this review to us 👍🏻 cheers
@@jan_wegener oh okay. I must admit I would have to be 110% convinced before switching from Canon. Would have to be able to afford to use both systems I think 😊
I’m always going with the faster lens and I find I shoot more in the 600mm range than 800mm but if I need longer reach I can press a button and get to 900mm F6.3 on my Z 9 or Z 8 and give up some resolution. In a pinch if I know I might need the longer reach I can pop on 1.4 TC and get 840mm at F9 so I get a bonus 40mm, but If I’m someone that shoots mostly at 800mm I’m getting the Nikon 800mm 6.3 and then carrying a second camera with either the 100-400 or 180-600 for wider shots
Depending on where you are, the Sony setup might be cheaper than the Canon. I paid about 1600€ for my A7 IV and 1200€ for the 200-600mm, both new. Currently an R8 is 1500€ and the 200-800 is 2500€. Even if you add the 1.4x TC to the Sony, it still ends up being quite a bit cheaper. So to anyone looking at making a purchase, make sure to compare local pricing.
Nice video. They are all very nice. To be fair though the Z6III should be out in the next 1-3 months and it will be state of the art for $2500 or less. This release is imminent. -PD
For me 600 and f6.3 combo is more important than 800mm reach Canon is 2/3 stop slower at equivalent 600 mm which is really bad for low light ....f6.3 already is very marginal in low light
@@Xirpzy u cn always use extender with 6.3 lens and get 840 f/9 lens but in low light i remove the extender to get in more light which 200-800 wont be able to do and also internal zooming is way superior and very easy to balance in gimbal or fluid head as physical dimension not changing where external zoom is very annoying
It’s right up there with the others now. I have used them all extensively, there some areas where one is better and then there’s some where the others are. Canon is the easiest to use and set up. Nikon has certainly come a long way and the bird AF update made huge changes
@@jan_wegener Jan I sold an R5 to move to a Z8, because the AF is better. Unless you’re testing on 5.0 you’re not getting the correct results. It’s changed and improved 3 times since release last year alone!
@@DBWPhotoon the Z8 it was 2.0, Z9 is 5.0. I tested the 2.0 FW for Nikon before it was released, you can see my video about it. The jump in performance was phenomenal for sure
Hi Jan. Thanks for the wonderful review. I have Canon R5 and 200-800 mm. Had the lens tested out in northern Norway for the last 3 weeks. Very sharp and performs very well in combination with the R5. Two things I would like to comment on. The Canon 200-800 mm is the lightest lens of these three. If you put a converter on the other two, the difference is even bigger. I only use and take pictures of birds, and is between 400mm and 800mm. This means that the coom area is significantly shorter than from 200-800mm. Very satisfied so far, and looking forward to the arrival of the Canon R5 mark 2.
Thank you for this comparison Jan. I have the Nikon 180-600 with the Z8. I love the combination, though occasionally would like a lighter setup, especially when hiking. Rather than an extender, for extra reach I use the DX crop mode. This essentially gives me 19mp images (rather than 45mp), though with all the focusing and stabilisation magic of the Z8.
Nikon zf+180-600 great combo for wildlife! Af is superb!
How do you have your buttons and menus setup? Any tips? I have the 180-600mm arriving Tuesday for my ZF. I currently have the ZF set to back button focus via AF on for animal eye-AF. I have the display button set for 3D tracking (which I haven't used much yet) and the front lower button set for small single point AF.
I really wish Nikon would issue Bird Subject Detection firmware/logarithm improvement for the ZF!!!
@@tomredman745 me too. I might "skip" the Z8 if they do and just see what the Z7III and future cameras look like.
I also have the Canon RF 200-800 mm combined with the low budget full frame R8 with best auto-focus and I love it. Almost all my shots are sharp. Works very well for BIF. Also good in low light conditions. I have tried many time to pair with the R7 and I didn’t like it compared to the R8.
hey man, I also own a R8 and currently using it with RF100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM, should I upgrade to 200 - 800 or any other lens in that price range. or should I go for the cheaper 800 f11 considering I already have a 100 - 400.
@@srijeshbiswal8737 I have all 3 lenses you have mentioned. The reach of 800mm is unmatched if you're into wildlife on full frame... the 800mm f11 is a great lens to intro into long lenses, but you may quickly find its limits in lower lighting (f11), long minimum focus distance (cant focus on small creatures up close) and the fixed/prime 800mm. I found myself missing shots due to not being able to locate my subject in the viewfinder. That said, my favourite picture ever taken was on this lens. It has great potential in the perfect scenarios.
200-800 you can zoom your way into a subject, has better light input, but comes at the cost of weight (SHE HEAVY)
I'll be keeping my 100-400 as a walk around, 200-800 as a sniper and selling the 800 f11. The RF 100-500 is probably the best of them all as its an L, but is limited in reach on full frame IMO
Wonderful comparison Jan, I have been looking at the 200-800 for a while but bought the 100-500 as an ideal walk around lens with amazing IQ
I have an R7 and the RF100-500... I don't see a need to add the 200-800, more interested in an R5
I have R6 mark II. I am trying to find the best suited lens 200-800 or 100-500. Still, I am confused about choosing one. I am not professional
@@smilerose952 I have the same camera and just recently bought the 200-800 and highly recommend it, the extra focal length is brilliant for birds and it beats the 100-500 on the long end even if you add the 1.4x the 200-800 outperforms the 100-500. The 100-500 has better performance at the wide end though
@@smilerose952 I have the EF 100-400 and got the RF 200-800 as the RF 100-500 is much more expensive for only 100mm more range The EF100-400 has better low light ability than both of the RFs. The only negative thing about the 200-800 I have found is on really fast flying planes at airshows it goes out of focus quite quick but I have found out that is due to the slow processor in the R7 I have. Possibly its biggest selling point is that there has been a long waiting list for it in many countries of the world this year.
It’s worth looking at the Z f as an option for Nikon. The AF has kept up with the Z 9 when shooting sports in my experience. It would make the whole lot much cheaper
I love the 100-400mm lens size and weight so much I can't see myself getting a bigger zoom. Instead I've just been cropping more, but with the high megapixel cameras, you still end up with a very detailed image.
Thank You Jan! Excellent Review!
I’m staying with Nikon… Been there for 40 years. Have a Z8 & Z9 and just got a 180-600 and have a 1.4 TC for my 100-400.
I'm loving the RF 200-800 on my R8! So much fun!!!!
I passed, too many shortcomings, I'll wait for the Mark 2 version...lol!
Jealous, I’ve been waiting for mine for about 5 months now. Just waiting for that phone call from my camera shop to come pick it up. I also have a r8 and I’ve been using the 100-400 but I’d like to double my reach haha
@@Orngecayman It's quite amazing! Sorry it's taking so long, but I think you will love it, once you get it!
Would you recommend an upgrade for the Sony 200 - 600 to Canon RF 200-800?
Excellent video and comparison. I'm currently using the RF 100-500mm on the R5 while I wait for my 200-800mm pre-order. I've been on the fence on if I actually want the 200-800mm. It appears so bulky, especially when extended and the white color doesn't help. Also the long zoom throw and fixed tripod foot are annoying. I have the Nikon ZF (with smallrig grip) and the Nikon 180-600mm will be arriving Tuesday after a long wait, just in time for a trip to Florida. So I'll be comparing the 180-600mm (albeit on a 24mp sensor with worse bird eye-AF than a Z8) to the Canon R5 + 100-500mm. I also have the 1.4x TC for both systems. I also previously owned the Sony A9II and A7RIV with the 200-600mm.
I'm hoping using both a Canon and Nikon setup side by side will guide me in deciding which system to go with later this year. I'm waiting to see what Canon does with the R5II. I'm guessing/hoping it will be good enough to keep me around. Otherwise I'll likely get a Z8 and eventually a 400TC or 600TC. The R5II has to exceed the Z8 in nearly every way to keep me away from going full Nikon (for birding).
I sold my 100-500 and got the 200-800... Love it... Excellent results so far, and no problems.. Build quality looks very good too...
Great to hear!
Great video Jan. I tried out the 200-800 and the long zoom throw is just a no go for me since it made tracking that much more difficult. Ended up sticking with a 500mm prime + 1.4TC giving me 700mm f8 when I need more reach. The 180-600 would be an option since I shoot both canon and Nikon but I can’t find it anywhere.
One area where I think is a differentiator is focus breathing. Like you said all lenses suffer from it but the 200-600 is absolutely terrible at it and gets nowhere near the close up framing of the 180-600.
Yes, the Sony has the most of these lenses I believe
In Australia , Sony is cheaper than all other brands . I have the A7IV + 200-600 set up and I am happy 😊. I can't afford the other options .
the same for me in EU. I'm still using the A9 (it cost me 2k) with 200-600 (1.5k) - there is no cheaper option to have FF stacked sensor...
I have the Z 9 with 180-600mm and I love it. I use the 1.4x teleconverter about 70% of the time and with enough light, I get results that I really like especially for aviation photography.
For my use cases, birds and my greyhounds, the internal zoom of the 180-600 was the main reason I upgraded from the older 200-500. It makes tracking fast moving subjects so much easier!
Thanks for posting. I recently added the Canon R6 Mk II to my gear bag, and bought their 800mm f/11 lens as a way to get that extra reach without spending all that much money. It's worked quite well and returned good results shooting the recent full moon. However, I do think I'm going to trade it in and pick up the 200-800, just for a bit of extra versatility.
Great video Jan :) For myself, reach is always the priority, so it would have to be the Canon 200-800. Even if Nikon made an xxx-800 zoom, they still do not make an APS-C equivalent to the Z8/9, which I also need. For myself, it would almost be more accurate to say that the 200-800 + R7 is the "only choice"... rather than "the best choice" even admitting all of the faults of this combo.... especially with the R7. I SO can't wait for an R7 Mk II, which will hopefully address about a half dozen faults.
BTW, I 100% agree that a big, heavy, crazy expensive 600 F4 would be sharper than any of these zooms, but of course I'd still need to put a 1.4 TC on it 95% of the time... So then, viewing at 200% on a 4K monitor, it still might be a touch sharper. But sized down to 3 to 5 mp for digital viewing (99+% of folks typical uses) their will likely be "zero discernable difference".
I have a friend who is a professional birding guide. On his last trip, he shot with a 500 F4 + 1.4 TC, the 800 F11, and the 200-800. About equal thirds of his shooting. After the trip, he processed several shots from each of these lenses. They all looked great, and nobody could tell what photos came from what lens.
IMPO the super expensive, very fast lenses are making less and less difference with modern mirrorless cameras, with high ISO capabilities, and AI based noise removal programs.
I have told Canon repeatedly I need a R7 Mark II with more robust body, higher grade autofocus, a third control wheel, and taking an accessory battery grip (to fit my hand size and give a more positive grip). I get many super shots with the R7 but expected a mirrorless version of the 7D.
@@donh4907 yes + bigger buffer, and much faster readout speed to greatly reduce or eliminate rolling shutter. Stacked sensors would do the same thing + maybe more.
And I'm willing to pay for it too. Honestly, I'd pay $2500 if Canon would make an R7 with all the changes we have discussed 👍
Thanks Jan, great information and thoughts. Personally I chose Canon R6II+RF200-800 for BIF and in my opinion it is currently the best solution. HI
Not the best but pretty good
Recently came back from the Platte river shooting the Crane migration. I used the Z8, Z9 and mostly the 600pf with 1.4 tc. A great combo. Being able to use the 600 at 6.3 is a great advantage although I found myself very jealous of those with the 600 f4. F mount 600 f4 lenses with great IQ are now available on used market for reasonable prices
great comparison, I can't use any of these lenses but I can prepair if I upgrade.
a9 and 200-600 works fine for me.. A used a9 is about 1500$ these days..
Thanks for comparing, I choose RF200-800 because I have been with Canon since film camera (EOS 50 EQD). I have 100-500 and wait for my 200-800 to come. I don’t like external zoom but no choice for Canon. It is so frustrated to use tele converter with 100-500, so the 200-800 would be my better choice when I need extra reach.
This is a terrific review and comparison. I do wish that the Canon lens had an internal zoom, but I'll manage once I get it. Thank you for also using the extenders on the lenses. You covered all the bases for all three brands. Thanks, Jan!
Wow. The stabilized video from the Nikon 180-600mm is really good. Canon's 200-800mm lens has really good range. The tele-zoom lenses from all 3 brands are really good.
Now that you have used both the 400mm f4.5 & the 180-600mm, which one would be your recommendation along with the Z8 regarding sharpness, background separation & overall rendering ?
I own the 400mm f4.5, I like the sharpness & the less ISO I am getting at f4.5 vs f6 and also a bit more background blur. But sometimes I feel like i miss the 600mm, which I able to get in DX mode with 19MP on the Z8.
Thank You 🙏🏽
I love the 400 f4.5 and use DX or add a 1.4 TC. Have shot the 300 f2.8 with TC 1.4 for many yrs as my only wildlife lens.
if you want the extra reach and don't care too much about the zoom, I think the best lens by far would be the 600pf
@@jakesdewet3567 yes, I think you also shoot mainly predators and large mammals. The 300mm f2.8 I heard is a fantastic lens.
I also bought the 400mm f4.5 for the same reason. But nowadays, what I observed is that due to increased tourism, vehicles who carry only mobiles or action cams and want to see the predators up close they get too close. The cats aged around 3yrs & above nowadays are keeping a lot of distance and seem scared to cross the small roads or walk for miles, specially here in India. The previous generation of tigers are fine and fearless but the pattern is changing rapidly and the young tigresses are also acquiring their mother's territory so their mother had to leave. In Maasai Mara, there is a strict restriction for off-roading is being implemented. In Serengeti there is no off-roading. The South African, Botswana, Zambia circuit is too far and costly for a solo traveller like me to get private bookings.
Some tourists are just being too close and disturbing the cat's behaviour.
I am seeing more of my photos are now in 500-600mm range than being in the previous 200-400mm range.
This is just what I am seeing recently over last 6 months or so.
That's why I am becoming extremely curious about the 180-600mm. I am thinking of rent it & test it side by side in June in Ranthambore Tiger Reserve.
Thank You 🙏🏽
@@jan_wegener I shoot large mammals mostly bigcats so, 600mm would be too much for a considerable amount of photos. Thats why I am being curious of the zoom. The 600mm PF and 100-400mm Pf would be a great combo though but it would be too much costly for me.
I will stick with the 400mm for a few more trips and see how it goes.
Thank You 🙏🏽
@@stripes_in_raw For larger mammals, flexibility and the best (affordable) quality, I would recommend you grab the 400 4.5 and 1.4TC.
Hi Jan, reach is king for small birds, so I'm already 3 months enjoying my 200-800 😀
You are right it's design is perhaps a bit less practical compared to this competition, but the extra 200mm easily makes up for it. If it were an internal zoom, it would be much longer and less practical to travel with.
Of course ALL lensfoots should have arca-swiss capability, but size the foot of the 200-800 doesn't bother me.
I've seen in another video the Sony has a lot of focus breathing (like my old 100-400Lii) meaning with the extender the Sony remains shorter than the 200-800.
I've been seeing a lot of shots taken with the Canon lens and the results are very nice. I'm considering the 200-800 to go with my R6-m2. Thanks Jan!
Me, too. I use the Canon 100-500mm with the 1.4 ex.
But I want to use the 200-800 WITH the extender and have the 100-500 handy by itself.
You need to compare the nikon zf with nikkor 180-600. The zf is light and cheap and fast and supports birds eye detection.
That's one option, true, but I didn't;t find it to be the best for nature photography in terms of ergonomics
@@jan_wegener Adding the Smallrig grip helps a lot with larger lenses, Jan. Unless you have tested with it on….
Internal zoom lenses such as the Nikon and Sony are a much more modern design approach with better build quality which also avoids dust and moisture issues entering the lens. And you don't have to deal with weight balancing issues on a gimbal. Also the Canon lenses are a lot slower.
Hey Jan, I'm trying to figure something out. I know that putting a full frame lens on an APSC or using a teleconverter reduces light taking you from, for example, F9 to F13 at 1.4x -- but does it also come with the softness of F13 diffraction, or do you keep the crisper F9 image quality?
Mounting a lens on bodies with smaller sensor size does not reduce the speed of the lens, only the fov. Regardless whether you mount it on R7 or R6, it's still f/9 in both cases. Teleconverter, on the other hand, is a different story...
I don't think teleconverters would cause diffraction because physically the aperture blades don't change when you add a converter, they will slightly soften the image but that is because your adding more layers of glass, stretching the center of the lens and the ISO increases. In my opinion all these lenses are pushing the limits with APS-C, a 33MP sensor at a 1.6x crop would be 85 megapixels if it were full frame, sometimes I wonder if I can squeeze the full 61MP out of my 200-600mm and A7R IV.
What about zf with 180-600 ?
Zf is a pretty decent body with great DR and AF/tracking works rather well. It’s not far off the z8/z9, which I both own as well, despite the non-stacked sensor.
Excellent video! You covered all the bases very equitably. You mentioned pairing the Canon 200-800mm lens with the R7 body but did not stress the fact that the crop sensor in that camera gives you an equivalent focal length of 1280mm at the long end (or did I miss that?). You fairly point out the issues with the R7 autofocus, but when it hits, it's amazingly good.
I hate externally zooming lens!
Hi Jan, thank you for your detailed review. I have a Z7ii and I am considering the 180-600mm. However, as you said, the auto focus is not up to par with the Z8 and Z9. Would you not then purchase this lens in your opinion?
Understand you asked Jan, but. If you need that lens, buy it. It keeps its value and will be compatible with future body upgrades. Don't postpone shooting your vision/dream because some ~irrelevant piece of hardware isn't there yet. Just don't expect the Z 7ii to be able to get pointed at something moving in lower light and reliably AF all the time. Note that photographers in the film past before AF shot a lot less frames and everything was MF. We would pre-focus a lot and fire the shutter when the subject was at the point we focused at - the only way to focus on an F1 car coming at you if you have 1 frame. Most wildlife shots don't need fast AF, just patience from the shooter. There's a video online from Nikon Ambassador Jasin Boland demonstrating how he uses AF in the case of the Z 6 (IIRC) and my reaction was, that he applied the old logic while blending in mirrorless (sensor based) AF into his process.
There likely will be a Z 7iii and we will have to wait and see what innovations and improvements it brings. I shot both the Z 7 and Z 7ii and upgraded to the Z 8 recently. When Nikon released firmware 2.0 to the Z 8 a couple weeks after the upgrade I said, "thank you someone". The upgrades of the Z 7 firmware to 3.0 and 3.4, shortly after the release of the Z 7ii, made me feel I never needed to go to the Z 7ii.
The moral is, the lens comes first. Second, when a new camera arrives, maybe wait until you can rent one and test it for a weekend.
If your camera has a web-based reference guide, go to the section that lists the menu structure and with the default ("factory") setting for each menu line (Nikon doesn't allow copying from the pdf). Copy that maybe into an Excel file and review all (600?) and mark your customisation next to it. You may want different customisation variants for different use cases. I must say that Nikon's menu structures are not completely intuitive and as Jan demonstrated in earlier videos, in order for AF to work best, we may need to revert to tricks, like having a stored focus point in memory that is close by, that we can recall when the camera hunts in the distance when the subject is close by. Such tricks have great value and you must decide how and where to use them. Maybe you have to invent a new one yourself.
I am loving my Canon 200-800 lense paired with my Canon R8. Looking forward to upgrade to R5 Mark II.
Grate comparison Jan. Not easy to decide which is the best, thats for sure. I wish that the canon was an internal zoom. Always a problem with dust sucked in with the external zooms. But thats their way of thinking. Anyway, i have to say that the 200-800 seems to be a very good lens. Hope that Canon will release the r7 mk II with a stacked sensor, and some great updates from the r7. Then this would have been an amazing combo.
Wishing you and yours a great week.
Cheers, Bjoern
If your on a budget then the best in the used market is the Sony A9 and the 200-600mm. Both to be had for Approx 2500 uk pounds..
Or the Lumix G9ii at £1600 and the 100-400 for even less!
Great comparisons! Any chance you can compare the Nikkor 10-400 f4 vs the new 180-600 Z and/or the 100-400 f4.5? I'd love to see that.
Fantastic review Jan, very informative and comprehensive, cracking thank you.
Glad you enjoyed it
@@jan_wegener It's amazing you compared these three side by side, but there is one thing missing: Canon 800mm vs cropped Sony/Nikon 600mm
If 800 f/9 isn't as sharp as 600 f/6.3, then cropping the latter could be the way to go.
@@masina9447cropping that much is a fair chunk. And that’s considering you get close enough in the first place without any extra cropping needed.
@@jan_wegener It's less of a crop than you did with the RF 100-500 in your other video, and on the A7iv you'd still be left with a decent 20MP. Some of these new AI upscalers are amazing, so the question is how much detail is the lens actually capturing?
IMO it's the most important question for this lens, given that everyone is saying it loses some sharpness at 800mm, and the drawbacks you expertly noted.
Can it significantly out-resolve a cropped 600mm F/6.3 shot from the same distance to the subject?
Interesting comparison. I am pretty embedded in Canon with landscape and wildlife so it's moot aside from whether I should get canon 200-800 or not. But even if I was not - zoom range without 1.4x (=canon), iq (pretty close at 600mm and 200mm bonus =canon), f9 vs lower (not a big difference), long zoom reach (the only big knock on canon but I am usually 400-600 and sometimes 800 or close so its not a big deal. Ext vs Int is just whatever you are used to. I bought the r8 for weight (backpacking) to complement my r5 - it is a gem. Fast focus, light, great video, better features than r5 (40fps, AEB/electronic, mechanical vid vs still). It only lacks 45mpx and it would be perfect. I would buy it over the r6ii (lighter, cheaper, missing c3). It has better a/f than r7. It's amazing our great choices available.
I wish Canon made the 200-600mm with same parameters as Sony. The external zoom is something I don't really like and Canon's f6.3 stops at 268mm...then f7.1...f8 starts at 455mm. So sad, because Canon could have done much much better here. If I were starting WL photography without any previous EF lenses, I would definitely go with Sony especially because of 200-600mm.
Exactly my thoughts! To me it seems like canon cant get this segment right. 600 and 800 mm are no good with fixed f11 aperture for any serious wildlife use. The best light doesnt come at noon. The 100-500 f7.1, yeah, thank you but just a bit too short for its high apperture. And with the 200-800, I had high hopes but then the high f stops hit again and I knew Canon missed it one more time, with not only high aperture, but external zoom, the collar, long throw...adding up the delayed bodies that didn't reach all the (sensible) expectations...ah, seems like I'll be swithing to sony, as well as my father.
Hello! Thanks for the video. I have a question that's been difficult for me to resolve. For this type of photography, what is better: using (1) an APS-C or Micro Four Thirds camera; (2) a full-frame camera with a teleconverter; or (3) an APS-C/Micro Four Thirds camera with a teleconverter. Thanks!
Received the RF 200-800 a little over a week ago! Amazing reach and sharpness at 1120 MM. I'm trying to decide if I want to keep the RF 100-500 for its close up ability. Thank You, for the reviews!!!
*mm
I shoot the R5 100-500. If the budget allows it, I would keep it. It’s just so versatile. The close focus is amazing. It also does decent landscape photography at 100 mm. It’s sharp, an L lens and weather sealed. Really it the best walk around lens I’ve ever had. I keep thinking Canon will come out with either a full frame with built in “decent” crop factor,like R5ii or R1, or upgraded crop sensor R7ii. In which case that lens would be even more amazing!
It seems the Nikon Zf has a very capable AF, at least on par with the A7iv. It makes Nikon more affordable until the Z6iii arrives.
Yeah, as someone who owns the Z8 and Zf, as well as the 180-600, I can say that while the Zf doesn't quite equal the Z8 in tracking focus, and the new bird focus update on the Z8 is incredible, the Zf also is very capable with this lens, and a big step up from the Z7 II and Z6 II with regards to AF performance. I also previously shot Canon and Sony, and I think the Zf is not too far off from the R5, while the R8 and R6 II are actually a bit better than the R5 with regards to AF and subject recognition.
Thank you for the video!
Prices in EU, including all taxes:
Canon 2499€
Nikon 1999€
Sony (Amazon) 1669€
Sony 200-600 is quite a bit old lens and could be bought with discount: I was able to purchase the lens for 1450 Euro (all taxes included).
Yes, it's wild how the prices differ
Nice comparison all around! One advantage for Sony is that the Nikon and Canon lenses both border on unobtainium on both the new and used markets currently. The lens you can get > the ones that you can't. One extra advantage for Canon is that the R5 is going for crazy low prices on the used market. (I got mine for $2000 on Black Friday and they've been going for only slightly more than that on Reddit, Fred Miranda, and eBay recently). That puts an extremely capable high res full frame camera with great autofocus in reach of a lot of people.
That's a fair point, I didn't;t realise the Nikon & Canon were still so rare
Great video (I love them all). I've had the Canon 200-800mm on order since December and can't wait for it to arrive (at present mid May for Melbourne) So in the meantime I'll keep shooting with my trusty 500mm f4 II with 1.4 converter on my R5.
fingers crossed it'll come soon
In the UK the pricing is very different, with WEX having Sony the cheapest at £1,559, Nikon in the middle at £1,799 and the Canon the most expensive at £2,299. Since the Sony has been out sometime there is also a good secondhand market for the 200-600
Not “irregardless”, but ‘regardless” is the correct word 🙄
But regardless, I do have the Sony 200-600mm, got it just over a year after it came out and initially bought it with the Sony A7R4. Had issues with focussing with this lens, as some had noted at the time, so returned that camera body and got the older A7R3 and have been happy with it ever since. I’ve had the old Canon 100-400mm push/pull lens back in the day with a 5D2, but much prefer the internal zoom lenses. I also have used with a 1.4x teleconverter, and do find it is better to use with it at least one stop down … but of course only using it in the brightest of situations. Focus is great with the teleconverter, and excellent with the lens on its own. I’ve been very please with the backyard bird photography I’ve used it for, as well as photographing the sun and the mostly clouded over eclipse. It’s took some time to recognize the best settings for the lens, especially beyond 400mm, but still very happy to use it.
I wasn't at all thrilled about the non-removable tripod collar, but after trying to hold the lens itself... the collar is needed as a handle, more than an actual tripod mount IMO.
Great review i am still waiting for my 200 800 in the usa i ordered mine on nov 2 and i am still waiting what have you heard about the inventory??? now that it is spring time 6 months wait is really bad eric hansen
Yes strange it’s taking so long! I haven’t heard anything unfortunately
I shoot with a Canon R7 and a RF 800mm F11. It's a great combination but also a bit frustrating (not good in low light and sometimes 800mm is too much). I want to upgrade my lens and I am hesitating between the Canon RF 200-800mm (RF mount, up to 800mm but expensive and not very bright) and the Sigma EF 60-600mm (a bit cheaper, more versatile, a bit brighter but not EF mount and not as powerfull). What do you think ?
Btw, great video, as always !!
I'd definitely recommend the 200-800 for the better autofocus accuracy and probably better stabilization as well in addition to more reach without a teleconverter or getting over 1000mm without using a 2x teleconverter.
Hi Jan
Thank you for a nice review and comparison.
I'm shooting R6ii with the 100-500 and have been considering buying the 200-800 for additional reach. I've read and seen quite a bunch of reviews where people complain about the long throw when zooming in and out. Can you do push/pull zooming like you can with the EF100-400 and the RF100-500 or do you have to use the zoom ring?
you can, but it's stiffer
Great comparison Jan, im sure this video will help many people. The lens market is definitely changing with some examples being the F6.3 primes from Nikon, F11 primes from Canon and this 800mm F9! It's nice that people can now use lighter kits compared to the DSLR days but you will always have benefits from an F4 lens so they are not going anywhere.
Yes, will be exciting to see what may come next. Smaller and lighter for the win!
One issue you did not discuss is product availability. I have been waiting more than 3 months for a Canon lens and it looks like Nikon is in short supply as well.
Thank you for another great video. I currently own a Sony A1 + FE 200-600mm + 1.4x TC and a Canon R5 + RF 100-500. To reach out to ~ 800 mm is it best to buy the Canon RF 200-800 or a TC on the 100-500 or a R7 body to use APS-C mode? Seems like there are lots of options but not sure where to go for Canon RF based systems. What do you think? Appreciate your feedback. Take care.
My video I made about both lenses might help you.
ua-cam.com/video/KBSnE1qAxI0/v-deo.html
Ik fotografeer al vanaf december met de canon RF 200-800 op mijn canon R7 en het bevalt mij prima , het snel uitzoomen gaat af en te lastig .😎
5:45 technically it adds some loss of light, but when you consider that the canon aperture is already a step below what the Sony’s is, it ends up being the same aperture as the canon. Not only that but the canon is 6.3 at 200mm, where the Sony is 5.6, so even though you get those extra 200mm, it’s at an overall trade-off in aperture.
I'd rather have the removable lens ring and non external zoom. The extra 200mm can easily be compensated for with modern software. Also. Nobody buys into a camera system for just 1 lens. All 3 manufacturers offer a variety of lenses and the best combination of them should determine what system to get into.
But if you already have 800mm natively, you can do even more
I use the stupid non removable ring as a handle to walk around with the lens - it actually works very well 😂
Still, fuck canon for locking FF rf mount. I want some of the tamron and sigma lens so bad.
Do you think the 200-800 would have better image quality then the 100-500 with a 1.4 extender?
I made a video about the two. It's quite similar
Question- I have the 200-500, but no FTZ (long story). Should I grab another FTZ this year for $200-$250, or just put that $ into the 180-600? The 180-600 is still a long wait. Trying to weigh my best option, any input is appreciated.
What camera?
I am looking to buy the Canon but have not seen anywhere that this is actually in stock as opposed to “in stock”. Any ideas where I can get one?
Which country? It seems to be in short supply in most areas
@@jan_wegener here in Melbourne Victoria
Although external zoom, the 200-800 is easier to fit into many camera bags as you zoom it all the way in to pack.
Yes, that helps for sure, although ere it's the same size as the others, but would be much longer if it wasn't an external zoom
Hey Jan, do you know if you can customize the red record button on the R6 II? Or is it still useless?
I have wracked my brain trying to do something useful with the record button but it videos in some automatic mode. Hence minimal control
@@bornufreeAh that‘s sad..wouldn’t be that much of a problem for Canon to unlock this i think..
I have the 200-600 on order for 5 months…still no word on delivery date. Any idea what’s going with Canon and delivery dates?
That's pretty crazy, Nikon is behind too it seems
Jan... I recently saw one of your images that used a Canon 2.0 teleconverter. My results with the 2.0 isn't great. Any tips?
what lens?
@@jan_wegener CANON 400MM f/2.8 on an R5
@@StephenFisher-uq1sq which version of that lens?
@@jan_wegener Canon RF 400mm f/2.8 and a Canon RF 600mm f'4 on a Canon R5...
Excellent footage of a Male Rufous Whistler @2:10.
Have an R8 so just waiting for the RF200-800 to arrive in the UK. No brainier for me.
There’s a saying in sports, the greatest ability is availability. True for lenses as well. Which of these lenses are actually available? I ordered a Canon 200-800 in December 2023 from B&H and still have not received it. Calls to other US camera stores draw laughs and no info as to when it might actually be available. This “announce but don’t deliver” situation is simply an unfortunate and irritating aspect of the photo equipment business these days. So people should consider availability as well as specs. Thanks for the excellent review.
It's interesting that this lens has been in stock in a. few places and is insanely back ordered in other places, especially the US
Hey Jan! Which lens do you recomend bellow 1500€ that has the reach of those three (600-900mm)?
Does not exist
Canon 800mm prime F11, although not a zoom for about €800.-. Picture quality is comparable with Canon 200-800 Zoom.
@@marcelrothmund2447 And which camera should I combine with in order my budget will not get over the 2000 dollar mark.
Yes, the F11 600 or 800 is probably the best option in that case. Maybe paired with a sued R7 or R8 or R10
@@NickTheGreek-m3x As Jan said, a R7 or IMHO a R8 would be great. Maybe the sight of view will be too small with a R7.
My 200-800 Rf only lasted 3 months, it broke all around the front thickening without falling.
Interesting, sad to hear but there is something about that black plastic front which gives me a shivers. Each time I clean front element that plastic part squeaks like crazy even with gentle rubbing 😮
That sucks!
@@jan_wegener I have now received an answer from Canon Germany, they want 1000€ repair costs. I don't think that's right, as I once worked in service at Sigma and only the plastic housing is defective, I think the price is worthless. The lens works perfectly.
Jan, I have watched all of your reviews of the Canon lens and I am still struggling with which to buy. I want to keep my kit small in terms of number of items while providing me the greatest flexibility. I use R6MkII bodies and have the 24-70 2.8, the 70-200 2.8. If i add the 200-800 I would be able to go from 24 to 800 and only carry 3 lenses. But getting a 100-500 L lens is attractive. I am still trying to find my niche and am strictly a hobbyist, so I shoot a lot of different things. From landscape to sports and wildlife. So, the struggle continues. Someone, help me please!
We're getting screwed on prices where I live. The Sony and Nikon lenses are the same price and the price is fair. The Canon however is 50% more expensive then both.
I already own 100-500 from Canon paired with R5. Is it wise to add the 200-800 with these?
Rent it and check. One will told you that it is worth, other not. It is very individual
It kind of double up a bit, somewhat depends if you use a TC on the 100-500 or not.
@@jan_wegener Hi...Thanks for the reply. I am not big fan of extenders. That is the reason, I asked as I shoot mammals (like tigers) and as well as birds.
@@soumitraghosh29in that case it would have a lot more reach. I made a video comparing both lenses
Which of these is sharpest on APS-C? Do they all degrade?
Probably more or less similar, a lot depends on the AF of the camera, too
@@jan_wegener I am interested in buying one of these for use on an APS-C body at some point, so I'd like to know how they fare with 20+ megapixel APS-C sensors (the choice of many wildlife photographers).
@@matt88169 It this the 20mpix APS-C sensor isn't the issue here, they will all do quite well. The biggest difference will be what AF system you can get in these APS-C camera. On Canon for instance is this lens performing better on an R5 or R6 II, than an R7, mainly because the AF is more inconsistent on the R7. When it hits, the images looks fabulous
Internal Zoom all the way
Many thanks Jan for this in depth review. I love my RF 100-500 paired with my R5. Not so sure I would ever buy the 200-800 though as I would defo have to hold on to the 1-5 as it’s an L lens and is better quality and so compact. Think I might wait for the R7 mk2 and just use my 1-5 on that whenever that will be. What are your thoughts on the OM1 mk2 with the OM 150-400. Would be great if you could get hold of that set up and do a review 😊 lots of wildlife photogs say it’s amazing despite it being micro 4/3, anyway thanks for all your hard work bringing this review to us 👍🏻 cheers
Yes, that's one set up I'd like to try, but hard to come by it seems
I’m sure OM Systems would be happy to loan you the combo for review 😊
neve r managed to find the right contact there
@@jan_wegener oh okay. I must admit I would have to be 110% convinced before switching from Canon. Would have to be able to afford to use both systems I think 😊
Nikon p900 for the win
I'm still waiting on my 200-800mm Canon lens.
Wish canon would crank up production of the 200-800 so we could all get ours
I heard that most camera stores are getting one a month. My local store told me I should get mine in June or July, 2025.
@@alansach8437 I spoke with my local store and they have 18 orders and have received 2 since November
that's crazy!
My local camera store has 18-20 preorders and has only received 2 since release date. So I took a chance and went to B&H instead.
I’m always going with the faster lens and I find I shoot more in the 600mm range than 800mm but if I need longer reach I can press a button and get to 900mm F6.3 on my Z 9 or Z 8 and give up some resolution. In a pinch if I know I might need the longer reach I can pop on 1.4 TC and get 840mm at F9 so I get a bonus 40mm, but If I’m someone that shoots mostly at 800mm I’m getting the Nikon 800mm 6.3 and then carrying a second camera with either the 100-400 or 180-600 for wider shots
The biggest difference between the 3 lenses is Canon doesn't deliver their products and Sony and Nikon does.
Depending on where you are, the Sony setup might be cheaper than the Canon. I paid about 1600€ for my A7 IV and 1200€ for the 200-600mm, both new. Currently an R8 is 1500€ and the 200-800 is 2500€. Even if you add the 1.4x TC to the Sony, it still ends up being quite a bit cheaper. So to anyone looking at making a purchase, make sure to compare local pricing.
Nice video. They are all very nice.
To be fair though the Z6III should be out in the next 1-3 months and it will be state of the art for $2500 or less. This release is imminent.
-PD
we will only know when it's announced
My dream is Canon RF 200-800
I have an r10 and i'm waiting for the 200-800 to be in stock and I'll throw my money in their face lol
how about MFD? :)
good point ;)
@@jan_wegener
It seems that MFD is (from focal plane) with:
Canon 200-800: 0.8m (f=200 mm), 1.8m (f=400 mm), 2.8m (f=600 mm), 3.3m (f=800 mm)
Canon 150-500: 0.9m at 100mm / 1.2m at 500mm (best in group)
Sony 200-600: 7.87' / 2.4 m
Nikon 180-600mm: 1.3 m/4.27 ft (at 180 mm) and 2.4 m/7.88 ft (at 600 mm)
weakness of Nikon is that it doesn't have a high-end APSC camera for birding, the 1.5X is a great free crop for these lenses.
You have the nikon lens, but almost always skip the nikon lens.
hehe, true, it sit's kinda in the middle, so I brushed over it a couple of times since it's so similar to the Sony lens
Canon is actually slower at both ends... ;)
Don't forget the Nikon ZF at half the price of the Z8 😄
Rf800 f11 vs rf200-800😇
For me 600 and f6.3 combo is more important than 800mm reach Canon is 2/3 stop slower at equivalent 600 mm which is really bad for low light ....f6.3 already is very marginal in low light
Im the opposite after owning the RF 100-500mm. A bit slower isnt the end of the world. If I have a 800mm lens im going to use 800mm.
@@Xirpzy u cn always use extender with 6.3 lens and get 840 f/9 lens but in low light i remove the extender to get in more light which 200-800 wont be able to do and also internal zooming is way superior and very easy to balance in gimbal or fluid head as physical dimension not changing where external zoom is very annoying
If i pay x5 more there better be a difference ..
photo or picture? even iso 6400 no noise? MUST compare without editing! Useless comparison.
Everything has noise when you take it and then it’s easy to remove
👍🏾🙏🏾 🏴🇸🇪🇹🇹
I'll stick with Nikon, Sony never again
Jan - Nikon bird AF is BETTER than Canon and Sony. Firmware 5.0 blows both those others away. Stop propagating this false info.
It’s right up there with the others now. I have used them all extensively, there some areas where one is better and then there’s some where the others are. Canon is the easiest to use and set up. Nikon has certainly come a long way and the bird AF update made huge changes
@@jan_wegener Jan I sold an R5 to move to a Z8, because the AF is better. Unless you’re testing on 5.0 you’re not getting the correct results. It’s changed and improved 3 times since release last year alone!
@@DBWPhotoon the Z8 it was 2.0, Z9 is 5.0.
I tested the 2.0 FW for Nikon before it was released, you can see my video about it.
The jump in performance was phenomenal for sure
@@DBWPhotoR6ii is even better than R5. R6ii and R3 are peak canon right now.