RF 800 vs. RF 600mm

Lester Wareham wrote in post #19454968
Ext rings check!

Looks fine; odd that Canon are not producing their own RF rings; it does not seem to cause obvious aberations.

Awesome, Lester!

I wouldn't worry too much about 3rd party manufacturers for these tubes. I've been using the same 3-tube Kenko DG set for EF lenses for 14~15 years and have never had a glitch. And I use tubes A LOT (more so than TCs) and in every combination of tubes (mostly singly or in doubles, occasionally with all three). The metal mounts show no signs of wear.

I think, for the 600mm, a 50mm extension would make a KILLER butterfly and dragonfly chasing kit. I'll probably get the FotodioX 35mm tube (see Jake's link above) to use in conjunction with my 18mm to accomplish this.

Started looking at youtubes and reviews of the RF 800 again. When I got my R7 I rented both the 600 and 800 and tested them for a week, to me there wasn't that much difference in the IQ but I did find it almost impossible to get BIF in the viewfinder let alone the focus box with the RF800. The RF600 was tough but easier and over the last 7 month I have gotten good with the 600 and that got me wondering if I should get the 800. A lot of my birds are still shot at 150-200 yards. But I also use the 600 out my den window at my feeder birds that are about 12 feet away, with the 600 I have to move back into the den a few feet, unlike the 100-400Lii with it's short MFD. Yes I have a 1.4x iii for both the 100-400Lii and can use it on my 400 f/5.6. so that makes them 560mm. I wonder if now that I am used to using the 600 if acquisition of birds would be easier now with the 800 that it was when I rented it 7 months ago?

I am thinking of maybe trying the 800 again and if I like it now, to get it and sell the 600.

^^^^You could try a 1.4X extender

Lou

Jeff USN Photog 72-76 wrote in post #19478125
Started looking at youtubes and reviews of the RF 800 again. When I got my R7 I rented both the 600 and 800 and tested them for a week, to me there wasn't that much difference in the IQ but I did find it almost impossible to get BIF in the viewfinder let alone the focus box with the RF800. The RF600 was tough but easier and over the last 7 month I have gotten good with the 600 and that got me wondering if I should get the 800. A lot of my birds are still shot at 150-200 yards. But I also use the 600 out my den window at my feeder birds that are about 12 feet away, with the 600 I have to move back into the den a few feet, unlike the 100-400Lii with it's short MFD. Yes I have a 1.4x iii for both the 100-400Lii and can use it on my 400 f/5.6. so that makes them 560mm. I wonder if now that I am used to using the 600 if acquisition of birds would be easier now with the 800 that it was when I rented it 7 months ago?

I am thinking of maybe trying the 800 again and if I like it now, to get it and sell the 600.

You're still likely to have difficulty....it's the mechanics of FoV that are the real problem getting a solid lock on things at that long of a focal length. Still may not be bad to rent one again and try; but, I wouldn't put a ton of stock. I like the lens, and I'm glad that I got it over the 600; but, if I want/need to use something for IF, I'll fall back to the 560 combo.

Snydremark wrote in post #19478209
You're still likely to have difficulty....it's the mechanics of FoV that are the real problem getting a solid lock on things at that long of a focal length. Still may not be bad to rent one again and try; but, I wouldn't put a ton of stock. I like the lens, and I'm glad that I got it over the 600; but, if I want/need to use something for IF, I'll fall back to the 560 combo.

I am testing out my 1.4xiii and 2.0ii on my 100-400Lii today and tomorrow, that gives me 560 @ f/8 and 800 @ f/11, will see how the IQ is.

I will keep the 600 for its lightweight!

lowrider wrote in post #19478177
^^^^You could try a 1.4X extender

Lou

There will be more focus acquisition misses at f/16, though, especially if it is overcast.

Jeff USN Photog 72-76 wrote in post #19478450
I am testing out my 1.4xiii and 2.0ii on my 100-400Lii today and tomorrow, that gives me 560 @ f/8 and 800 @ f/11, will see how the IQ is.

I will keep the 600 for its lightweight!

I would look into the 1.4xR. I like the 1.4 and 100-400 well enough, but I've never taken a shot with the 2x that I ever felt like was even remotely "a keeper" or even 'salvageable'. The 1.4x R and 800, though, I use a lot with acceptable results.

So the RF800 and the 1.4R and 2.0R showed up today, since it is sunny today and Thu and Fri will rain, nice on Sat. I went to the pond. The swans were there so I set up my RF100-400 with the 1.4x and had the RF800 ready to go. They were at 220 yards from the edge of the pond access, which is a typical distance at the 3 ponds I go to.
I tried different combo's of lenses and will go to Norwood Airport on Saturday to do even more. There were mallards at about 175-200 yards and plenty of geese from that distance to 30 feet away from me.

I was impressed with the IQ on the 100-400 at 560mm, it was or seemed the same as the lens without the extender. The RF 800 was sharper than both the 100-400 w/1.4 and the RF600, although the RF600 I have is very sharp. No matter what I will be keeping the RF600 since it is slightly sharper than the 100-400/1.4 although being able to zoom out to find a BIF or plane is nice. I will be posting other images of the RF800 and comparisons but for right now I wanted to post the difference in FOV between these two.

These are both full frame only run through AI Denoise/Clear and LR with a Landscape "magic nature" preset

Went out again this morning with the RF800 f/11 and in morning light the f/11 along with high shutter speeds needed for BIF makes for high ISO's. This one because it was against the sky wasn't that bad.

One thing I did determine is that having used the RF600/11 for 7 months I can get the birds or planes in with the RF800 as well as I can with the RF600. I am leaning towards getting the RF800, then do I keep the RF600 as I am also testing the 1.4x R extender and it seems very good. Rain the next 2 days and then all next week but Saturday is supposed to be clear I hope so! I want to try the lens in good light.

This guy flew by and I got a couple good shots of it.

The two downsides to the RF 800 are the very long MFD and of course the f11. If you can work within these limitations it is a lot of fun to use. This colorful pigeon landed right next to me yesterday and I had to back WAY up to get it in focus. Fortunately it stayed around while I went through these gyrations. I wanted to see how the lens would pick up the colors and textures. It did ok even at the high ISO as it was the end of the day and the light was fading. The R6II pairs well with it as it gives you the full field of AF which was an unexpected and apparently undocumented benefit.

Photo from edmidlifecrisis's gallery.
Image hosted by forum (1197297)

Snydremark wrote in post #19478209
You're still likely to have difficulty....it's the mechanics of FoV that are the real problem getting a solid lock on things at that long of a focal length. Still may not be bad to rent one again and try; but, I wouldn't put a ton of stock. I like the lens, and I'm glad that I got it over the 600; but, if I want/need to use something for IF, I'll fall back to the 560 combo.

I tend to agree with this. I haven't had a lot of good luck with BIF yet with it but for less active subjects it seems to focus pretty well. Especially with the R6II and full field focus ability. I haven't tried a TC and really don't intend to. That's pushing it!! The TC's work great on my fast primes though!!!

Backyard bird during todays snowstorm.

[QUOTE=ct1co2;19314443​] It performs better than the 150-600 + 1.4x, and sometimes the AF is a bit slower vs. the 100-400 + 1.4.

I see that you are using a 150-600 on you R bodies. I assume that it is with a Canon adapter. How good doe you feel that works.

[QUOTE=bigguytf;194815​83]

ct1co2 wrote in post #19314443
It performs better than the 150-600 + 1.4x, and sometimes the AF is a bit slower vs. the 100-400 + 1.4.

I see that you are using a 150-600 on you R bodies. I assume that it is with a Canon adapter. How good doe you feel that works.

Another local photographer here uses a 150-600 on her R5. IT seems to work well for her. She said the prefers it to the 100-400ii with TC. The adapter seems ok. My EF lenses work pretty well with the adapters BTW.

Worked well enough on my R6 (sigma 150-600)