Nice video. A good combo for older people who want a long reach and light weight is the R7 and the RF 100-500 mm lens. You get that 160 to 800 mm angle of view.
Definitely need more wildlife on your channel! I may be biased for that though...Also, I think camera lady and I are gonna come to Ireland next fall so we should talk 😁
Hi Brent & Brittany, hoping to one day go on your workshops.. I just ordered this lens. Got an email the other day from Canon that after about a year it was finally in stock. Hoping for the Best 📷 👍🏻
Hey great to hear from you Brent, you're killing it on Insta with those awesome shots. Really making me want to up my game. Yeah, I would like to do more. Kinda thinking of doing a bird photo vlog channel where I can just push out easy to edit vids shot on the Osmo. We gotta hook up for sure and go to some nice locations.
Thanks Hugh, I was going to do a review of the same lens but no need, you have beaten me to it. Great film and I cannot agree more with your opinion. I pushed this lens wanting it to fail. I needed the reach of the 800mm to capture some Bald Eagles (Maryland, USA) of which I found using the RF100-500 was just lacking the reach I needed but as a firm lover of the 100-500 it is staying in my kit bag. At first I was not surprised with what I was getting although the image quality at full stretch is good, not what I was expecting being a non "L" series lens. However after filming the eagles it came out trumps and I got some awesome shots of both Eagles and Cormorants. I shifted to aviation, capturing the Blackpool airshow and WOW, just WOW. The reach of the 800mm made a massive difference and at times I had to pull back to 5/600mm as the aircraft filled the frame. Also a day at Lakenheath filming F-15/35's pretty much convinced me it is a keeper. I was of the mindset to offload the 100-500mm lens but, that 100mm is a big divide on the lower end so guess I will keep both opting to use the 2-800mm for bird/aviation imagery. For anyone who is into bird/aviation photography this lens is a winner, within reach of most budgets without breaking the bank giving you a ton of reach and good image quality along with the flexibility of being a zoom lens rather than a bulky fixed prime. It is a larger lens than the 100-500 but, not noticeably heavier which is a good thing, and after the Blackpool airshow I have to admit my arms were tired after 5+ hours lifting, turning etc so a good gimbal tripod or monopod needs to be considered, for long shooting sessions. 👍
Thanks for your comment Rik, really appreciate it. Glad you're getting results with it. Yeah, a super lens for those air shows and it'll give you the option to zoom out and get nice wider shots too which a big heavy prime wouldn't. A gimbal is a good idea for those shows. I have them but never use them really as I need to be flexible when hiding out under the ghille blanket. Using the gimbal before only stopped me getting fast moving stuff. Sometimes a tripod is better as you can get nicer video shots than with the gimbal.
@@HuFilmsI prefer the 100-500 lens for bird photography and for the close focus distance but I plan to add the 200-800 lens after this review as its great value for the money. Great review 🙂
I’ve had this lens for 3 months now but I’m really impressed by how low light I can still shoot. On cloudy days or when the sun is just about to set. At first I was skeptical but after practical use now I know.
I'm in the north of Scotland and am considering getting this lens. It's great to see how it works in a similar climate/light conditions to what I'd usually encounter (while reviews from lovely sunny climes are nice, this is more useful). Thanks for the review. Subscription added.
Good to hear from you and that's a lovely part of the world. I do want to book the ferry over and do a week at least camping there. Get the lens as an all rounder then try and get a brighter prime for the dark days! Thanks for the sub, appreciate it!
I have both the 100-500 and the 200-800. My favorite is the 100-500. It is lighter,smaller, and great focusing. The 200-800 get used in more open spaces where getting close is not possible. However when you pair the 100-500 with the R5 mark II with 45 megapixels I can crop a lot. Results are great. The 200-800 is amazing but needs more light and gets heavy during the day!!! Would never part with either. I always take both in the car with the R5 using the 200-800 and the Mark II using the 100-500. So you see where my first choice lies. If you can, always get both!
Brilliant review, Hugh. I too ended up purchasing the 200-800. Keeping the limitations in mind, it is a banger of a deal all considered. I use it mostly for video so that max aperture isn't as big of a deal as it would perhaps be for photography. Keep those videos coming.
Thanks a lot, glad you liked the vid and that you're getting results from the lens. Yeah, the video thing works as you're usually on a slower shutter like 1/125 or so as opposed to 1/2500 at least for BIF images unless it's a Kestrel or a Humming Bird 😂
Hey Josh, I think you'd enjoy it. Not as refined as your 100-500 L but fun all the way for sure. I feel a Christmas catch up chat is on the cards for us!
Hi Hugh. Really enjoyed your video and the “window into your world”, even though I don’t currently own a camera (I used to have a Sony A7R3 and an adapted L mount 70-300mm IS L) so I’m looking at alternatives. I live in the west coast of Scotland by a sea loch so similar environment, with a wonderful mix of sea and field wildlife so what you’re doing is right up my street. Thank you!
Thanks Mike, good to hear from you. I think you'd like this setup if you were to get back into birds. It's a lovely part of the world we live in and from what I hear, Scotland is pretty amazing. I'm likely going to take the ferry over next year and visit Mull etc for some wild camping and bird photos. Maybe try the eagles and harriers.
Hi, I spoke to you when you cancelled your order and said the lens is a lot better than you thought, I am glad you changed your mind, I got one shortly after that video, I also use it more on my R5 MK2 rather than my R3 for light days out when I don't want to carry my huge prime. I have got some great images with this lens, in good light it gives great detail for the money. Nice video by the way.
another R3 user here. Lovely camera. I also use a big prime (albeit it a mark 1 EF 500f4 IS L). Have just succumbed and bought the RF200-800, mostly for BIFs of raptors.
Thanks a lot, yeah, I thing I remember the chat from you. I do listen and I'm glad I did. The fact that my camerashop was willing to trade my 800 F11 was a decider too. That made it easier to purchase. Great all round lens and lots of fun to use.
@@HuFilms Hi that was good the shop took in your lens, I managed to off load my 800 F11 to a friend who wanted it, I think the same it's just a good all rounder, I love going to the beach with it for waders, so much easier than using the huge prime and tripod.
@@davepastern Hi, I love my R3, and although I think the autofocus is better on the R5 MK2 I still use my R3 a lot, especially in bad light the files are so clean, I had that EF 500mm it's a great lens, I did sell it to make way for a EF 600mm F4 MKII, but now as long as the light is OK I am finding myself using the RF200-800 more and more, it's just a joy to go out getting reach with what I call a decent weight compared to my 600mm F4 🤣🤣 I also have the RF 100-500 I won't sell it but found it far too short for birds and most wildlife.
@@tonyesposito9602 I am surprised to hear that the AF is better on the R5II. That would be very disappointing as a R3 owner. The R3 was touted by some in Canon, as a flagship camera. And a consumer line should NEVER outperform a pro line. But then, Canon's exceptionally poor treatment via firmware updates for R3 owners has been shocking. I pull no punches. I'm a consumer and I expect better support for a premium product. Canon has dropped the R3 like a hot potato. It was fine for them when the R1 wasn't available and the original R5/6 were inferior in AF performance, but now they have dropped the retail price of a new R3, introduced a R5II with a 45mp BSI stacked sensor (why on Earth would you buy a R3 new now?) which has screwed the used R3 price market very very badly. Pre R1/R5II release, I reckon I'd easily have gotten AUD 6k for my R3. Now it's probably pushing 4.5k...that's a massive drop. And as a R3 user/owner who might be thinking of upgrading, that 1.5k loss is not nice. The R3 files are clean, the cleanest at high ISO on the market, at least until the R1 was released. I haven't seen a reviewer yet touch on the high ISO performance of the R1. Or the DR performance for that matter. If I hadn't bought the 500mm prime in August 2022, I'd have switched to a Sony A1 with the 200-600 zoom. In all honesty, I regret not switching back then. I have, in all honesty, been jaded by Canon's support. I was going to upgrade to the EF 600f4 II, but it was going to take me 3-4 years to save (I'm an amateur photographer and don't have a surplus of income to spare to put away every week/fortnight). Canon will be discontinuing support/service/repairs/spare parts for the mark 2 super tele primes in 2029 btw. I just couldn't invest 9.5k AUD in a lens that if something went wrong, I was screwed. Since I am 55 and due to retire in ~13 years and will be able to access my superannuation savings in full, I decided to buy the RF200-800 to exist alongside my 500mm prime and have both last me until I retire. When I retire, I will be looking to buy a new RF600f4 (probably will be a mark 2 by then, maybe even a mark 3). I don't mind carrying around a big prime btw, doesn't really faze me, and I have shoulder/wrist/lower back/upper back problems (osteoarthritis, nerve pinches in a variety of spots, hernia and muscle weakness). The RF100-500 is, imho, too short for birding photography. I shoot at 700mm (500mm + 1.4x TC) and sometimes, it's too short. I am finding that my 500mm prime is simply not giving me sharp images for BIFs (mostly raptors) and I suspect that it's a 2 factor issue - the fact that it's a lens design released in 1999, and the EF to RF adaptor. I find that the AF and tracking is perfectly fine for perched birds. I am mostly planning to use the RF200-800 for BIFs. Happy shooting mate!
It is a great lens. Sure, you need decent light, especially for any kind of action, but the kind of light you want to be shooting in anyway will do. It doesn't feel much heavier than my old EF 100-400 4.5-5.6.
Thanks for a very enjoyable and comprehensive review. Sold my old EF 100-400 II a while back. Haven’t been able to decide between this and the 100-500. I think this is probably the better video lens but the 100-500 has the light weight and close focusing versatility if you don’t need as much reach. Can’t decide. I still have my very well used EF 600 f4 L II prime so don’t feel pressured to buy anything right away but I’m getting tired of wrestling with the size and weight. Thanks again.
I shoot at f8...and I use a 500mm prime...f9 is a 1/3 stop down...not an issue, unless you are shooting in a dense rainforest setting. That's where the big 500 prime comes in handy as I can drop the aperture down to f5.6, drop the shutter speed and bump the ISO to get the shot.
@@HuFilms a few % better. The RF200-800 is not far behind in terms of sharpness. The coatings are sub-par vs the RF100-500 I believe. Wide aperture is nice for darker shooting environments like a rainforest. I shoot at f8 with my big prime everywhere else. The RF100-500 is faster, but it only goes out to 500mm. The RF200-800 is f8 at 600mm. I think it might be f7.1 at 500mm from memory (I may be wrong). And guess what? The RF100-500 is also f7.1 at 500mm...so no real advantage. A disadvantage in being only 500mm, which from my experiences the past 3 years shooting a LOT of birds, is too short a focal length. And to get the RF100-500 to match the RF200-800 (well, it's not even matching it really, since with a 1.4x TC, it becomes only 700mm) requires the 1.4x TC and at 700mm, it's f stop is f10. Worse than the RF200-800 and 100mm shorter focal length...and even worse, the RF100-500 with the TC only matches the optical quality of the native RF200-800...and the nail in the coffin, imho, is the price of the RF100-500, which has always been massively overpriced imho.
great video Hugh, very in depth info being shared. I'm hoping to get this lens in the new year as a step up from my RF 100-400 which is a good lens but I'm needing that extra reach for bird and general wildlife photos. Plus with my R7 ill have a crop factor so more reach! :) thanks
Hi Hugh, I photograph seals and birds a lot on the beach and sand in focus rings has been an issue for me. I highly recommend you try using camera and lens covers from Wildlife watching supplies. They do a loose waterproof cover which protects against even heavy rain and blowing sand and keeps my hands out of the wind when working on a tripod. Kevin Keatley is a wildlife photographer and designs all their products. Great review Hugh.
@HuFilms the other thing to mention is that the loose covers they make still do a good job of protecting the lens from scratches. Arguably better than a tight neoprene which can pick up grit which can then rub on the paint.
Yeah, it can be disheartening to see other brands offer better options. I was really jealous of Nikon shooters with their lenses. The 800 6.3 for example. But they all want Canon focus!
So ur changed your mind 👍. I use this lens for over one year now and I am still not disappoint, but one little thing might be better for the next generation. The zoom turn is just too long. 🤔
A 600f4 with 1.4x TC is a better option, but it is also much more costly (and larger and heavier). it will outshine the RF200-800 in optical quality and AF performance, especially when paired with a 1 series body (R1 or R3).
@@davepastern well a 600 F4 + a 1.4 teleconverter, giving one 'only' 840 mm, then used on a Full Frame body, still wouldn't be long enough for most of my shooting. I suppose one could use that lens on my lowly R7's.... to get the required reach {1280 mm feels quite normal to me, and it works great}. And even so, you'd have NO versatility that you have with a zoom..... The R1 and the R3 are both terrible choices for small birds, being both Full Frames AND not having enough megapixels for much cropping either. If I wanted a Big White lens, I'd own one. If I feel like "I have to have a piece of equipment" I find a way to make it happen. Same when I got the $4K R5. But learned my lesson there too, that "more expensive" doesn't always mean "best for my purposes". My R7's are much better choice > as much of a PITA as they are to deal with :) lol Love / hate these stupid things :) lol I have day dreamed about an R5 Mk II + a 1200 mm F8... only a $25,000 combo :) ....and heavy, and no versatility..... and "only" F8..... verses my 1280 mm F9, $3400 combo.... I really would like to see how much difference that would make shooting small birds ? But the reality is, a cheapie body... I dunno.. what's the cheapest ? I had to look it up :) Okay, so a Canon R100 + the RF 100-400.... A $900 combo "not even in good light" {I hate that phrase} but rather, used correctly "from close enough"..... like 6 or 8 ft ;) verses that $25K combo I mentioned, from 75ft, the ultra cheapie combo would do better. Same thing with that cheapie combo, against your 600 F4 + 1.4 TC + R1. Anyway, enough of all my rambling..... Don't "tell me" > "show me" ! You can see a lot of my work on my photo page, link on my channel :) Its not all my best technical stuff, although their is some of that too, but aesthetics and "lifer" birds add weight also.
@@davepastern Which 600 F4? If you're talking about the RF, that's around 5 times the cost and in a total different category of lenses. Like comparing a daily family car to a sports car.
@@HuFilms any of them, although I'd steer clear of anything earlier than the EF 600f4 II. Yes, they are more expensive. I stated that in my earlier reply. The RF200-800 isn't the "holy grail". There is better. Whether you want to pay for better, is up to you, the individual.
@@Chris_Wolfgram only 840mm? That is more than enough for most birding photography situations from my experiences. I shoot with the 500mm prime and 1.4x TC, so only 700mm and that does the job most of the time. Yes, the 600mm with TC is a preferred option, at least for me personally. I've survived quite nicely for the past 3 years with the big 500mm prime. Haven't really missed not having a zoom. There is more to birding photography than megapixels too btw. The R1 and R3 can both take outstanding bird images. Yes, if you need to heavily crop, and I stress the word heavily, then the R5 is a better option with its 45 megapixels. Not gonna lie. But you can get amazing and outstanding images with the R1/3. Of course, more expensive doesn't always mean better. I'm old enough and have been around long enough to know this. But, those big White primes do offer better IQ than any prosumer/consumer lens can. From what I am seeing, the R5II is a great camera, but it does have some real problems (DR, high ISO performance both worse than the original R5). I don't care for pre-capture, and rolling shutter doesn't rear its ugly head too often with the original R5 from what I have been able to gauge, so that is on my list of wants and I will be saving for the next 3-4 years to buy 1 on the used market. I'll use it alongside my R3. I honestly don't think you need any more than a 500 or 600mm with a TC, for 700/840mm reach. Australia has some very small birds. You also don't need to, imho, always completely fill the frame with bird images. Environmental shots can be very effective. I have a shot of a Golden headed Cisticola in reeds along a river bank, which I love. The bird isn't super large in the frame, but you get a strong sense of the birds life from the image. I also never said that you can't get great images from lower price points either. I actually own a R10 as well btw. If I was going on a budget, it'd be the R10 and EF 400mm f5.6. With the APS-C crop factor of 1.6x, it's 640mm reach with the R10. Add a 1.4x TC and it's a f8 lens, light, very sharp and has superb IQ. And you'd end up with 896mm reach - more than enough from my experiences. 1 of the things I have learned in the past 3 years of birding photography is learning about the bird, and the location, and honing your approach skills are more important than the actual gear itself. As I have paid more attention to those things, my photography has improved. I'm no pro, I'm just an amateur that loves birds, loves nature, and has had a life long interest in photography. I checked your flickr page out and you have beautiful images mate. You're a bit further down the trail of image quality than I am I think. The main thing is, enjoy your hobby(ies). I find it relaxing to be out in nature, imaging beautiful birds. Even if i miss out on an image, hearing or seeing the birds puts a big smile on my face. I have a few lifers too, albeit not great images, given their habitat. I got the critically endangered Swift Parrot and Regent Honeyeater in August this year - both critically endangered, with the former between 300-500 in the wild, and the latter under 300 in the wild. Both species will probably, and very sadly, be gone in under 10 years. You can check out some of my images on either my Instagram page (I concentrate more on birds themselves, than actual IQ in the images on Instagram) - brisbanebirdphotos. I also have a website, where I've paid more attention to posting quality images - davepastern (google it, should be the first hit).
Enjoyed this video, I have the 50-500 older sigma lens as was cheap used, I’m looking for more reach and the sigma 1.4 teleconverter does not work on my lens. How does this lens compare to 150-600 contemporary lens as this lens is still a fair chuck of change ??
I gotta say, I got a lot of joy out of my 100-400 leica-panasonic MFT lens on my G9. It gives the same reach as this one, although without the benefit of full frame of course. Still a nice lens lens though. It's obvious you're having at least as much fun with it as I had with mine when I first got it. I actually use it as a travel lens. I get great results with it on video. I'm torn between getting two blackmagic micro G2 cams for my livestream or getting the S5iix instead (to run my legacy L series canon glass). I wouldn't mind giving that lens a new lease on life pulling BRAW footage. In the meantime, it does alright pulling 5K 4:3 footage (18mp per frame) open gate on the humble G9 from 2018.
Yeah, it depends on the day and how much of the frame the bird is taking up. You don't want the bird moving through a few pixels so if it's close, 1/2000 is gonna be a tad slow. A bird 50 metres away or more, it might be OK. You can push the hell out if it for stationary non moving birds though.
I waited almost a year (10-months) to get this lens. I ended up returning it. It was not as sharp as my 100-500L and with the 1.4TC on par. It is also pretty heavy and BIG. Barely fit in my bag and I have enough bags LOL Also not being able to remove the tripod collar was annoying.
It should be self-evident to familiarize yourself with the lens before ordering it. Complaining afterward about the non-removable tripod collar, the size, or the weight is foolish.
many trusted birding photographers who reviewed this lens agree that it's not as sharp as the RF100-500, but also mentioned that it does come very close. The RF100-500 isn't as sharp as a big prime... Some of the problems with the RF100-500 imho: 1. Can't use a TC for the 100-300 range 2. The lens, without a TC, is too short for birding photography. The RF200-800 isn't that big, nor is it that heavy, but I base that comment on the fact that I use an older mark 1 EF 500f4 prime (3.8kg and bigger than the RF200-800 by a good amount to!).
@@tkdive4784 Familiarize myself?? How? Through UA-cam videos LOL I couldn’t even rent it. And if you read my comment correctly my RETURN was primarily due to the sharpness of the lens, NOT its weight, size, or tripod collar.
@@FQ8 First of all, I’d like to apologize for my English, in case it has caused any misunderstandings. That said, I couldn’t discern any prioritization in your arguments. The simplest and most fundamental step would be to consult the datasheet, which provides details such as size, weight, and so on. The next step would be to watch some UA-cam videos. That’s how I personally learned about the advantages and also one or two disadvantages that aren’t immediately obvious from the specifications or design. Anyone who isn’t aware of the lens’s size and weight before purchasing hasn’t properly informed themselves and is instead buying impulsively or on a whim. Similarly, anyone unaware that the tripod foot isn’t removable clearly hasn’t seriously engaged with the product beforehand. Claiming that the lens is heavy and large either demonstrates, with all due respect, a lack of understanding or is an intentional attempt to make it seem worse than it is. An 800mm focal length with this quality, weight, and size is completely unique in the full-frame sector. Finally, regarding the last point, which you stated was the decisive factor in your decision to return the lens: anyone claiming that this lens isn’t sharp or that the RF 100-500 L with a 1.4x teleconverter attached is sharper is either doing something wrong, deliberately spreading false information, or was very unlucky with a defective “Monday model” lens (200-800mm).
@@tkdive4784 again you fail to read what I wrote in my original comment. I never said it "isn't sharp". I said "not as sharp" and "on par" with the 1.4TC. And I was fully aware of its size and weight. But ALL the datasheet and UA-cam videos in the world are not going to prepare you 'til you have it in your hands. Also, I NEVER complained about its size/weight. I was simply stating a fact. I'm a pretty BIG guy and had no issue handling it. One more thing…again if you’ve read my comment correctly, this was NOT an “impulse buy or a whim”. I waited almost a year and could not even get it as a rental during that period it was so scarce. Now the tripod collar I was aware of and would have dealt with that if the lens sharpness was to my liking. Reading is fundamental…hope you have a great day as I am done replying to you.
Tried this lens for my aviation photography, found the auto focus inconsistent and the image quality so so. Sold it and bought the 100-500 instead witch is way better.
Thanks, the 100-500 is an L lens and it's practically 50% more expensive so it should be better. I think the 200-800 is worth the money. It's a fantastic video lens if you ask me. But yeah, good idea to sell it if you're having issues, it isn't a perfect lens.
I bought this lens as I was expecting a native zoom to perform better on the R5. It is a decent piece of kit, sharpness bites, but f9 can be a bind in low light due to hunting. Try this for my opinion. ua-cam.com/video/cYjNRxQ1oh4/v-deo.html any comments would be appreciated as I am struggling to build up a subscriber base!
Nice video. A good combo for older people who want a long reach and light weight is the R7 and the RF 100-500 mm lens. You get that 160 to 800 mm angle of view.
Definitely need more wildlife on your channel! I may be biased for that though...Also, I think camera lady and I are gonna come to Ireland next fall so we should talk 😁
Hi Brent & Brittany, hoping to one day go on your workshops.. I just ordered this lens. Got an email the other day from Canon that after about a year it was finally in stock. Hoping for the Best 📷 👍🏻
Hey great to hear from you Brent, you're killing it on Insta with those awesome shots. Really making me want to up my game. Yeah, I would like to do more. Kinda thinking of doing a bird photo vlog channel where I can just push out easy to edit vids shot on the Osmo. We gotta hook up for sure and go to some nice locations.
The dry Irish wit is unmatched!!! 🔥🔥🔥
Ha ha, I could write a book on it!
Thanks Hugh, I was going to do a review of the same lens but no need, you have beaten me to it. Great film and I cannot agree more with your opinion. I pushed this lens wanting it to fail. I needed the reach of the 800mm to capture some Bald Eagles (Maryland, USA) of which I found using the RF100-500 was just lacking the reach I needed but as a firm lover of the 100-500 it is staying in my kit bag. At first I was not surprised with what I was getting although the image quality at full stretch is good, not what I was expecting being a non "L" series lens. However after filming the eagles it came out trumps and I got some awesome shots of both Eagles and Cormorants. I shifted to aviation, capturing the Blackpool airshow and WOW, just WOW. The reach of the 800mm made a massive difference and at times I had to pull back to 5/600mm as the aircraft filled the frame. Also a day at Lakenheath filming F-15/35's pretty much convinced me it is a keeper. I was of the mindset to offload the 100-500mm lens but, that 100mm is a big divide on the lower end so guess I will keep both opting to use the 2-800mm for bird/aviation imagery. For anyone who is into bird/aviation photography this lens is a winner, within reach of most budgets without breaking the bank giving you a ton of reach and good image quality along with the flexibility of being a zoom lens rather than a bulky fixed prime. It is a larger lens than the 100-500 but, not noticeably heavier which is a good thing, and after the Blackpool airshow I have to admit my arms were tired after 5+ hours lifting, turning etc so a good gimbal tripod or monopod needs to be considered, for long shooting sessions. 👍
Thanks for your comment Rik, really appreciate it. Glad you're getting results with it. Yeah, a super lens for those air shows and it'll give you the option to zoom out and get nice wider shots too which a big heavy prime wouldn't. A gimbal is a good idea for those shows. I have them but never use them really as I need to be flexible when hiding out under the ghille blanket. Using the gimbal before only stopped me getting fast moving stuff. Sometimes a tripod is better as you can get nicer video shots than with the gimbal.
What about Jets at 35,000ft plus
@@HuFilmsI prefer the 100-500 lens for bird photography and for the close focus distance but I plan to add the 200-800 lens after this review as its great value for the money. Great review 🙂
@@stephenbolger5925 Thanks a lot. Yeah, maybe try it out first and see if it's better than you're 100-500 with the ext.
I’ve had this lens for 3 months now but I’m really impressed by how low light I can still shoot. On cloudy days or when the sun is just about to set. At first I was skeptical but after practical use now I know.
Thanks, glad you like it. You really have to push the slow shutter so BIF can be tricky, but it's still worth it.
Excellent video! Thank you for posting! I really enjoyed your humor at the start of the video.
I'm in the north of Scotland and am considering getting this lens. It's great to see how it works in a similar climate/light conditions to what I'd usually encounter (while reviews from lovely sunny climes are nice, this is more useful). Thanks for the review. Subscription added.
Good to hear from you and that's a lovely part of the world. I do want to book the ferry over and do a week at least camping there. Get the lens as an all rounder then try and get a brighter prime for the dark days! Thanks for the sub, appreciate it!
I have both the 100-500 and the 200-800. My favorite is the 100-500. It is lighter,smaller, and great focusing. The 200-800 get used in more open spaces where getting close is not possible. However when you pair the 100-500 with the R5 mark II with 45 megapixels I can crop a lot. Results are great. The 200-800 is amazing but needs more light and gets heavy during the day!!! Would never part with either. I always take both in the car with the R5 using the 200-800 and the Mark II using the 100-500. So you see where my first choice lies. If you can, always get both!
Brilliant review, Hugh. I too ended up purchasing the 200-800. Keeping the limitations in mind, it is a banger of a deal all considered. I use it mostly for video so that max aperture isn't as big of a deal as it would perhaps be for photography. Keep those videos coming.
Thanks a lot, glad you liked the vid and that you're getting results from the lens. Yeah, the video thing works as you're usually on a slower shutter like 1/125 or so as opposed to 1/2500 at least for BIF images unless it's a Kestrel or a Humming Bird 😂
Thanks Hugh! It looks like a really fun lens. I look forward to trying it at some point.
Hey Josh, I think you'd enjoy it. Not as refined as your 100-500 L but fun all the way for sure. I feel a Christmas catch up chat is on the cards for us!
Hi Hugh. Really enjoyed your video and the “window into your world”, even though I don’t currently own a camera (I used to have a Sony A7R3 and an adapted L mount 70-300mm IS L) so I’m looking at alternatives. I live in the west coast of Scotland by a sea loch so similar environment, with a wonderful mix of sea and field wildlife so what you’re doing is right up my street. Thank you!
Thanks Mike, good to hear from you. I think you'd like this setup if you were to get back into birds. It's a lovely part of the world we live in and from what I hear, Scotland is pretty amazing. I'm likely going to take the ferry over next year and visit Mull etc for some wild camping and bird photos. Maybe try the eagles and harriers.
Hi, I spoke to you when you cancelled your order and said the lens is a lot better than you thought, I am glad you changed your mind, I got one shortly after that video, I also use it more on my R5 MK2 rather than my R3 for light days out when I don't want to carry my huge prime.
I have got some great images with this lens, in good light it gives great detail for the money.
Nice video by the way.
another R3 user here. Lovely camera. I also use a big prime (albeit it a mark 1 EF 500f4 IS L). Have just succumbed and bought the RF200-800, mostly for BIFs of raptors.
Thanks a lot, yeah, I thing I remember the chat from you. I do listen and I'm glad I did. The fact that my camerashop was willing to trade my 800 F11 was a decider too. That made it easier to purchase. Great all round lens and lots of fun to use.
@@HuFilms Hi that was good the shop took in your lens, I managed to off load my 800 F11 to a friend who wanted it, I think the same it's just a good all rounder, I love going to the beach with it for waders, so much easier than using the huge prime and tripod.
@@davepastern Hi, I love my R3, and although I think the autofocus is better on the R5 MK2 I still use my R3 a lot, especially in bad light the files are so clean, I had that EF 500mm it's a great lens, I did sell it to make way for a EF 600mm F4 MKII, but now as long as the light is OK I am finding myself using the RF200-800 more and more, it's just a joy to go out getting reach with what I call a decent weight compared to my 600mm F4 🤣🤣 I also have the RF 100-500 I won't sell it but found it far too short for birds and most wildlife.
@@tonyesposito9602 I am surprised to hear that the AF is better on the R5II. That would be very disappointing as a R3 owner. The R3 was touted by some in Canon, as a flagship camera. And a consumer line should NEVER outperform a pro line. But then, Canon's exceptionally poor treatment via firmware updates for R3 owners has been shocking. I pull no punches. I'm a consumer and I expect better support for a premium product. Canon has dropped the R3 like a hot potato. It was fine for them when the R1 wasn't available and the original R5/6 were inferior in AF performance, but now they have dropped the retail price of a new R3, introduced a R5II with a 45mp BSI stacked sensor (why on Earth would you buy a R3 new now?) which has screwed the used R3 price market very very badly. Pre R1/R5II release, I reckon I'd easily have gotten AUD 6k for my R3. Now it's probably pushing 4.5k...that's a massive drop. And as a R3 user/owner who might be thinking of upgrading, that 1.5k loss is not nice.
The R3 files are clean, the cleanest at high ISO on the market, at least until the R1 was released. I haven't seen a reviewer yet touch on the high ISO performance of the R1. Or the DR performance for that matter.
If I hadn't bought the 500mm prime in August 2022, I'd have switched to a Sony A1 with the 200-600 zoom. In all honesty, I regret not switching back then. I have, in all honesty, been jaded by Canon's support.
I was going to upgrade to the EF 600f4 II, but it was going to take me 3-4 years to save (I'm an amateur photographer and don't have a surplus of income to spare to put away every week/fortnight). Canon will be discontinuing support/service/repairs/spare parts for the mark 2 super tele primes in 2029 btw. I just couldn't invest 9.5k AUD in a lens that if something went wrong, I was screwed. Since I am 55 and due to retire in ~13 years and will be able to access my superannuation savings in full, I decided to buy the RF200-800 to exist alongside my 500mm prime and have both last me until I retire. When I retire, I will be looking to buy a new RF600f4 (probably will be a mark 2 by then, maybe even a mark 3).
I don't mind carrying around a big prime btw, doesn't really faze me, and I have shoulder/wrist/lower back/upper back problems (osteoarthritis, nerve pinches in a variety of spots, hernia and muscle weakness).
The RF100-500 is, imho, too short for birding photography. I shoot at 700mm (500mm + 1.4x TC) and sometimes, it's too short.
I am finding that my 500mm prime is simply not giving me sharp images for BIFs (mostly raptors) and I suspect that it's a 2 factor issue - the fact that it's a lens design released in 1999, and the EF to RF adaptor. I find that the AF and tracking is perfectly fine for perched birds. I am mostly planning to use the RF200-800 for BIFs.
Happy shooting mate!
It is a great lens. Sure, you need decent light, especially for any kind of action, but the kind of light you want to be shooting in anyway will do. It doesn't feel much heavier than my old EF 100-400 4.5-5.6.
Thanks for a very enjoyable and comprehensive review. Sold my old EF 100-400 II a while back. Haven’t been able to decide between this and the 100-500. I think this is probably the better video lens but the 100-500 has the light weight and close focusing versatility if you don’t need as much reach. Can’t decide. I still have my very well used EF 600 f4 L II prime so don’t feel pressured to buy anything right away but I’m getting tired of wrestling with the size and weight. Thanks again.
I shoot at f8...and I use a 500mm prime...f9 is a 1/3 stop down...not an issue, unless you are shooting in a dense rainforest setting. That's where the big 500 prime comes in handy as I can drop the aperture down to f5.6, drop the shutter speed and bump the ISO to get the shot.
I agree, but there's still gonna be better optics on the pro prime lens and as you say, that wide aperture is everything when the light fades.
@@HuFilms a few % better. The RF200-800 is not far behind in terms of sharpness. The coatings are sub-par vs the RF100-500 I believe. Wide aperture is nice for darker shooting environments like a rainforest. I shoot at f8 with my big prime everywhere else. The RF100-500 is faster, but it only goes out to 500mm. The RF200-800 is f8 at 600mm. I think it might be f7.1 at 500mm from memory (I may be wrong). And guess what? The RF100-500 is also f7.1 at 500mm...so no real advantage. A disadvantage in being only 500mm, which from my experiences the past 3 years shooting a LOT of birds, is too short a focal length. And to get the RF100-500 to match the RF200-800 (well, it's not even matching it really, since with a 1.4x TC, it becomes only 700mm) requires the 1.4x TC and at 700mm, it's f stop is f10. Worse than the RF200-800 and 100mm shorter focal length...and even worse, the RF100-500 with the TC only matches the optical quality of the native RF200-800...and the nail in the coffin, imho, is the price of the RF100-500, which has always been massively overpriced imho.
great video Hugh, very in depth info being shared. I'm hoping to get this lens in the new year as a step up from my RF 100-400 which is a good lens but I'm needing that extra reach for bird and general wildlife photos. Plus with my R7 ill have a crop factor so more reach! :) thanks
You're welcome and glad you liked the video. It's gonna give huge reach on the R7 for sure!
Hi Hugh, I photograph seals and birds a lot on the beach and sand in focus rings has been an issue for me. I highly recommend you try using camera and lens covers from Wildlife watching supplies. They do a loose waterproof cover which protects against even heavy rain and blowing sand and keeps my hands out of the wind when working on a tripod. Kevin Keatley is a wildlife photographer and designs all their products. Great review Hugh.
Thanks, yes, I need to look into this. I'll pick one up for sure.
@HuFilms the other thing to mention is that the loose covers they make still do a good job of protecting the lens from scratches. Arguably better than a tight neoprene which can pick up grit which can then rub on the paint.
Love the Corgi
Ha, thanks. So do I. I meet a lot of dogs when out and about and they usually come up to say hi!
I wish they had this lens 3-4 years ago. I had several friends go over to Sony because the 200-600 they had looked better on paper than the 100-500.
Yeah, it can be disheartening to see other brands offer better options. I was really jealous of Nikon shooters with their lenses. The 800 6.3 for example. But they all want Canon focus!
So ur changed your mind 👍. I use this lens for over one year now and I am still not disappoint, but one little thing might be better for the next generation. The zoom turn is just too long. 🤔
Thanks! I did for sure. The throw is long but it doesn't bother me really.
For my uses, mostly small birds, where reach is almost always the priority, the 200-800 is the Holy Grail.
A 600f4 with 1.4x TC is a better option, but it is also much more costly (and larger and heavier). it will outshine the RF200-800 in optical quality and AF performance, especially when paired with a 1 series body (R1 or R3).
@@davepastern well a 600 F4 + a 1.4 teleconverter, giving one 'only' 840 mm, then used on a Full Frame body, still wouldn't be long enough for most of my shooting. I suppose one could use that lens on my lowly R7's.... to get the required reach {1280 mm feels quite normal to me, and it works great}. And even so, you'd have NO versatility that you have with a zoom.....
The R1 and the R3 are both terrible choices for small birds, being both Full Frames AND not having enough megapixels for much cropping either.
If I wanted a Big White lens, I'd own one. If I feel like "I have to have a piece of equipment" I find a way to make it happen. Same when I got the $4K R5. But learned my lesson there too, that "more expensive" doesn't always mean "best for my purposes". My R7's are much better choice > as much of a PITA as they are to deal with :) lol Love / hate these stupid things :) lol
I have day dreamed about an R5 Mk II + a 1200 mm F8... only a $25,000 combo :) ....and heavy, and no versatility..... and "only" F8..... verses my 1280 mm F9, $3400 combo.... I really would like to see how much difference that would make shooting small birds ?
But the reality is, a cheapie body... I dunno.. what's the cheapest ? I had to look it up :) Okay, so a Canon R100 + the RF 100-400.... A $900 combo "not even in good light" {I hate that phrase} but rather, used correctly "from close enough"..... like 6 or 8 ft ;) verses that $25K combo I mentioned, from 75ft, the ultra cheapie combo would do better. Same thing with that cheapie combo, against your 600 F4 + 1.4 TC + R1.
Anyway, enough of all my rambling..... Don't "tell me" > "show me" ! You can see a lot of my work on my photo page, link on my channel :) Its not all my best technical stuff, although their is some of that too, but aesthetics and "lifer" birds add weight also.
@@davepastern Which 600 F4? If you're talking about the RF, that's around 5 times the cost and in a total different category of lenses. Like comparing a daily family car to a sports car.
@@HuFilms any of them, although I'd steer clear of anything earlier than the EF 600f4 II. Yes, they are more expensive. I stated that in my earlier reply. The RF200-800 isn't the "holy grail". There is better. Whether you want to pay for better, is up to you, the individual.
@@Chris_Wolfgram only 840mm? That is more than enough for most birding photography situations from my experiences. I shoot with the 500mm prime and 1.4x TC, so only 700mm and that does the job most of the time. Yes, the 600mm with TC is a preferred option, at least for me personally.
I've survived quite nicely for the past 3 years with the big 500mm prime. Haven't really missed not having a zoom.
There is more to birding photography than megapixels too btw. The R1 and R3 can both take outstanding bird images. Yes, if you need to heavily crop, and I stress the word heavily, then the R5 is a better option with its 45 megapixels. Not gonna lie. But you can get amazing and outstanding images with the R1/3.
Of course, more expensive doesn't always mean better. I'm old enough and have been around long enough to know this. But, those big White primes do offer better IQ than any prosumer/consumer lens can.
From what I am seeing, the R5II is a great camera, but it does have some real problems (DR, high ISO performance both worse than the original R5). I don't care for pre-capture, and rolling shutter doesn't rear its ugly head too often with the original R5 from what I have been able to gauge, so that is on my list of wants and I will be saving for the next 3-4 years to buy 1 on the used market. I'll use it alongside my R3.
I honestly don't think you need any more than a 500 or 600mm with a TC, for 700/840mm reach. Australia has some very small birds. You also don't need to, imho, always completely fill the frame with bird images. Environmental shots can be very effective. I have a shot of a Golden headed Cisticola in reeds along a river bank, which I love. The bird isn't super large in the frame, but you get a strong sense of the birds life from the image.
I also never said that you can't get great images from lower price points either. I actually own a R10 as well btw. If I was going on a budget, it'd be the R10 and EF 400mm f5.6. With the APS-C crop factor of 1.6x, it's 640mm reach with the R10. Add a 1.4x TC and it's a f8 lens, light, very sharp and has superb IQ. And you'd end up with 896mm reach - more than enough from my experiences.
1 of the things I have learned in the past 3 years of birding photography is learning about the bird, and the location, and honing your approach skills are more important than the actual gear itself. As I have paid more attention to those things, my photography has improved. I'm no pro, I'm just an amateur that loves birds, loves nature, and has had a life long interest in photography.
I checked your flickr page out and you have beautiful images mate. You're a bit further down the trail of image quality than I am I think. The main thing is, enjoy your hobby(ies). I find it relaxing to be out in nature, imaging beautiful birds. Even if i miss out on an image, hearing or seeing the birds puts a big smile on my face.
I have a few lifers too, albeit not great images, given their habitat. I got the critically endangered Swift Parrot and Regent Honeyeater in August this year - both critically endangered, with the former between 300-500 in the wild, and the latter under 300 in the wild. Both species will probably, and very sadly, be gone in under 10 years. You can check out some of my images on either my Instagram page (I concentrate more on birds themselves, than actual IQ in the images on Instagram) - brisbanebirdphotos. I also have a website, where I've paid more attention to posting quality images - davepastern (google it, should be the first hit).
@800mm your getting close to a spotting scope. I’d love to have one for video.
Yeah, it's great range, particularly with the crop you can get on an R5 or similar high megapixel cam.
Enjoyed this video, I have the 50-500 older sigma lens as was cheap used, I’m looking for more reach and the sigma 1.4 teleconverter does not work on my lens. How does this lens compare to 150-600 contemporary lens as this lens is still a fair chuck of change ??
Thanks a lot for you detailed review. Quick question if you allow me, how do,you compare it vs a Sigma 150-600? Thanks in advance.
I gotta say, I got a lot of joy out of my 100-400 leica-panasonic MFT lens on my G9. It gives the same reach as this one, although without the benefit of full frame of course. Still a nice lens lens though. It's obvious you're having at least as much fun with it as I had with mine when I first got it. I actually use it as a travel lens. I get great results with it on video. I'm torn between getting two blackmagic micro G2 cams for my livestream or getting the S5iix instead (to run my legacy L series canon glass). I wouldn't mind giving that lens a new lease on life pulling BRAW footage. In the meantime, it does alright pulling 5K 4:3 footage (18mp per frame) open gate on the humble G9 from 2018.
Your mft lens has same field of view, but half the dof.
@@nordic5490 yeah it's functionally double the dof, but I know what you mean. Also less light.
Hey Terence, great to hear from you. Sounds like you're getting good results with that setup. I haven't used MFT or BM cams in a long time now.
@@HuFilms yeah i'm trying to get the most out of the MFT gear I have but I need full frame again. The footage in this video is gorgeous.
Being a slow lens l remain aware of it so if not in flight l shoot 1/320 and l only shoot raptors and waders in flight so just 1/2000 shutter speed.
Yeah, it depends on the day and how much of the frame the bird is taking up. You don't want the bird moving through a few pixels so if it's close, 1/2000 is gonna be a tad slow. A bird 50 metres away or more, it might be OK. You can push the hell out if it for stationary non moving birds though.
Rf 100 - 500 with 1.4 tc way to go. Great video.
Thanks, but that's twice the cost and F10 at 800.
I waited almost a year (10-months) to get this lens. I ended up returning it. It was not as sharp as my 100-500L and with the 1.4TC on par. It is also pretty heavy and BIG. Barely fit in my bag and I have enough bags LOL Also not being able to remove the tripod collar was annoying.
It should be self-evident to familiarize yourself with the lens before ordering it. Complaining afterward about the non-removable tripod collar, the size, or the weight is foolish.
many trusted birding photographers who reviewed this lens agree that it's not as sharp as the RF100-500, but also mentioned that it does come very close. The RF100-500 isn't as sharp as a big prime...
Some of the problems with the RF100-500 imho:
1. Can't use a TC for the 100-300 range
2. The lens, without a TC, is too short for birding photography.
The RF200-800 isn't that big, nor is it that heavy, but I base that comment on the fact that I use an older mark 1 EF 500f4 prime (3.8kg and bigger than the RF200-800 by a good amount to!).
@@tkdive4784 Familiarize myself?? How? Through UA-cam videos LOL I couldn’t even rent it. And if you read my comment correctly my RETURN was primarily due to the sharpness of the lens, NOT its weight, size, or tripod collar.
@@FQ8 First of all, I’d like to apologize for my English, in case it has caused any misunderstandings. That said, I couldn’t discern any prioritization in your arguments. The simplest and most fundamental step would be to consult the datasheet, which provides details such as size, weight, and so on.
The next step would be to watch some UA-cam videos. That’s how I personally learned about the advantages and also one or two disadvantages that aren’t immediately obvious from the specifications or design.
Anyone who isn’t aware of the lens’s size and weight before purchasing hasn’t properly informed themselves and is instead buying impulsively or on a whim. Similarly, anyone unaware that the tripod foot isn’t removable clearly hasn’t seriously engaged with the product beforehand.
Claiming that the lens is heavy and large either demonstrates, with all due respect, a lack of understanding or is an intentional attempt to make it seem worse than it is. An 800mm focal length with this quality, weight, and size is completely unique in the full-frame sector.
Finally, regarding the last point, which you stated was the decisive factor in your decision to return the lens: anyone claiming that this lens isn’t sharp or that the RF 100-500 L with a 1.4x teleconverter attached is sharper is either doing something wrong, deliberately spreading false information, or was very unlucky with a defective “Monday model” lens (200-800mm).
@@tkdive4784 again you fail to read what I wrote in my original comment. I never said it "isn't sharp". I said "not as sharp" and "on par" with the 1.4TC. And I was fully aware of its size and weight. But ALL the datasheet and UA-cam videos in the world are not going to prepare you 'til you have it in your hands. Also, I NEVER complained about its size/weight. I was simply stating a fact. I'm a pretty BIG guy and had no issue handling it.
One more thing…again if you’ve read my comment correctly, this was NOT an “impulse buy or a whim”. I waited almost a year and could not even get it as a rental during that period it was so scarce.
Now the tripod collar I was aware of and would have dealt with that if the lens sharpness was to my liking. Reading is fundamental…hope you have a great day as I am done replying to you.
Tried this lens for my aviation photography, found the auto focus inconsistent and the image quality so so. Sold it and bought the 100-500 instead witch is way better.
Thanks, the 100-500 is an L lens and it's practically 50% more expensive so it should be better. I think the 200-800 is worth the money. It's a fantastic video lens if you ask me. But yeah, good idea to sell it if you're having issues, it isn't a perfect lens.
I bought this lens as I was expecting a native zoom to perform better on the R5. It is a decent piece of kit, sharpness bites, but f9 can be a bind in low light due to hunting. Try this for my opinion. ua-cam.com/video/cYjNRxQ1oh4/v-deo.html any comments would be appreciated as I am struggling to build up a subscriber base!
No problem buddy, I'll take a look and leave you a comment.