My Canon RF 200-800mm first-looks review: a new super-telephoto! Check prices on the Canon RF 200-800mm at B&H: bhpho.to/3SopitC // WEX UK: tidd.ly/3FJdElA Check MPB to buy and sell used gear: bit.ly/3ULU9yL Buy Gordon a coffee: www.paypal.me/cameralabs Gordon's In Camera book: amzn.to/2n61PfI / Amazon uk: amzn.to/2mBqRVZ Cameralabs merchandise: redbubble.com/people/cameralabs/shop Gordon’s retro gear channel: ua-cam.com/users/dinobytes Equipment used for producing my videos Panasonic Lumix S5 II: amzn.to/3Hf5IcI Sony A6400: prf.hn/l/pRO0wp5 Sony e 24mm f1.8: amzn.to/2TqWNzk Rode NT USB mic: amzn.to/3AdHcUp Rode Wireless Go II mic: amzn.to/3xkCvGo Rode Lavalier Go mic: amzn.to/3ygzzKY Godox UL150 light: amzn.to/2VpVbXE Godox QR-P70 softbox: amzn.to/3yQfGdF MacBook Pro 14in (16GB / 1TB): amzn.to/3PrKbPV Music: www.davidcuttermusic.com / @dcuttermusic As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
I would think it would be comparable or slightly better. You are at f9 either way, but the 100-500 costs almost $1,000.00 more, plus the cost of the teleconverter and it still won't get you to 800. If you already have the 100-500, and 700 is enough reach, I wouldn't buy this lens, but if you want/need 800, or are debating between lenses it gets interesting.
I actually kinda like that the tripod collar is fixed on. I've had my RF 100-500 fall off it's tripod collar pretty easily unless you have it tightened down so tight that you can barely rotate the lens.
Great prelim view, thanks. Wow, looks awesome. Before I buy, I'll wait to see some reviews on IQ and AF speed and possible focus breathing at 20 feet. Pending that, this lens could be a huge leap forward for wildlife photographers. What is the min focussing distance?
Ty. Would like to see this compared to 100-500 with 1.4 ET pics quality, lenght, weight, and feel. Also IBIS and lens stabilization at long end. Ty, again.
Nice quick look at this lens! Can’t wait for a full test. As others have mentioned, it’d be great to see this on a R7 - but, here’s how I’m seeing this right now…I was planning to get the 100-500 in the Spring ahead of an Alaska trip next year (not to mention the eagles that show up around my home), BUT if this 200-800 performs well (such as BIF) at 500, the 1/3 stop isn’t far off from the 100-500, and the 500-800 is just bonus. Although from your shot of all the lens together, that 100-500 is going to fit easier in my travel bag lol. Thanks again for this first look!
I have a 70-200 2.8, 800mm f11 2x extender and the 100-500 my go to lens that l really love it’s a must have. I pre-ordered the 200-800 and very excited to have it in my collection especially for Surfing and Seascapes.
I think I’ll just stick with my RF 100-400 on my R7 for now for my wildlife setup. I’ve come to appreciate my shoulders not hurting after carrying a lens around for a few hours. 😆
That lens is an amazing value, and works great on the R7, for closer / larger creatures 🙂 I use it often in the backyard bird blind. I need 800mm in the field though.
@@Chris_Wolfgram yeah, I picked it up refurbished from Canon for $379 which is ridiculously cheap for what it does. I make no money from my wildlife photography only weddings, so of the 3 lenses released today, the 24-105 would be most useful in making money from it.
@@zayanything3124 that's an awesome deal, on a lens that is worth every penny of full cost in the first place ! :) My best deal was a like new (open box) 600 F11, for $509 :)
@@zayanything3124 Ugh, when did you pick that up? I've been watching Canon refurb for the last several weeks straight and they're not even in stock, let alone being marked down for Black Friday. I want one so bad!
Great, in-depth stuff as usual, Gordon, and very interesting. I have to say, the price point is quite a bit less than I would have thought. I'm firmly in the old-school of Canon DSLRs: 1DX Mk III, 7D Mk II, 20D, 300D, and I'm very happy with my kit (just got a Canon 100-400 today, actually, after trading in my Sigma 100-400). The only lenses left that I want are the 70-200 f/4, which my wife has agreed to get me for Christmas since I'm giving her a new bathroom (who won that transaction, I wonder... 🙄), and some day, a 500mm. My photography skills are that of an advanced hobbyist, always improving, but I'm content to stay with the DSLRs and not worry about a move to mirrorless. My hardware will likely last longer than I do!
F9 is what you get for a 200-800 lens otherwise it would be huge and more expensive . I rather get 200mm more and f9 then 600mm at 6.3 so it’s no biggie for me
Ehhhhhhhhhh…. It’s not just a difference of adding 800mm f9. Its f7.1 at 260mm, f8 at 450mm and f9 at 630, external zoom (😢), super long zoom throw and based on MTF no where near as sharp. For roughly the same price of a 180/200-600. I’m taking the 180/200-600 every time personally.
@@livejames9374 took s look at the mft charts and they where not bad at all , even better real World review on f-stoppers ”the images came out crispy, with plenty of detail and with next to no color aberrations if you disregard color noise of the sensor. ” Seems like the image qualty is just fine
Why, though? Let's compare to something like the Sony 200-600. This Canon lens gathers less light at all apertures below 600mm, it has the same entrance pupil size (actually slightly smaller) at 800mm as the Sony does at 600mm (so cropping into a Sony image would produce essentially the same amount of noise, albeit less detail), this lens weighs essentially the same amount and is the same length when collapsed but doesn't have internal zooming... What makes this a more compelling option other than if you already own Canon gear?
@@TechnoBabble you answered it , why would I buy a Sony lens when I shoot canon ? And with cropping why even buy a 600 lens when you can crop a 400 etc
Of course you can use a Sigma 150-600mm with an RF-EF adapter as I do. The question will be how sharp the new Canon lens is without stepping down. The 100-500mm was very sharp
I use the Sigma 150-600mm (Contemporary) too on R6II, from what I see on reviews both Canon RF 100-500 and even this 200-800mm are as sharp or more (especially the 100-500 as you said) BUT are going to push ISO level with those apertures. I think the biggest upgrade is going to be in the focusing performances
If the focusing is quicker then I can work out extra iso noise in post. My 150-600 sigma struggles to lock on at times. Lost quite a few shots. However this combination is still way better than the sigma on the 7d2. I’m gonna wait to see how real world reviews go and also see whether Sigma gets chance to offer 150-600 in Rf. maybe that’s why canon havnt?
@@vegthemuso7404 Sigma AF work better on RF adapter than on EF for me too, but there is still a lot of place for improvements that why I'm looking for some big zoom made for the RF system myself. And as much as I like Canon, they are very protective of their business, so I really doubt they let Sigma do a 150-600mm for RF that will challenge the sales of their cheap 600 and 800mm F11 and 100-400mm, but also the 100-500mm L / 200-800mm white zooms lenses... (Hoping to be wrong about this)
What I really don't get about all of Sony, Canon or Nikon's lenses with a tripod foot, is why are NONE of them arca swiss compatible, its not like any of them sell tripod systems with their own proprietary mounting plates. Just put the cuts in for arca swiss compatibility please.
@@cameralabs I see, makes a lot more sense when its put that way. I still wish they sold offical feet with the arca swiss cuts on the side though. Folks who want an OEM foot with the cuts can have one, the OEM's gets more money from them and it doesn't increase the cost of the lens for anyone who don't want the arca swiss compatibility.
Not sure on this one. My primary focus is bird/wildlife/nature/landscape (I have RF 14-35mm & RF 100-400mm). As I'm getting older, portability and weight become an issue. I already own the 800mm f/11 which I can use all day without any issue. Also, I didn't like the fact that you needed to turn the barrel three times to get from 200mm to 800mm. We do need a direct comparison with the 800mm f/11 at 800mm for image quality.
In normal use, though, you will almost never have to zoom from 200-800 quickly. 400 to 800 I could definitely see, but the distance to rotate is less at the long end, as is typical for zooms.
Dont use Canon at the moment, but this lens along with the inexpensive 600mm and 800mm F11 lenses is exactly what Canon need to attract medium budget wildlife and particularly bird photographers to the RF-system. You can get the zoom + decent Canon crop body for less than the price of a Swarovski ATX spotting scope. Not quite overlap in functionality, but I'd certainly go for the camera-lens combo.
Indeed, I have an ATX along with their APO attachment which I use with a Canon EOS M50 so it has about 2600mm I think. Swarovski optics are great for viewing but at distance photos are only suitable for identification and frankly a guy next to me holding an ancient mobile over the lens gets just as good pictures from his scope. It also takes forever to set up tripod, camera and get the settings right so only good for something that's not going to move in the next 5 minutes. Closer the image quality is better but I suspect it would be way better with an R7 and this lens. As you say they don't overlap in functionality but I am quite tempted by this lens with a crop body.
3:57 I'm always disappointed with these zoom lenses darkening very quickly as you zoom in. Where the Sigma and Tamron superzooms finish at 600mm f6.3, this lens practically doesn't extend the f6.3 aperture to any zoom range. I'm starting to think that an adapted third party Superzoom is still the best option for my R7, good on Sigma and Tamron for opening the pandora's box of affordable supertelephoto zoom lenses.
@@zegzbrutal For BIF you'd have a point, but for wildlife in general, or just amateur birding, a lens like the Sigma "Contemporary" superzoom is squarely in competition with the slow 800mm f11.
@@TechnoBabble I never say it's not possible without this lens, but native+latest gear makes it easy to achieve the results. That's the reason to justify the purchase. Tbh I appreciate you can get yours working well
I probably wouldn't see that very much, as I will probably be pegged at 800mm 95% of the time :) .... and this, on a crop body with a 1280mm equivalent.
Thanks for this awesome video. This was early. I am positively surprised by this lens. I would have hoped for an internal zoom and maybe for the lens to be at f6.3 for a longer part of the zoom range, but if it is sharp it is a no-brainer for the EOS R system at this price
@@jan.tichavsky The lens is the same price as the Sony 200-600 and it has a smaller entrance pupil because of the f9 aperture. It's also essentially the same length and weight as the Sony already, without the telescoping zoom.
The problem is that it is too dim in winter where I live. Lots of overcast days with a EF 600 F/4 with a 1.4 TC that comes with ISO 25 600 and a terrible shutter speed. There is no reason to believe that the 200-800 will do better.
A thorough review as always. One concern needs to be addressed about these new Canon and Nikon more compact and slower aperture lenses. Just how usable are they for wildlife photography typically performed in the low light of mornings and afternoons? Same could be said for sports action photography. The lenses’ non-internal focusing and minimal sealing again dust and rain are another concern. More importantly is how these new FF telephoto undermine the boasting of FF cameras advantages over m43 cameras. Compared to the Olympus 150-400mm 1.25x lens, at 800mm field of view, the reviewed Canon is several f-stops slower (f9 vs 4.5), has to either use at least half the shutter speed or more than double the ISO compared to the Olympus lens which is internally focusing and has great weather sealing. A further detriment of f/9 FF lenses is that they have double the depth of field vs a m43 f/4.5 lens. Consequently, subject isolation is greatly degraded for wildlife photographers using FF lenses at f/9 and f/11. Bottom line, you get what you pay for, and m43 kit still have great advantages for super telephoto photography.
You've made a few errors here which are incredibly common but, in my opinion, undermine the validity of the micro four thirds system. You don't need to change shutter speed when comparing systems of different sizes, you can just multiply the ISO setting by the square of the crop factor and and get similar noise and dynamic range characteristics. In addition, there is minimal difference in subject isolation, depth of field, or overall light gathering capability when you multiply the aperture setting by the crop factor. A 200-800mm f/6.3 - 9 lens on full frame will theoretically be very similar in optical characteristics to a 100-400mm f/3.1-4.5 on m43. In practice, I do think the m43 kit has some important advantages. Measurements presented by Bill Claff on his photons to photos website indicate that, at equivalent high-ISO exposures, the OM-1 has just over a half stop photographic dynamic range advantage over the EOS R3. In addition, like you said, the 150-400mm is likely much better dust and weather sealed, to the point where it has an actual IP53 rating (this is huge in my opinion). The 150-400mm is lighter and is much shorter than the 200-800mm when extended. We don't yet know how sharpness, longitudinal and lateral chromatic aberrations, T-stops, vignetting, and bokeh quality compare and I will not speculate on those, but I would be very surprised if the OM lens wasn't competitive.
@@jonpaulpepen9470 Thank you for your considered and informative response. You make some good points in your second paragraph, but I disagree with points made in your first paragraph - namely )1 the in-equivalence of FF and m43 apertures, 2) depth of field and 3) shutter speed issues. The last point is easy to explain what I meant. As you are aware, animals and birds are not static but move. A sharp image without blurring wings, beaks or legs requires using high shutter speeds (even up to 1/4000 sec for small twitchy birds). So a person with the R3 and myself with an OM-1 will probably have the same high shutter speed according to the animal’s behavior to be photographed. In lower light, correctly exposing for fast shutter speeds (certainly 1/4000 or 1/2000 sec) requires some combination of wide aperture and boosted ISO. I would much prefer to be shooting at f/4.5 with a medium high ISO than at f/9 at a much higher ISO. The issue of aperture equivalence re FF and m43 sensors can get confusing when discussed by fan boys from their respective sensor camps. An F/4 for FF sensor and F/4 for an m43 sensor will give the same exposure for the image taken with the same shutter speed and ISO settings. This is a fact, and it is supported by my many years of field experience. The FF sensor is physically larger than the m43 sensor so the FF lens has to project a wider circle than the lens for the m43 sensor. (As you know, this is why m43 lenses can be built smaller.) The lens’ projected area of light is not the issue here. Those who say that f/4 on m43 sensors is really f/9 is not correct for the exposure but it is for depth of field. About depth of field, my depth of field calculator presents these dof results. At 100’ for an R3 with an 800mm lens set at f/9 the dof is 2.57’. At 100’ with my OM-1 lens set at 800mm FF field of view f/4.5, the dof is 1.29’. This difference can be important for subject separation from distracting objects in the foreground or background. Most wildlife photographers want to avoid f/9 or higher.
@@jonerikrolf2029 Thank you for your reply. I do have to respectfully disagree with the conclusion you've came to regarding exposure, but first I just want to say that I currently shoot m43 and have been for several years, and want it to continue to succeed in the market place, but I also want that to happen for the right reasons and with users understanding exactly how systems really compare, and the pros and cons of each. In your second paragraph, yes I agree that for wildlife we are severely shutter speed constrained, which typically means compensating with wider apertures and higher ISO. However, f/4.5 ISO 1600 on m43 and f/9 ISO 6400 on FF (same shutter speed on both) would really be neck and neck for almost all measurable qualities aside the half stop dynamic range benefit of m43 I mentioned previously. For your third paragraph, there is no doubt that the luminous flux per unit area on the sensor plane (long way of saying "Illuminance") is the same for all lenses at a given aperture value, internal light loss, and scene illumination, regardless of sensor size. And agreed, the ISO setting is designed to dictate what given Illuminance over time on the sensor plane corresponds to middle grey in the output JPEG, again regardless of sensor size. Therefore, yes, crop factor corrected focal lengths with the same shutter speed and numerical ISO setting produce superficially similar JPEG images. My stance is that the JPEG output is misleading and does not tell the whole story. For the purpose of taking actual images, I do not believe the luminous flux per unit area is actually relevant, and I believe it was a bad decision for the ISO standard to be based on this metric. I contend that the amount of light that falls into each "circle of confusion" during the exposure is the critical value, since this inherently scales with the factors that govern how we actually view images (i.e. print size and viewing distance, but if those are fixed to some standard, then it just scales with sensor size). Using "luminous flux per CoC over time" as a metric, it is easy to demonstrate that 1/2000 sec f/4.5 on m43 puts the same amount of light in the applicable circle of confusion as 1/2000 sec f/9 on full frame sized circle of confusion, and if the ISO were based on that, the equivalent ISO numbers for each format would be the same, instead of having to do the "crop factor squared" conversion. Many other useful concepts, such as photographic dynamic range, depth of field, more accurate maximum print sizes, come when you use the circle of confusion as your ruler, so I see no reason why exposure shouldn't use this as a basis. In terms of your depth of field calculator, I'm not sure how you're getting those numbers. The calculator I use says FF 800mm f/9 at 100' distance should have a 2' 5.1" depth of field, and m43 400mm f/4.5 at 100' distance should give 2' 4.4" depth of field, only off by .7" or 2.2%. Both of those scenarios yield a 3.1° diagonal field of view, and a 5" 4.9" diagonal entrance window. For what it's worth, the ideas I'm using (except for the exposure based on CoC, that might just be a me thing) mostly come from the paper "Equivalence theory for cross-format photographic image quality comparisons" by D. Andrew Rowlands, which have been experimentally verified by many including the DPReview and DPReview TV team, Tony Northrup, etc. Overall, it just kills me that over the years so much debate and emotion has corroded what should be purely a technical tidbit
@@jonpaulpepen9470 lots of detail in your response. Thank you. Perhaps our different results for depth of field results is caused by our using different circles of confusion. The calculator I use is the DOFC app (iOS). I have written to the developer to learn what the defaults are for the R3 and the OM-1 as I am not specifying specific circles of confusion. I too have been a m43 guy - using Olympus/OM Systems gear since I switched from Nikon (D500, 300 f/2.8, 200-400 f/4 80-400 etc). For telephoto lenses I have the 40-150 f/2.8, 300 f/4 and the 150-400 1.25x that I use on my OM-1, the MX-1 and EM-1 mark iii. Both the 300mm and the 150-400 were said to be maximally sharp wide open, and I believe it. I did not study physics or optics but instead pursued a scientific career a clinical psychologist and as a principal investigator of public health prevention projects across cultures. I am now retired and have enjoyed wildlife photography across 7 continents. This has been just a hobby for me although I have won awards in regional, national and international nature photography competitions. BTW, Janine- a professional wildlife photographer with Pangolin Safaris in Botswana - just reviewed the same new Canon 200-800mm lens. She liked the lens for its weight and affordability but brought up concerns as to its suitability for the more demanding types of wildlife photography.
Wow, for all intents and purposes its an L lens without the label. Removing the panning mode isn't a big loss and for the focus limiter it seems to be build in as the focus distance changes as you zoom. I wonder how much the 100-500 price and sales will drop now.
I've got the Sigma 150-600 c and the Canon Rf 800 F11. Image quality of the RF is comparable to the Sigma, what it lacks is great bokeh. I wish I could post some pictures for you guys to compare.
@@nordic5490 I agree when the background objects create concentric rings but for the most part I actually prefer the DO bokeh, mainly because it can have a slightly "dreamy" look. The RF 100-400 has worse bokeh which can be too contrasty and also has these onion rings. My main gripe is the contrast in strong light and it can be sensitive atmospheric haze. I've still yet to see anything comparable to a 60x spotting scope (3000mm equivalent) that can break through heat haze, maybe a successor to the Nikon P1000.
I sold my 100-500 today. But now I’m worried about the autofocus speed. Will it be fast enough for birds in flight ? Please Mr Laing. Help us know !!!!
It's amazing until you take a breath and look into the specs more. A Sony/Nikon 200-600/180-600 could have 1.4x teleconverter and would roughly be slightly less than f9 (T-stop) at 840mm. F6.3-9 isn't great, also we need to see sharpness comparisons. Also external zoom is a nightmare in humid/rainy/dusty weather where I operate on. Still a very interesting lens.
I'd love one, but I need to know how it performs out there in the wild. I shoot mainly motorsport, so a long lens is a must. As I'm a hobbyist, the best that I can afford at present is the RF100-400 or the Tamron 150-600. The 100-400 isn't all that heavy but the 600 is. I forget what it weighs except that I should've done weight training before attending the Australian MotoGP a few weeks ago. I'd probably use it for wildlife photography as it'd be in a gimbal on a tripod or a close-to-the ground mount. I follow a local wildlife photographer so I'll ask him if he can review it.
ah bummer, appreciate the info though. so it's 'uni-collar' essentially and the the foot doesn't even detach? @@cameralabs keep up the great work m8. you're one of the few remaining channels that still provide relevant & objective info on camera gear - becoming incresingly more difficult to find good content these days! 👏👏
hmmmm..... I have the Sigma 150-600 C lens adapted to my R6 and I love it. 150mm is short enough in a lot of situations and 600 is fantastic. I just wonder if I could use this lens as much as I did that...
Hmmm...I'm not hugely impressed to be honest. Whilst I didn't expect this to be internally zooming you have to twist that zoom ring a lot to extend and retract it back and forth. I'd also be interested in just how weather sealed this lens is given it's pretty much an outdoor use lens. Curious what the price will be. Looking forward to seeing how image quality holds up at 600 to 800, I'd rather crop a higher quality 600mm max focal length than have 800mm with poor quality. Those small f stops are pushing into the realms of diffraction which will do no favours for image quality. Don't get me wrong, it's an interesting lens but I think Canon might have been better making it a more premium lens and charge more for it. I can't help but feel this will be very compromised to keep it within a lower end budget. Seems to me that this lens was created as a " mine is bigger than yours ". I'm sure optically it won't be a patch on either the Sony 200 to 600 or the Nikon 180 to 600 which it is clearly trying to compete with but happy to be proved wrong 😋
@@jeffbronson3696it’s no problem , most f(if not all ) 150-600 lenses are external zoom and I never has any problems even in bad condition . The amount of twisting might be a concern for some but if I buy a lens like this I either shoot at the longer end or shorter end so I don’t zoom from 200-800 constantly anyway . Rf 70-200 is worse with the throw cause that’s a lens I zoom in and out with
Considering it's in the same price range as the Sony 200-600 and Nikon 180-600, whilst having a smaller entrance pupil than either of those lenses on the long end, I fully expected this to be internal zooming.
just take a look at either the Sigma 300-800 F/5.6 and Sigma 200-500 F/2.8. I think those 2 show that not everything that is physically possible is nescessarily something interesting to the user
great video as usual. I have read many comment, Maybe for many it could more usefull to see the combination R7+ Rf100-500+ 1,4x compared the R7 with RF 200-800. I have the first and i'm not sure that there is a value to change or to go with 200-800
i've got my hands on both lenses yesterday, if you have the 100-500 and TC already, i dont think there's much value to a change. Dont get me wrong, the 200-800 is very comparable to the 100-500 with extender, but since you already have that, there's no point really in switching. The 100-500 definitely has it's advantages (you dont realize how much 500g is until you hold both lenses next to each other, the zoom ring can be moved much easier without effort, you have different IS modes, etc). The only reasons i could see to switch is: - you want to use the 200-800 and still have the option to put the TC on it to get 1120mm (i cant complain about the quality with TC, even the 2x positively surprised me) - you REALLY get annoyed by the 100-500 not fully collapsing with TC (if it's just mildly annoying, i dont think it's worth the trouble and cost switching) - you want to "downgrade" in order to sell the 100-500 and have a chance to get more money than you pay (i dont think that would be a wise choice to do, since the idk 200-400bucks you can get back is most likely not worth it. I just wanted to mention this for completeness). I could only try them in the field and i couldnt pixel-peep, so a proper lab comparison would definitely be more assuring, but i doubt the results would make any wildly different conclusion
Which aren't exactly "exceptions" when this lens is in the same price range. Only less expensive lenses from the likes of Tamron and Sigma have external zoom.
@@TechnoBabble Both the Nikon 180-600 and the Sony 200-600 can be found at about 1700-1800 dollars, the same as the Sigma 150-600 Sport, which is much heavier, worse stabilization, a very long zoom range which costs quick change of focal length and with external zoom
This lens sounds like it could be "too much" for many folks, me included. I've been considering the Sony 90mm F/2.8 Macro for some time... you did not do a Video Review, there's a Written Review and it sounds like you're expecting an improved model coming soon because it came out in 2015. ["Editor’s note: with Sony producing new G Master versions of some of its older lenses, I wonder if a high-end macro is in the works, albeit perhaps with a different focal length or aperture than the 90mm?"] In the last week the price has been dropping, do you think that portends an Updated Model very soon? What have you heard? Regards
I honestly haven't heard anything, although if I were under NDA I wouldn't be able to tell you! Anyway, it's one of the great mysteries why we haven't seen a new macro from Sony. Surely one must be coming next year... certainly if I were buying the 90 now, I'd be looking for killer deals.
As always, one of the best review on You Tube. You covered every important topic in brief of this lens, It will be a good lens paired to Canon R7 for wildlife and birders. Even both teleconverters can be used with this lens and Canon R7. The Canon R7 and this lens make it a cheaper combination then the OM-1 and Olympus 150 - 400 mm lens.
I think you will have great difficulties with this lens with wildlife photography in low morning and afternoon light at f/9. With tele extenders of 1.4x and 2x, good luck getting decent shots at f/11 and f/16! Your ISOs will be too high and the subject isolation will be null.
@@jonerikrolf2029 have you seen images shot with the RF 800mm f11 prime? Of course it's completely different to a bright aperture prime or even zoom, but these are different lenses aimed at a lower budget and lighter weight. They do have the big guns if you can afford them and are happy lugging them around. But ultimately yes, in low light, these aren't ideal.
@@angeloplayforone Well if affordability is paramount, then there are more affordable and usable lenses for FF wildlife photography. One needs high shutter speeds and apertures as wide open as possible. A maximum aperture of 5.6 or 6.3 is doable if the background is not too close. F/9, F/11 and F/16 are both too slow and the dof too great. I do not swap out backgrounds as it is forbidden for nature/wildlife photo competitions.
Very interesting review Gordon, thorough as usual Do you have any idea why Canon didn't give this lens a red ring for being an L lens, is it less built quality or less weather sealing ?
I think it's a combination of build, optics, sealing, accessories, controls etc. Just compare it to the 100-500 and you'll notice some differences, but that doesn't mean it's bad in any way, just not their ultimate.
Pre Ordered this Lens. It will replace my Sigma 150-600mm Contemporary because something growing inside of it just from humidity. Get the Sigma cleaned the second time (2021 First time) and selling it
Because of the non-internal zoom and relatively long throw it reminds me of the Nikkor 200-500/5.6E. Just a bit more modern and a longer focal length. But that's not a bad thing! I still love that lens. I'm sure this will make Canon shooters very happy :)
A welcome addition but at the expected price it's still out of my price range. I have the Sigma EF 150 to 500 with adapter and it works ok, just a bit slow to focus and a bit hit and miss. I was hoping for the Sigma 60 to 600 RF to appear, I'm not holding my breath. With the Sigma 150 to 600 EF I use an adapter with drop in filters, which avoids having huge front lens filters... perhaps, Canon could have done that with this lens ? or any of their long RF primes ? This lens from Canon looks like the very expensive L series in its white livery and I guess you can get some red stripe from a third party to put on it. :)
I am surprised with the lenses coming to market with f stop of F7.1 and f9, f11. I am sure the build quality is all good and the glass is great, the fact that mirrorless focus systems allow for good focus with lenses with this aperture is amazing. Fuji film brought out their 150-600 f8 that is a FOW of 900mm f8 at the long end, and the lens is not selling well. Given that Fuji is not the top brand for wildlife and sport. The idea of more and more reach almost looks like the more and more mp race? The other big issue for f9 becomes DOF. I listen to a discussion on M43 vs FF and the FF people bash M43 150-400 (FOW 300-800 f4.5) for the fact that the DOF for the Olympus lens would be f9 but f4.5 gives you more light than f9. So interesting development and all brands pushing the limits to attract a bigger customer base. I am sure this lens will serve a great customer group, especially those who shoot their current 150-600 lenses with the 1.4 or 2.0 converters. Have fun.
You're not getting the light of an f/4.5 on that Olympus lens when comparing to full frame. Yes, the aperture is physically f/4.5, but the focal length is ALSO physically 400mm, NOT 800mm. If you want to talk equivalence then you adjust both values. The reason being that a smaller sensor with similar manufacturing technology will produce more noise. The Olympus 150-400 f/4.5 is equivalent to a 300-800 f/9 on full frame. For example, an MFT camera at 400mm, f/4.5, 1/500, ISO 400 will give you the almost the same DoF, angle of view, and noise as a full frame camera at 800mm, f/9, 1/500, ISO1600.
I've used Canon since the 350D, and I've put serious consideration into switching because of the holes they've left in the RF lineup. Particularly the lack of 1:1 macros: they have 4 lenses labeled as Macro, and 3/4 of them are only capable of 1:2 magnification. I wouldn't have as much of an issue with this if 3rd party lenses existed for RF (and just becuase they've said they're opening the standard up does not mean they get a pass yet).
@@f800gt76 The 100mm is the only RF "macro" that can do better than 1:2. As for why can't you adapt? Sure, but when you have to rely on adapting just to get a basic photographic need, that's a terrible experience and it shows the company doesn't really care. And it's not like Macro is so niche that no one NEEDS it.
@@marcusmanchester1995 I see nothing to worry about. 5 years ago everybody tried to adapt EF lenses on Sony. As for me, I"ve upgraded from 6D to R6II and have bunch of EF glass. And I don't care, that all this glass are mounted with adaptor. It works natively.
@@cameralabs I noticed that too, another reviewer had closeups of the mount, which is normally where the place of origin is stamped on, and it was blank. Like you said most probably because of prototype model. While my Taiwan made RF35mm is just as good build quality as my other L-lenses, there's something that makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside about seeing "Made in Japan" stamped on any product, not just lenses.
Good review! Not a useful wildlife lens unless you live in a sunny state. Anyone who used 800 f11 knows how bad it is at even a bit cloudy day. Things are not going to improve much with f9 at all! Third party lens (e.g., Sigma 150-600) give you f6.5 at 600mm, which is way way better than f8 at 600mm of this lens. Unless you live in a sunny place, don’t consider it - yes i live in a state where more than 200 days are cloudy days. So i know the pain of using lens that have a big f values. If you live in sunny states, this lens can be a good choice.
I'll take the optic quality of a Canon lens over 2/3 of a stop at 600 of a third party lens. There are plenty of very good noise reduction softwares available that can easily deal with 2/3 of a stop! Plus, I CAN go to 800 when I have the light.
"It becomes the worlds first full frame super telephoto zoom to reach 800mm" Slight correction, it's actually the 2nd super telephoto zoom to reach 800mm. The Sigma Sigmonster was/is a 300-800mm lens for full frame SLR's that has been around for just over 20 years now.
This looks like quite the engineering achievement. Did you play much with using the manual focus at longer distances? I ask as someone who does use long telephoto zooms, and have found that sometimes the manual focusing rings tend to not be well damped, and have a control lag (hysteresis) that makes fine focus adjustment twitchy for when the autofocus isn't doing the job. Curious if Canon has considered that.
@@Chris_Wolfgram It makes it more difficult to zoom in and out...I can zoom my internal with a single finger...and never lose the subject. It also changes the weight when on a gimbal or fluid head. An external zoom is moving the entire front elements...the heaviest set of optics located at the very front. An internal is only moving a set of glass in the middle mostly...front element does not move at all...why you can zoom handheld with one finger and never lose the subject. Good luck trying to zoom into 800mm...:P
@@JACKnJESUS fair enough. As I say, I'll probably just leave it pegged at 800mm most of the time anyway. Unless I'm shooting from a blind or something, and then I'll just zoom it back to the proper distance, and be done with it. I don't see myself changing my reach very often at all. I had the Sigma 150-600 for about a year, and it was always pegged at 600, often with a 1.4 TC too.... But I was still never long enough, as I was using the FF R5. I do much better now with the crop sensor R7 👍
@@Chris_Wolfgram When you use an internal throw that is butter smooth...none of that applies anymore. You can easily find your subject at 200mm...and grab the frame at 600mm in the blink of an eye...without losing the 'bird' in the frame. You can change the way you shoot...which allows you the advantage of seeing at 200mm...the chimping all goes away.
as@@Glaucidiussais, sharpness, size/weigth, but i'd like to add overall build/design quality (eg. the 100-500 has separate focus and control rings and a higher quality hood) and the 100mm F/4.5 are a pretty important part of the lens. I heard 1-2 times, that the F/4.5 was a pretty big factor of the price. Idk if that's the case, but if someone needs that, the 200-800 has, well, 200mm and F/6.3 They are somewhat competitive to eachother, but they definitely both have different strengths and weaknesses
Because the 100-500 has much large apertures at all zoom ranges, is significantly sharper, and will likely have better whether sealing and autofocus. It's part of Canon's professional 'L' lineup, whereas this is not.
I can see a lot of people buying this is as their first super tele zoom. My first observations: The zoom throw looks is very long and quality (smoothness) appears to be very poor. The focus ring quality also looks super cheap. However, Canon did give it three rings, and presumably one or two of those are programmable, so plenty of options there. The programmable button(s) is in a good location. The lens collar is not removable, which is a shame; that adds a lot of weight. Weather sealed for "light weather conditions" means this pumper lens is a dust and moisture vacuum and is a huge con. Reduced IS at the long end is a huge con. f8 by 455mm...ouch. f9 by 637mm...ouch. If you are sold already, you should just get it. The comprehensive review scripts are already written, and they are going to say the IQ, sharpness, etc., is excellent regardless of what the lens can actually do.
I'd be curious as to what you said about the 800 F11 before it came out ? That lens got bashed so much by guys that had never even used it. Turned out to be the best piece of photographic equipment I've ever bought in 20+ yrs of digital photography 🙂👍
@@Chris_Wolfgram It can be a terrible lens and be the best lens you have purchased over the last 20 years. Those are not mutually exclusive statements. 🤔
I suppose that it will work fine in sunshine, but in overcast weather, it will be awful. I get ISO 25 000 often with a 600mm F/4 and a 1.4 TC. Overcast in Norway can be really, really, really dark.
Exactly what people said about the 800 F11 too, and they are completely wrong. Sounds like you have some expensive, heavy gear :) I'd love to see your work, and wouldn't be afraid to show you mine :)
How does this lens and the new 24-105 come from the same company, this looks clean, futuristic and worth every penny. The 24-105 2.8 looks like its from 1995. wild
I think I'm more excited about the Nikon 180-600mm and I'm still a Canon shooter want to move over to the Nikon Z8. Canon are good at marketing their Cameras such as the R7 have got amazing fps but terrible rolling shutter outdated no stack sensor, now an amazing boast of 800mm but F9 no thanks. It's like being stuck with a 2x converter on your 400mm not great for UK light. I'm sure it's great for moon pics and birds on a branch non moving subjects and I know Canon lenses are sharp. I already have a 2700mm F/15 telescope for a fraction of the price.
Not having the focus limiter is a bit of a disappointment especially on the R6 or R7 which have some reported AF problems. I use the R6 and although the 800 f11 has a longer MFD using the limiter for 20m and beyond is still helpful in keeping the AF fast and restricted to farther subjects. On my RF 100-400 when the AF does inexplicably defocuses it is sometimes very difficult to get things back in focus.
Yes, I foresee some frustrating focus racks back and forth at critical times! But hopefully we can full-time MF overrride it to get it back on track if necessary
This lens on a crop body would have the exact same focal length and max aperture as the olympus/Panasonic 100-400 f.6.3. Would really love to see a comparison between them
Incorrect, the focal lengths are different, although the field of view is the same when this 200-800mm is used on a full frame sensor, so the equivalent focal length is also the same. The equivalent aperture of the 100-400mm f/6.3 is f/13, so this 200-800mm actually has a larger physical aperture.
It's a bit different i think. 800mm on a apsc crop body is 1280mm at f9 whereas on micro four thirds its 800mm + 1.4 teleconverter is 1120mm at f9. The olympus/Panasonic have the advantage of being smaller and lighter and also having 800mm equivalent at f6.3
@@ryzgmsnope. a crop body would reduce the apperture too. F/9 means it has a 800mm/9 = 89mm diameter. if you look at the equivalent focal length of 1280, the equivalent aperture is roughly 14.4 (F/x = 1280mm/x = 89mm). Camera manufacturers do everything to hide that fact, but that's still how it is. A lens wont magically gather more more just because a smaller sensor is put behind it.
I bought a Sigma 500 F4 sports lens brand new for not much more than this. Though it's not gonna focus as fast or stabilise as well, the image from it is far superior and it's down to image at the end of the day. That said, if you're travelling or just shooting content for yourself, this lens will be a great option. In a way, these lenses are better 'video lenses' than photo lenses as you can shoot handheld video on a camera like the R5 and achieve good results without having to use high ISO's to compensate for fast shutter like you do when you freeze the action in photography. The bokeh from this isn't much better than the cheap F11 option and thats hugely off-putting for pro wildlife folks.
Great video Gordon, Sounds and looks like an amazing lens. For sure one that will be in my bag when it's available here in Brazil. Just an info. This is not the first superzoom that reach 800. Sigma had the 300-800 ex dg hsm f5.6.
My Canon RF 200-800mm first-looks review: a new super-telephoto!
Check prices on the Canon RF 200-800mm at B&H: bhpho.to/3SopitC // WEX UK: tidd.ly/3FJdElA
Check MPB to buy and sell used gear: bit.ly/3ULU9yL
Buy Gordon a coffee: www.paypal.me/cameralabs
Gordon's In Camera book: amzn.to/2n61PfI / Amazon uk: amzn.to/2mBqRVZ
Cameralabs merchandise: redbubble.com/people/cameralabs/shop
Gordon’s retro gear channel: ua-cam.com/users/dinobytes
Equipment used for producing my videos
Panasonic Lumix S5 II: amzn.to/3Hf5IcI
Sony A6400: prf.hn/l/pRO0wp5
Sony e 24mm f1.8: amzn.to/2TqWNzk
Rode NT USB mic: amzn.to/3AdHcUp
Rode Wireless Go II mic: amzn.to/3xkCvGo
Rode Lavalier Go mic: amzn.to/3ygzzKY
Godox UL150 light: amzn.to/2VpVbXE
Godox QR-P70 softbox: amzn.to/3yQfGdF
MacBook Pro 14in (16GB / 1TB): amzn.to/3PrKbPV
Music: www.davidcuttermusic.com / @dcuttermusic
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
I want to see a head to head comparison using the R7 body with the 800mm f11 vs the 200-800 f9.0.
Yes pls do this comparison!
Me too
Please make a review of this lens on R7
This lens is equivalent to about a 1200mm on the R7 frame, right?
Since it's APS-C, the lens gets a ~1.6x multiplier
Yes it would be fun to try it on the R7, maybe with a TC as well!
It'll be interesting so see how it compares to the f11 tele primes in terms of IQ.
04:30 Haha...I can never get my tripod position right for these kind of shots either ;-)
You need to do the scary walk like I did there Chris...
What I would like to see is image quality/comparison at 700mm on this lens compared to the 100-500 with the 1.4 teleconverter at 700mm.
I would think it would be comparable or slightly better. You are at f9 either way, but the 100-500 costs almost $1,000.00 more, plus the cost of the teleconverter and it still won't get you to 800. If you already have the 100-500, and 700 is enough reach, I wouldn't buy this lens, but if you want/need 800, or are debating between lenses it gets interesting.
I would be interested in knowing how sharp it is at 600mm, 700mm, and 800mm wide open.
Probably not very. At those focal lengths you are probably better off using a higher resolution sensor and just cropping.
I will be doing those tests!
@@cameralabswould also he curious which is sharper, this lens at 800mm or the 100-500 with a teleconverter
@@wcsdiaries I'd like to know that too and will try to find out when i test them fully.
Great! Looking forward to it.@@cameralabs
Massive lens. I want it and will sell my RF 800 and 100-400. Kinda annoying the tripod collar isn’t removable
I actually kinda like that the tripod collar is fixed on. I've had my RF 100-500 fall off it's tripod collar pretty easily unless you have it tightened down so tight that you can barely rotate the lens.
Agreed. A tripod collar that isn't arca-swiss is useless to me, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels that way.
Do any Canon lenses come as arca swiss? Don't recall any. You always have to buy a plate or new foot. Not everyone uses arca swiss.
Great prelim view, thanks. Wow, looks awesome. Before I buy, I'll wait to see some reviews on IQ and AF speed and possible focus breathing at 20 feet. Pending that, this lens could be a huge leap forward for wildlife photographers. What is the min focussing distance?
I mention the minimum focusing distance in the video, hope you got the info.
Ty. Would like to see this compared to 100-500 with 1.4 ET pics quality, lenght, weight, and feel. Also IBIS and lens stabilization at long end. Ty, again.
Thanks for the intro Gordon, now I can’t wait till you get the lens into action and see how well it performs.
Nice quick look at this lens! Can’t wait for a full test. As others have mentioned, it’d be great to see this on a R7 - but, here’s how I’m seeing this right now…I was planning to get the 100-500 in the Spring ahead of an Alaska trip next year (not to mention the eagles that show up around my home), BUT if this 200-800 performs well (such as BIF) at 500, the 1/3 stop isn’t far off from the 100-500, and the 500-800 is just bonus. Although from your shot of all the lens together, that 100-500 is going to fit easier in my travel bag lol. Thanks again for this first look!
I was surprised how small the 100-500 was next to it...
I have a 70-200 2.8, 800mm f11 2x extender and the 100-500 my go to lens that l really love it’s a must have.
I pre-ordered the 200-800 and very excited to have it in my collection especially for Surfing and Seascapes.
@@josemcmurray5100 let us know what you think when you get it!
Can't wait to see a comparison with the Sony 200-600mm f5.6-6.3 G OSS
Probably similar. At those long focal lengths performance drops off pretty sharply.
I think I’ll just stick with my RF 100-400 on my R7 for now for my wildlife setup. I’ve come to appreciate my shoulders not hurting after carrying a lens around for a few hours. 😆
It’s such a great compact lens
That lens is an amazing value, and works great on the R7, for closer / larger creatures 🙂
I use it often in the backyard bird blind. I need 800mm in the field though.
@@Chris_Wolfgram yeah, I picked it up refurbished from Canon for $379 which is ridiculously cheap for what it does. I make no money from my wildlife photography only weddings, so of the 3 lenses released today, the 24-105 would be most useful in making money from it.
@@zayanything3124 that's an awesome deal, on a lens that is worth every penny of full cost in the first place ! :) My best deal was a like new (open box) 600 F11, for $509 :)
@@zayanything3124 Ugh, when did you pick that up? I've been watching Canon refurb for the last several weeks straight and they're not even in stock, let alone being marked down for Black Friday. I want one so bad!
Thanks!
Thankyou!
Great, in-depth stuff as usual, Gordon, and very interesting. I have to say, the price point is quite a bit less than I would have thought. I'm firmly in the old-school of Canon DSLRs: 1DX Mk III, 7D Mk II, 20D, 300D, and I'm very happy with my kit (just got a Canon 100-400 today, actually, after trading in my Sigma 100-400). The only lenses left that I want are the 70-200 f/4, which my wife has agreed to get me for Christmas since I'm giving her a new bathroom (who won that transaction, I wonder... 🙄), and some day, a 500mm. My photography skills are that of an advanced hobbyist, always improving, but I'm content to stay with the DSLRs and not worry about a move to mirrorless. My hardware will likely last longer than I do!
F9 is what you get for a 200-800 lens otherwise it would be huge and more expensive . I rather get 200mm more and f9 then 600mm at 6.3 so it’s no biggie for me
Exactly right
Ehhhhhhhhhh…. It’s not just a difference of adding 800mm f9. Its f7.1 at 260mm, f8 at 450mm and f9 at 630, external zoom (😢), super long zoom throw and based on MTF no where near as sharp. For roughly the same price of a 180/200-600. I’m taking the 180/200-600 every time personally.
@@livejames9374 took s look at the mft charts and they where not bad at all , even better real World review on f-stoppers ”the images came out crispy, with plenty of detail and with next to no color aberrations if you disregard color noise of the sensor. ”
Seems like the image qualty is just fine
Why, though? Let's compare to something like the Sony 200-600. This Canon lens gathers less light at all apertures below 600mm, it has the same entrance pupil size (actually slightly smaller) at 800mm as the Sony does at 600mm (so cropping into a Sony image would produce essentially the same amount of noise, albeit less detail), this lens weighs essentially the same amount and is the same length when collapsed but doesn't have internal zooming... What makes this a more compelling option other than if you already own Canon gear?
@@TechnoBabble you answered it , why would I buy a Sony lens when I shoot canon ? And with cropping why even buy a 600 lens when you can crop a 400 etc
Of course you can use a Sigma 150-600mm with an RF-EF adapter as I do. The question will be how sharp the new Canon lens is without stepping down. The 100-500mm was very sharp
The 150-600 has focusing issues on RF mount bodies
I use the Sigma 150-600mm (Contemporary) too on R6II, from what I see on reviews both Canon RF 100-500 and even this 200-800mm are as sharp or more (especially the 100-500 as you said) BUT are going to push ISO level with those apertures. I think the biggest upgrade is going to be in the focusing performances
If the focusing is quicker then I can work out extra iso noise in post. My 150-600 sigma struggles to lock on at times. Lost quite a few shots. However this combination is still way better than the sigma on the 7d2. I’m gonna wait to see how real world reviews go and also see whether Sigma gets chance to offer 150-600 in Rf. maybe that’s why canon havnt?
Should have said using it on an r7
@@vegthemuso7404 Sigma AF work better on RF adapter than on EF for me too, but there is still a lot of place for improvements that why I'm looking for some big zoom made for the RF system myself.
And as much as I like Canon, they are very protective of their business, so I really doubt they let Sigma do a 150-600mm for RF that will challenge the sales of their cheap 600 and 800mm F11 and 100-400mm, but also the 100-500mm L / 200-800mm white zooms lenses... (Hoping to be wrong about this)
What I really don't get about all of Sony, Canon or Nikon's lenses with a tripod foot, is why are NONE of them arca swiss compatible, its not like any of them sell tripod systems with their own proprietary mounting plates. Just put the cuts in for arca swiss compatibility please.
Probably because they don't want to pay a licensing fee or get sued.
I agree, and always ask for a dovetail. I assume it's a licensing thing.
@@cameralabs I see, makes a lot more sense when its put that way.
I still wish they sold offical feet with the arca swiss cuts on the side though.
Folks who want an OEM foot with the cuts can have one, the OEM's gets more money from them and it doesn't increase the cost of the lens for anyone who don't want the arca swiss compatibility.
Not sure on this one. My primary focus is bird/wildlife/nature/landscape (I have RF 14-35mm & RF 100-400mm). As I'm getting older, portability and weight become an issue. I already own the 800mm f/11 which I can use all day without any issue. Also, I didn't like the fact that you needed to turn the barrel three times to get from 200mm to 800mm. We do need a direct comparison with the 800mm f/11 at 800mm for image quality.
In normal use, though, you will almost never have to zoom from 200-800 quickly. 400 to 800 I could definitely see, but the distance to rotate is less at the long end, as is typical for zooms.
I also enjoy how lightweight the 800 mm f/ll is. What is the 200-800 like to hand hold while shooting? @@falxonPSN
Dont use Canon at the moment, but this lens along with the inexpensive 600mm and 800mm F11 lenses is exactly what Canon need to attract medium budget wildlife and particularly bird photographers to the RF-system. You can get the zoom + decent Canon crop body for less than the price of a Swarovski ATX spotting scope. Not quite overlap in functionality, but I'd certainly go for the camera-lens combo.
Indeed, I have an ATX along with their APO attachment which I use with a Canon EOS M50 so it has about 2600mm I think. Swarovski optics are great for viewing but at distance photos are only suitable for identification and frankly a guy next to me holding an ancient mobile over the lens gets just as good pictures from his scope. It also takes forever to set up tripod, camera and get the settings right so only good for something that's not going to move in the next 5 minutes. Closer the image quality is better but I suspect it would be way better with an R7 and this lens. As you say they don't overlap in functionality but I am quite tempted by this lens with a crop body.
i would love to see the comparaison with sony 200-600
omg, they are knocking it out of the park with these bad boys....sold, both of them.
Extends a lot more than what I thought, was expecting it to be internal zoom even
There's no way in hell you would get internal zooming at that price.
You prefer the hefty expensive boys?
There will be an L-Version somewhere in this zoom range in some future, I expect it to be limited to 600mm.
@@badboyvr4 It's the same price as the Sony 200-600 with a stop slower aperture on the long end...
3:57 I'm always disappointed with these zoom lenses darkening very quickly as you zoom in.
Where the Sigma and Tamron superzooms finish at 600mm f6.3, this lens practically doesn't extend the f6.3 aperture to any zoom range.
I'm starting to think that an adapted third party Superzoom is still the best option for my R7, good on Sigma and Tamron for opening the pandora's box of affordable supertelephoto zoom lenses.
f numbers look small on paper but AF is top notch. Adapt EF Sigma Tamrons will never produce the same performance as native RF
@@zegzbrutal For BIF you'd have a point, but for wildlife in general, or just amateur birding, a lens like the Sigma "Contemporary" superzoom is squarely in competition with the slow 800mm f11.
@@zegzbrutal I shot some of my best wildlife photos with an MFT camera and contrast detect autofocus, even BiF...
@@TechnoBabble I never say it's not possible without this lens, but native+latest gear makes it easy to achieve the results. That's the reason to justify the purchase.
Tbh I appreciate you can get yours working well
I probably wouldn't see that very much, as I will probably be pegged at 800mm 95% of the time :) .... and this, on a crop body with a 1280mm equivalent.
Thanks for this awesome video. This was early. I am positively surprised by this lens. I would have hoped for an internal zoom and maybe for the lens to be at f6.3 for a longer part of the zoom range, but if it is sharp it is a no-brainer for the EOS R system at this price
Exactly, I think it will be a big seller!
Internal zoom would mean half a meter lens already! No, thanks.
@@jan.tichavsky The lens is the same price as the Sony 200-600 and it has a smaller entrance pupil because of the f9 aperture. It's also essentially the same length and weight as the Sony already, without the telescoping zoom.
The problem is that it is too dim in winter where I live. Lots of overcast days with a EF 600 F/4 with a 1.4 TC that comes with ISO 25 600 and a terrible shutter speed. There is no reason to believe that the 200-800 will do better.
I visited your town today, and I was looking around to see if I could spot you for I a coffee... windy as hell but nice city!
It's a bit stormy across the UK today
A thorough review as always. One concern needs to be addressed about these new Canon and Nikon more compact and slower aperture lenses. Just how usable are they for wildlife photography typically performed in the low light of mornings and afternoons? Same could be said for sports action photography. The lenses’ non-internal focusing and minimal sealing again dust and rain are another concern. More importantly is how these new FF telephoto undermine the boasting of FF cameras advantages over m43 cameras. Compared to the Olympus 150-400mm 1.25x lens, at 800mm field of view, the reviewed Canon is several f-stops slower (f9 vs 4.5), has to either use at least half the shutter speed or more than double the ISO compared to the Olympus lens which is internally focusing and has great weather sealing. A further detriment of f/9 FF lenses is that they have double the depth of field vs a m43 f/4.5 lens. Consequently, subject isolation is greatly degraded for wildlife photographers using FF lenses at f/9 and f/11. Bottom line, you get what you pay for, and m43 kit still have great advantages for super telephoto photography.
FF f9 has the same DoF as m43 f4.5, but indeed when it comes to light m43 behaves like f4.5. But then again, FF has better high iso performance.
You've made a few errors here which are incredibly common but, in my opinion, undermine the validity of the micro four thirds system.
You don't need to change shutter speed when comparing systems of different sizes, you can just multiply the ISO setting by the square of the crop factor and and get similar noise and dynamic range characteristics. In addition, there is minimal difference in subject isolation, depth of field, or overall light gathering capability when you multiply the aperture setting by the crop factor. A 200-800mm f/6.3 - 9 lens on full frame will theoretically be very similar in optical characteristics to a 100-400mm f/3.1-4.5 on m43.
In practice, I do think the m43 kit has some important advantages. Measurements presented by Bill Claff on his photons to photos website indicate that, at equivalent high-ISO exposures, the OM-1 has just over a half stop photographic dynamic range advantage over the EOS R3. In addition, like you said, the 150-400mm is likely much better dust and weather sealed, to the point where it has an actual IP53 rating (this is huge in my opinion). The 150-400mm is lighter and is much shorter than the 200-800mm when extended. We don't yet know how sharpness, longitudinal and lateral chromatic aberrations, T-stops, vignetting, and bokeh quality compare and I will not speculate on those, but I would be very surprised if the OM lens wasn't competitive.
@@jonpaulpepen9470 Thank you for your considered and informative response. You make some good points in your second paragraph, but I disagree with points made in your first paragraph - namely )1 the in-equivalence of FF and m43 apertures, 2) depth of field and 3) shutter speed issues.
The last point is easy to explain what I meant. As you are aware, animals and birds are not static but move. A sharp image without blurring wings, beaks or legs requires using high shutter speeds (even up to 1/4000 sec for small twitchy birds). So a person with the R3 and myself with an OM-1 will probably have the same high shutter speed according to the animal’s behavior to be photographed. In lower light, correctly exposing for fast shutter speeds (certainly 1/4000 or 1/2000 sec) requires some combination of wide aperture and boosted ISO. I would much prefer to be shooting at f/4.5 with a medium high ISO than at f/9 at a much higher ISO.
The issue of aperture equivalence re FF and m43 sensors can get confusing when discussed by fan boys from their respective sensor camps. An F/4 for FF sensor and F/4 for an m43 sensor will give the same exposure for the image taken with the same shutter speed and ISO settings. This is a fact, and it is supported by my many years of field experience. The FF sensor is physically larger than the m43 sensor so the FF lens has to project a wider circle than the lens for the m43 sensor. (As you know, this is why m43 lenses can be built smaller.) The lens’ projected area of light is not the issue here. Those who say that f/4 on m43 sensors is really f/9 is not correct for the exposure but it is for depth of field.
About depth of field, my depth of field calculator presents these dof results. At 100’ for an R3 with an 800mm lens set at f/9 the dof is 2.57’. At 100’ with my OM-1 lens set at 800mm FF field of view f/4.5, the dof is 1.29’. This difference can be important for subject separation from distracting objects in the foreground or background. Most wildlife photographers want to avoid f/9 or higher.
@@jonerikrolf2029 Thank you for your reply. I do have to respectfully disagree with the conclusion you've came to regarding exposure, but first I just want to say that I currently shoot m43 and have been for several years, and want it to continue to succeed in the market place, but I also want that to happen for the right reasons and with users understanding exactly how systems really compare, and the pros and cons of each.
In your second paragraph, yes I agree that for wildlife we are severely shutter speed constrained, which typically means compensating with wider apertures and higher ISO. However, f/4.5 ISO 1600 on m43 and f/9 ISO 6400 on FF (same shutter speed on both) would really be neck and neck for almost all measurable qualities aside the half stop dynamic range benefit of m43 I mentioned previously.
For your third paragraph, there is no doubt that the luminous flux per unit area on the sensor plane (long way of saying "Illuminance") is the same for all lenses at a given aperture value, internal light loss, and scene illumination, regardless of sensor size. And agreed, the ISO setting is designed to dictate what given Illuminance over time on the sensor plane corresponds to middle grey in the output JPEG, again regardless of sensor size. Therefore, yes, crop factor corrected focal lengths with the same shutter speed and numerical ISO setting produce superficially similar JPEG images. My stance is that the JPEG output is misleading and does not tell the whole story.
For the purpose of taking actual images, I do not believe the luminous flux per unit area is actually relevant, and I believe it was a bad decision for the ISO standard to be based on this metric. I contend that the amount of light that falls into each "circle of confusion" during the exposure is the critical value, since this inherently scales with the factors that govern how we actually view images (i.e. print size and viewing distance, but if those are fixed to some standard, then it just scales with sensor size). Using "luminous flux per CoC over time" as a metric, it is easy to demonstrate that 1/2000 sec f/4.5 on m43 puts the same amount of light in the applicable circle of confusion as 1/2000 sec f/9 on full frame sized circle of confusion, and if the ISO were based on that, the equivalent ISO numbers for each format would be the same, instead of having to do the "crop factor squared" conversion. Many other useful concepts, such as photographic dynamic range, depth of field, more accurate maximum print sizes, come when you use the circle of confusion as your ruler, so I see no reason why exposure shouldn't use this as a basis.
In terms of your depth of field calculator, I'm not sure how you're getting those numbers. The calculator I use says FF 800mm f/9 at 100' distance should have a 2' 5.1" depth of field, and m43 400mm f/4.5 at 100' distance should give 2' 4.4" depth of field, only off by .7" or 2.2%. Both of those scenarios yield a 3.1° diagonal field of view, and a 5" 4.9" diagonal entrance window.
For what it's worth, the ideas I'm using (except for the exposure based on CoC, that might just be a me thing) mostly come from the paper "Equivalence theory for cross-format
photographic image quality comparisons" by D. Andrew Rowlands, which have been experimentally verified by many including the DPReview and DPReview TV team, Tony Northrup, etc. Overall, it just kills me that over the years so much debate and emotion has corroded what should be purely a technical tidbit
@@jonpaulpepen9470 lots of detail in your response. Thank you. Perhaps our different results for depth of field results is caused by our using different circles of confusion. The calculator I use is the DOFC app (iOS). I have written to the developer to learn what the defaults are for the R3 and the OM-1 as I am not specifying specific circles of confusion.
I too have been a m43 guy - using Olympus/OM Systems gear since I switched from Nikon (D500, 300 f/2.8, 200-400 f/4 80-400 etc). For telephoto lenses I have the 40-150 f/2.8, 300 f/4 and the 150-400 1.25x that I use on my OM-1, the MX-1 and EM-1 mark iii. Both the 300mm and the 150-400 were said to be maximally sharp wide open, and I believe it. I did not study physics or optics but instead pursued a scientific career a clinical psychologist and as a principal investigator of public health prevention projects across cultures. I am now retired and have enjoyed wildlife photography across 7 continents. This has been just a hobby for me although I have won awards in regional, national and international nature photography competitions.
BTW, Janine- a professional wildlife photographer with Pangolin Safaris in Botswana - just reviewed the same new Canon 200-800mm lens. She liked the lens for its weight and affordability but brought up concerns as to its suitability for the more demanding types of wildlife photography.
Wow, for all intents and purposes its an L lens without the label. Removing the panning mode isn't a big loss and for the focus limiter it seems to be build in as the focus distance changes as you zoom. I wonder how much the 100-500 price and sales will drop now.
I've got the Sigma 150-600 c and the Canon Rf 800 F11. Image quality of the RF is comparable to the Sigma, what it lacks is great bokeh. I wish I could post some pictures for you guys to compare.
I have the RF800mm. It has a DO lens element, that is why the oof bokeh is not smooth. I dont use it at all.
@@nordic5490 I agree when the background objects create concentric rings but for the most part I actually prefer the DO bokeh, mainly because it can have a slightly "dreamy" look. The RF 100-400 has worse bokeh which can be too contrasty and also has these onion rings. My main gripe is the contrast in strong light and it can be sensitive atmospheric haze.
I've still yet to see anything comparable to a 60x spotting scope (3000mm equivalent) that can break through heat haze, maybe a successor to the Nikon P1000.
Nice.. Now I have a tough decision for my R7 between the 100-500 and the 200-800, but I'm leaning towards the 200-800 since I already have the 70-200.
I sold my 100-500 today. But now I’m worried about the autofocus speed. Will it be fast enough for birds in flight ? Please Mr Laing. Help us know !!!!
What would you choose? The 100-500mm with 1.4 teleconverter or the 200-800mm?
woah! except price and non removable tripod collar, everything is a go for me.
It's amazing until you take a breath and look into the specs more. A Sony/Nikon 200-600/180-600 could have 1.4x teleconverter and would roughly be slightly less than f9 (T-stop) at 840mm. F6.3-9 isn't great, also we need to see sharpness comparisons. Also external zoom is a nightmare in humid/rainy/dusty weather where I operate on. Still a very interesting lens.
I'd love one, but I need to know how it performs out there in the wild. I shoot mainly motorsport, so a long lens is a must. As I'm a hobbyist, the best that I can afford at present is the RF100-400 or the Tamron 150-600.
The 100-400 isn't all that heavy but the 600 is. I forget what it weighs except that I should've done weight training before attending the Australian MotoGP a few weeks ago.
I'd probably use it for wildlife photography as it'd be in a gimbal on a tripod or a close-to-the ground mount.
I follow a local wildlife photographer so I'll ask him if he can review it.
Hello ! It would be interesting to test the speed of the autofocus on birds in flight. Why nobody has done this test up to now ?
Thanks in advance.
No one has done it yet as its pre production right now and we can't test it.
Going to be a wonderful addition! @Gordon, couldn’t tell from the video, but is the collar permanently attached?
Yes it won't come off sadly.
ah bummer, appreciate the info though. so it's 'uni-collar' essentially and the the foot doesn't even detach? @@cameralabs
keep up the great work m8. you're one of the few remaining channels that still provide relevant & objective info on camera gear - becoming incresingly more difficult to find good content these days! 👏👏
hmmmm.....
I have the Sigma 150-600 C lens adapted to my R6 and I love it. 150mm is short enough in a lot of situations and 600 is fantastic. I just wonder if I could use this lens as much as I did that...
Hmmm...I'm not hugely impressed to be honest. Whilst I didn't expect this to be internally zooming you have to twist that zoom ring a lot to extend and retract it back and forth. I'd also be interested in just how weather sealed this lens is given it's pretty much an outdoor use lens. Curious what the price will be. Looking forward to seeing how image quality holds up at 600 to 800, I'd rather crop a higher quality 600mm max focal length than have 800mm with poor quality. Those small f stops are pushing into the realms of diffraction which will do no favours for image quality. Don't get me wrong, it's an interesting lens but I think Canon might have been better making it a more premium lens and charge more for it. I can't help but feel this will be very compromised to keep it within a lower end budget. Seems to me that this lens was created as a " mine is bigger than yours ". I'm sure optically it won't be a patch on either the Sony 200 to 600 or the Nikon 180 to 600 which it is clearly trying to compete with but happy to be proved wrong 😋
Yeah the lack of internal zoom is concerning. Gordon looked like he needed to twist it 4 times to get to 800mm
@@jeffbronson3696it’s no problem , most f(if not all ) 150-600 lenses are external zoom and I never has any problems even in bad condition . The amount of twisting might be a concern for some but if I buy a lens like this I either shoot at the longer end or shorter end so I don’t zoom from 200-800 constantly anyway . Rf 70-200 is worse with the throw cause that’s a lens I zoom in and out with
Considering it's in the same price range as the Sony 200-600 and Nikon 180-600, whilst having a smaller entrance pupil than either of those lenses on the long end, I fully expected this to be internal zooming.
@@TechnoBabble seems like their goal was to make this lens as small. Making it with external focus would make it much bigger zoomed in
I'm curious how you feel about the 800 F11 ?
0:25 doesn't Sigma have some older 300-800 zoom?
I meant native mirrorless lenses which are still in production
This Canon lens reminds me of those old Tamron super long zooms of the 00's. Hopefully its stellar.
Why the 6.3-9 aperture they could’ve did 5.6-7.1
They could have, but it would have been much larger, heavier and more expensive. This one was designed to be more affordable as I said in the video.
just take a look at either the Sigma 300-800 F/5.6 and Sigma 200-500 F/2.8. I think those 2 show that not everything that is physically possible is nescessarily something interesting to the user
Can you compare this with the Tamron/Sigma 150-600mm F5-6.3 + 1.4x TC?
How would you compare picture quality to rf100-500mm ?
great video as usual. I have read many comment, Maybe for many it could more usefull to see the combination R7+ Rf100-500+ 1,4x compared the R7 with RF 200-800. I have the first and i'm not sure that there is a value to change or to go with 200-800
Yes, I should try and do a comparison with the 100-500 using TCs
i've got my hands on both lenses yesterday, if you have the 100-500 and TC already, i dont think there's much value to a change. Dont get me wrong, the 200-800 is very comparable to the 100-500 with extender, but since you already have that, there's no point really in switching. The 100-500 definitely has it's advantages (you dont realize how much 500g is until you hold both lenses next to each other, the zoom ring can be moved much easier without effort, you have different IS modes, etc).
The only reasons i could see to switch is:
- you want to use the 200-800 and still have the option to put the TC on it to get 1120mm (i cant complain about the quality with TC, even the 2x positively surprised me)
- you REALLY get annoyed by the 100-500 not fully collapsing with TC (if it's just mildly annoying, i dont think it's worth the trouble and cost switching)
- you want to "downgrade" in order to sell the 100-500 and have a chance to get more money than you pay (i dont think that would be a wise choice to do, since the idk 200-400bucks you can get back is most likely not worth it. I just wanted to mention this for completeness).
I could only try them in the field and i couldnt pixel-peep, so a proper lab comparison would definitely be more assuring, but i doubt the results would make any wildly different conclusion
@0:25 But what about the Sigma 300-800mm? 🤔
Is it still a current model on sale?
Ha 🙂 The old Sig Monster ! I thought I was the only one that remembered that lens 🙂 That thing was a beast !
the exception to the internal zoom is both the sony 200-600 and the new nikon 180-600
Which aren't exactly "exceptions" when this lens is in the same price range. Only less expensive lenses from the likes of Tamron and Sigma have external zoom.
@@TechnoBabble Both the Nikon 180-600 and the Sony 200-600 can be found at about 1700-1800 dollars, the same as the Sigma 150-600 Sport, which is much heavier, worse stabilization, a very long zoom range which costs quick change of focal length and with external zoom
@@josemariagallardo2377 Seems you thought I was disagreeing with you. I'd take another read over my comment.
3:55 Always appreciate this graph 👍
This lens sounds like it could be "too much" for many folks, me included. I've been considering the Sony 90mm F/2.8 Macro for some time... you did not do a Video Review, there's a Written Review and it sounds like you're expecting an improved model coming soon because it came out in 2015.
["Editor’s note: with Sony producing new G Master versions of some of its older lenses, I wonder if a high-end macro is in the works, albeit perhaps with a different focal length or aperture than the 90mm?"]
In the last week the price has been dropping, do you think that portends an Updated Model very soon? What have you heard?
Regards
I honestly haven't heard anything, although if I were under NDA I wouldn't be able to tell you! Anyway, it's one of the great mysteries why we haven't seen a new macro from Sony. Surely one must be coming next year... certainly if I were buying the 90 now, I'd be looking for killer deals.
As always... THANKS Gordon! @@cameralabs
As always, one of the best review on You Tube. You covered every important topic in brief of this lens, It will be a good lens paired to Canon R7 for wildlife and birders. Even both teleconverters can be used with this lens and Canon R7. The Canon R7 and this lens make it a cheaper combination then the OM-1 and Olympus 150 - 400 mm lens.
It's gonna be interesting on an R7 for sure...
I think you will have great difficulties with this lens with wildlife photography in low morning and afternoon light at f/9. With tele extenders of 1.4x and 2x, good luck getting decent shots at f/11 and f/16! Your ISOs will be too high and the subject isolation will be null.
@@jonerikrolf2029 It is the price that makes it attractive. If you are a billionaire you can always buy a €14.000 lens.
@@jonerikrolf2029 have you seen images shot with the RF 800mm f11 prime? Of course it's completely different to a bright aperture prime or even zoom, but these are different lenses aimed at a lower budget and lighter weight. They do have the big guns if you can afford them and are happy lugging them around. But ultimately yes, in low light, these aren't ideal.
@@angeloplayforone Well if affordability is paramount, then there are more affordable and usable lenses for FF wildlife photography. One needs high shutter speeds and apertures as wide open as possible. A maximum aperture of 5.6 or 6.3 is doable if the background is not too close. F/9, F/11 and F/16 are both too slow and the dof too great. I do not swap out backgrounds as it is forbidden for nature/wildlife photo competitions.
Very interesting review Gordon, thorough as usual
Do you have any idea why Canon didn't give this lens a red ring for being an L lens, is it less built quality or less weather sealing ?
I think it's a combination of build, optics, sealing, accessories, controls etc. Just compare it to the 100-500 and you'll notice some differences, but that doesn't mean it's bad in any way, just not their ultimate.
@@cameralabs Thanks Gordon
Pre Ordered this Lens. It will replace my Sigma 150-600mm Contemporary because something growing inside of it just from
humidity. Get the Sigma cleaned the second time (2021 First time) and selling it
Request for Gordon. Please comment about how far the throw is on the zoom ring.
Good question, I think you could maybe work it out based on the clip where I twist the ring to extend the barrel?
In no hurry to exchange my surprisingly good Olympus 100-400, I do think this Canon lens looks good though! Why on earth isnt the hood white?
This lens with an r1 that'll probably be an r5/r3 hybrid would be a banger birding setup lol
Could you expand on what the weather sealing means?
If you look at the official Canon USA video with Rudy Winston, he shows the diagram detailing the weather sealing. It looks pretty extensive.
@@marximus4 Weather resistant against dust and moisture is not what I'm looking for unfortunately.
Because of the non-internal zoom and relatively long throw it reminds me of the Nikkor 200-500/5.6E. Just a bit more modern and a longer focal length.
But that's not a bad thing! I still love that lens. I'm sure this will make Canon shooters very happy :)
This is a neat lens but for the price point I’m very happy to be in the Nikon ecosystem.
A welcome addition but at the expected price it's still out of my price range. I have the Sigma EF 150 to 500 with adapter and it works ok, just a bit slow to focus and a bit hit and miss. I was hoping for the Sigma 60 to 600 RF to appear, I'm not holding my breath. With the Sigma 150 to 600 EF I use an adapter with drop in filters, which avoids having huge front lens filters... perhaps, Canon could have done that with this lens ? or any of their long RF primes ? This lens from Canon looks like the very expensive L series in its white livery and I guess you can get some red stripe from a third party to put on it. :)
Or a Red Sharpie!
@@cameralabs So, buyers of Canon L series lenses pay thousands for a Red Sharpie ? Who knew ?
already pre ordered. Waiting for your final review!
I am surprised with the lenses coming to market with f stop of F7.1 and f9, f11. I am sure the build quality is all good and the glass is great, the fact that mirrorless focus systems allow for good focus with lenses with this aperture is amazing. Fuji film brought out their 150-600 f8 that is a FOW of 900mm f8 at the long end, and the lens is not selling well. Given that Fuji is not the top brand for wildlife and sport. The idea of more and more reach almost looks like the more and more mp race? The other big issue for f9 becomes DOF. I listen to a discussion on M43 vs FF and the FF people bash M43 150-400 (FOW 300-800 f4.5) for the fact that the DOF for the Olympus lens would be f9 but f4.5 gives you more light than f9. So interesting development and all brands pushing the limits to attract a bigger customer base. I am sure this lens will serve a great customer group, especially those who shoot their current 150-600 lenses with the 1.4 or 2.0 converters. Have fun.
Yes, the fact they can AF at slow apertures is impressive. I show you the possible DF at f6.3 and f9 in the video and there is certainly some blurring
You're not getting the light of an f/4.5 on that Olympus lens when comparing to full frame. Yes, the aperture is physically f/4.5, but the focal length is ALSO physically 400mm, NOT 800mm. If you want to talk equivalence then you adjust both values. The reason being that a smaller sensor with similar manufacturing technology will produce more noise.
The Olympus 150-400 f/4.5 is equivalent to a 300-800 f/9 on full frame.
For example, an MFT camera at 400mm, f/4.5, 1/500, ISO 400 will give you the almost the same DoF, angle of view, and noise as a full frame camera at 800mm, f/9, 1/500, ISO1600.
How sharp is it at 800 when recording videos?
Not sure yet
Well I hope you didn’t have to get up at 4’20am Uk time! Hopefully you are able to schedule video releases...
I did schedule it BUT I was up until 2am finishing them all!
I've used Canon since the 350D, and I've put serious consideration into switching because of the holes they've left in the RF lineup. Particularly the lack of 1:1 macros: they have 4 lenses labeled as Macro, and 3/4 of them are only capable of 1:2 magnification. I wouldn't have as much of an issue with this if 3rd party lenses existed for RF (and just becuase they've said they're opening the standard up does not mean they get a pass yet).
isn't RF 100mm /2.8L Macro a 1:1 macro lens?
@@f800gt76 1.4:1 even, so better than 1:1. But it is really the only RF mount option at the moment.
@@breathLP what's a problem to adapt EF glass? I guess that everybody who has R series also has an EF-RF adaptor.
@@f800gt76 The 100mm is the only RF "macro" that can do better than 1:2. As for why can't you adapt? Sure, but when you have to rely on adapting just to get a basic photographic need, that's a terrible experience and it shows the company doesn't really care. And it's not like Macro is so niche that no one NEEDS it.
@@marcusmanchester1995 I see nothing to worry about. 5 years ago everybody tried to adapt EF lenses on Sony. As for me, I"ve upgraded from 6D to R6II and have bunch of EF glass. And I don't care, that all this glass are mounted with adaptor. It works natively.
Gordon, did you by any chance catch if this was made in Taiwan like the other non-L lenses or if it's Made in Japan like the rest of the L lineup?
Not sure, it didn't say on the pre-production model I filmed...
@@cameralabs I noticed that too, another reviewer had closeups of the mount, which is normally where the place of origin is stamped on, and it was blank. Like you said most probably because of prototype model. While my Taiwan made RF35mm is just as good build quality as my other L-lenses, there's something that makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside about seeing "Made in Japan" stamped on any product, not just lenses.
Do you have some decent used ones for sale?
Sadly not, I'm not a shop
Beautiful camera & lens
we can put n R6 and R7 ?
Yes, any RF lens will work on R6 and R7. I show it on the R7 in the video, did you watch it?
Good review! Not a useful wildlife lens unless you live in a sunny state. Anyone who used 800 f11 knows how bad it is at even a bit cloudy day. Things are not going to improve much with f9 at all! Third party lens (e.g., Sigma 150-600) give you f6.5 at 600mm, which is way way better than f8 at 600mm of this lens. Unless you live in a sunny place, don’t consider it - yes i live in a state where more than 200 days are cloudy days. So i know the pain of using lens that have a big f values. If you live in sunny states, this lens can be a good choice.
I'll take the optic quality of a Canon lens over 2/3 of a stop at 600 of a third party lens. There are plenty of very good noise reduction softwares available that can easily deal with 2/3 of a stop! Plus, I CAN go to 800 when I have the light.
Why are lenses so expensive?
Surely the Sigma 300-800 f5.6 was the worlds first super zoom to reach 800mm?
How does this compare with 100-500 in terms of IQ?? 😮
I'm sure the 100-500 as an L lens and a shorter range will be noticeably better,
"It becomes the worlds first full frame super telephoto zoom to reach 800mm" Slight correction, it's actually the 2nd super telephoto zoom to reach 800mm. The Sigma Sigmonster was/is a 300-800mm lens for full frame SLR's that has been around for just over 20 years now.
True. I meant native mirrorless and in production.
This looks like quite the engineering achievement. Did you play much with using the manual focus at longer distances? I ask as someone who does use long telephoto zooms, and have found that sometimes the manual focusing rings tend to not be well damped, and have a control lag (hysteresis) that makes fine focus adjustment twitchy for when the autofocus isn't doing the job. Curious if Canon has considered that.
I'm sure it's nice...pretty much all lenses are today...but I don't even consider external throw lenses anymore.
Why is that ?
@@Chris_Wolfgram It makes it more difficult to zoom in and out...I can zoom my internal with a single finger...and never lose the subject. It also changes the weight when on a gimbal or fluid head.
An external zoom is moving the entire front elements...the heaviest set of optics located at the very front.
An internal is only moving a set of glass in the middle mostly...front element does not move at all...why you can zoom handheld with one finger and never lose the subject.
Good luck trying to zoom into 800mm...:P
@@JACKnJESUS fair enough. As I say, I'll probably just leave it pegged at 800mm most of the time anyway.
Unless I'm shooting from a blind or something, and then I'll just zoom it back to the proper distance, and be done with it. I don't see myself changing my reach very often at all. I had the Sigma 150-600 for about a year, and it was always pegged at 600, often with a 1.4 TC too.... But I was still never long enough, as I was using the FF R5. I do much better now with the crop sensor R7 👍
@@Chris_Wolfgram When you use an internal throw that is butter smooth...none of that applies anymore. You can easily find your subject at 200mm...and grab the frame at 600mm in the blink of an eye...without losing the 'bird' in the frame.
You can change the way you shoot...which allows you the advantage of seeing at 200mm...the chimping all goes away.
I will sell my RF 100-400 and RF 800 for this one - for sure! Perfect with my R7
I think nikon made a 1200-1700 f5.6-8 AF at some point
Possibly! They did have some monstrous lenses back in the day...
With this one why should I buy the 100-500 L?
Maybe sharpness, certainly size and weight.
Nikon has even more tough decisions to make about the "right" telephoto lens.
as@@Glaucidiussais, sharpness, size/weigth, but i'd like to add overall build/design quality (eg. the 100-500 has separate focus and control rings and a higher quality hood) and the 100mm F/4.5 are a pretty important part of the lens. I heard 1-2 times, that the F/4.5 was a pretty big factor of the price. Idk if that's the case, but if someone needs that, the 200-800 has, well, 200mm and F/6.3
They are somewhat competitive to eachother, but they definitely both have different strengths and weaknesses
Because the 100-500 has much large apertures at all zoom ranges, is significantly sharper, and will likely have better whether sealing and autofocus.
It's part of Canon's professional 'L' lineup, whereas this is not.
I can see a lot of people buying this is as their first super tele zoom. My first observations: The zoom throw looks is very long and quality (smoothness) appears to be very poor. The focus ring quality also looks super cheap. However, Canon did give it three rings, and presumably one or two of those are programmable, so plenty of options there. The programmable button(s) is in a good location. The lens collar is not removable, which is a shame; that adds a lot of weight. Weather sealed for "light weather conditions" means this pumper lens is a dust and moisture vacuum and is a huge con. Reduced IS at the long end is a huge con. f8 by 455mm...ouch. f9 by 637mm...ouch. If you are sold already, you should just get it. The comprehensive review scripts are already written, and they are going to say the IQ, sharpness, etc., is excellent regardless of what the lens can actually do.
I'd be curious as to what you said about the 800 F11 before it came out ? That lens got bashed so much by guys that had never even used it. Turned out to be the best piece of photographic equipment I've ever bought in 20+ yrs of digital photography 🙂👍
@@Chris_Wolfgram It can be a terrible lens and be the best lens you have purchased over the last 20 years. Those are not mutually exclusive statements. 🤔
@@KungPowEnterFist I'd love to just show you my work, but all links are blocked 😕
Not the first fullframe zoom to 800 - sigma 300 to 800 f/5,6 "sigmonster". No longer made.
Maybe put the aperture in the title :)
I did have it, but it was too long, so I left it in the description and obviously say it within the first few seconds.
I suppose that it will work fine in sunshine, but in overcast weather, it will be awful. I get ISO 25 000 often with a 600mm F/4 and a 1.4 TC. Overcast in Norway can be really, really, really dark.
Exactly what people said about the 800 F11 too, and they are completely wrong. Sounds like you have some expensive, heavy gear :) I'd love to see your work, and wouldn't be afraid to show you mine :)
@@Chris_Wolfgram and they are right because few are seen in the wild.
looking forward to your Seagull in flight shots.
Always worth the wait
Thanks! I think it might be hard to track them at the longer-end, the birds are large and close where I shoot...
How does this lens and the new 24-105 come from the same company, this looks clean, futuristic and worth every penny. The 24-105 2.8 looks like its from 1995. wild
Bruh what? 24-105 2.8 looks dope af
the 24-105 looks like... the rest of their professional lineup. Weird comment.
I find that this lens looks like a toy compared to the offerings from Sony and Nikon. But their 24-105 looks like a piece of rugged, professional kit.
I think I'm more excited about the Nikon 180-600mm and I'm still a Canon shooter want to move over to the Nikon Z8. Canon are good at marketing their Cameras such as the R7 have got amazing fps but terrible rolling shutter outdated no stack sensor, now an amazing boast of 800mm but F9 no thanks. It's like being stuck with a 2x converter on your 400mm not great for UK light. I'm sure it's great for moon pics and birds on a branch non moving subjects and I know Canon lenses are sharp. I already have a 2700mm F/15 telescope for a fraction of the price.
Not L glass though?
An "L" would cost 10.000+ even at this aperture.
Canon wouldn't go cheap on "L"s, if not for the manufacturing costs then for marketing reasons.
Not having the focus limiter is a bit of a disappointment especially on the R6 or R7 which have some reported AF problems. I use the R6 and although the 800 f11 has a longer MFD using the limiter for 20m and beyond is still helpful in keeping the AF fast and restricted to farther subjects. On my RF 100-400 when the AF does inexplicably defocuses it is sometimes very difficult to get things back in focus.
Yes, I foresee some frustrating focus racks back and forth at critical times! But hopefully we can full-time MF overrride it to get it back on track if necessary
Want. need. Will get!
how do you already have it? you are amazing like a photography james bond
Early release PR copies
As a journalist, I am given access to products before release to make preview videos.
i need to become a journalist then or can i be your online P.A @@cameralabs
@@PeterOgbodu I've been doing this for three decades now, so it takes a while before you get the invites!
wait a minute 3 decades?? if you dont mind me asking how old are you??@@cameralabs
That’s it… I’m getting one for my R7 haha
Why don't Canon use Arca-Swiss plates?
Wake up Canon!
Maybe licensing? Most companies don't which is sad as it'd be very useful.
@@cameralabs
Well TAMRON does. :)
@@WildlifeVeterans I think Sigma does as well, but the big camera companies themselves don't. Er, apart from maybe Olympus back in the day!
@@cameralabs I can confirm Olympus\OMDS lenses still have the Arca profile machined into the lens foot.
This lens on a crop body would have the exact same focal length and max aperture as the olympus/Panasonic 100-400 f.6.3. Would really love to see a comparison between them
Looking at the angle of view: Not on a crop body, but on full frame.
Incorrect, the focal lengths are different, although the field of view is the same when this 200-800mm is used on a full frame sensor, so the equivalent focal length is also the same. The equivalent aperture of the 100-400mm f/6.3 is f/13, so this 200-800mm actually has a larger physical aperture.
It's a bit different i think. 800mm on a apsc crop body is 1280mm at f9 whereas on micro four thirds its 800mm + 1.4 teleconverter is 1120mm at f9.
The olympus/Panasonic have the advantage of being smaller and lighter and also having 800mm equivalent at f6.3
@@Bayonet1809F6.3 on m43 is light gathering at 6.3 and dof at f13. On canon apsc it would be light gathering at f13 and dof at f13
@@ryzgmsnope. a crop body would reduce the apperture too. F/9 means it has a 800mm/9 = 89mm diameter. if you look at the equivalent focal length of 1280, the equivalent aperture is roughly 14.4 (F/x = 1280mm/x = 89mm). Camera manufacturers do everything to hide that fact, but that's still how it is. A lens wont magically gather more more just because a smaller sensor is put behind it.
Needs a power zoom
Can I do selfies with it?
Didn't you see the video of me? I reached out and pushed the button
I bought a Sigma 500 F4 sports lens brand new for not much more than this. Though it's not gonna focus as fast or stabilise as well, the image from it is far superior and it's down to image at the end of the day. That said, if you're travelling or just shooting content for yourself, this lens will be a great option. In a way, these lenses are better 'video lenses' than photo lenses as you can shoot handheld video on a camera like the R5 and achieve good results without having to use high ISO's to compensate for fast shutter like you do when you freeze the action in photography. The bokeh from this isn't much better than the cheap F11 option and thats hugely off-putting for pro wildlife folks.
Great video Gordon, Sounds and looks like an amazing lens. For sure one that will be in my bag when it's available here in Brazil.
Just an info. This is not the first superzoom that reach 800. Sigma had the 300-800 ex dg hsm f5.6.
True, I forgot about that one, but I don't think it's current anymore
@@cameralabs Easy to forget, and with good reason. Was not the sharpest lens ever made, you can say heheheheh.
Also the 70-200 you forgot to say
No red ring, not an L lens... Canons RF system continues to baffle me from day one...
So this isn't an L lens? But white
Thanks....
Forgot the 100-300
That's not a super telephoto