RF 200-800 f/6.3-9 IS Nov 2, 2023 ??

I have to admit that with the 600/11 at 300 yards the swans are soft due to unstable air.

On cropping the 100 mm I do that now with the 100-400Lii. I have a 2xiii extender but it is definitely softer than or 1.4 on any lens and the 1.4 introduces some softeness as well.

I can use the 200-800 or 30 days as long as I am careful with it.

Starting to wonder it is the be all and end all to distance or whether to add a 800/11 (used) to the stable instead) the only thing about the 800 is that it is hard to get BIF in the FOV, the 600 is much better but still can be tough.

agonizing wondering and thinking...

DO I stay with what I have or get the lens. I do find that the 150-600C tends to be a lot of weight and the new one is heavier 4.5lbs to 4.3lbs but about the same.

the more I think the less sure I am....

It is. If I didn't have the 100-500 and an RF TC I'd likely be all over it. I always love a new toy but I'm not sure how much I will gain if trade for it.

C Scott IV wrote in post #19575583
This lens is very interesting to me.

A few years ago I bought the EF 100-400L II because I had an 80D and there was no indication that a crop R was ever going to be produced. I use it on the R7 for wildlife and occasionally on the R for landscape. It almost always has the 1.4x III on it so I am not concerned about the aperture range of the 200-800. Pretty much the same aperture range I am working with now. These R cameras don't need as wide apertures to focus as the DSLs did.

I would lose 60 mm on the wide end but gain 240 mm on the long end. Normally I have to crop but I am not shooting great enough distances for atmospherics would come into play.

The lens is a bit heavier but when you factor in the RF adapter and 1.4x III on the 100-400L II it isn't all that much different.

After preordering the R7 and waiting months, I will probably wait for it to be readily available.

What I did with both the R7 and th RF 600/11 and 800/11 is I rented them for 2 weeks to see what I thought. I loved the R7 and thought the 800/11 was too tough to get BIF in the FOV so went with the 600/11.

as I mentioned I am starting to have second thoughts especially since my main reason was to try to shoot ducks and geese at 250-300 yards across the pond and while it can be done the atmosphere is a real limiting factor.

Here is one of my test shots with the RF 600/11 I can't believe I deleted all my 800/11 test shots recently when I was looking for space and hadn't kept the lens

full frame and PP

https://www.youtube.co​m/watch?v=ylPleU-64GE

Jeff USN Photog 72-76 wrote in post #19575591
I have to admit that with the 600/11 at 300 yards the swans are soft due to unstable air.

On cropping the 100 mm I do that now with the 100-400Lii. I have a 2xiii extender but it is definitely softer than or 1.4 on any lens and the 1.4 introduces some softeness as well.

I can use the 200-800 or 30 days as long as I am careful with it.

Starting to wonder it is the be all and end all to distance or whether to add a 800/11 (used) to the stable instead) the only thing about the 800 is that it is hard to get BIF in the FOV, the 600 is much better but still can be tough.

agonizing wondering and thinking...

DO I stay with what I have or get the lens. I do find that the 150-600C tends to be a lot of weight and the new one is heavier 4.5lbs to 4.3lbs but about the same.

the more I think the less sure I am....

I love the idea of a cheap 800, but the f11 is something I can't really move past. I wouldn't like the depth of field on the images, I lprefer to have some control over bokeh. That's personal to me though, others may be fine with it.

greyswan wrote in post #19575721
I love the idea of a cheap 800, but the f11 is something I can't really move past. I wouldn't like the depth of field on the images, I lprefer to have some control over bokeh. That's personal to me though, others may be fine with it.

Np control but not too bad.

https://www.fredmirand​a.com …52/0?keyword=80​0#15897059

digital paradise wrote in post #19575722
Np control but not too bad.

https://www.fredmirand​a.com …52/0?keyword=80​0#15897059

It's a great lens, there's absolutely no doubt, especially at that price. Years ago I would have drooled over an 800 lens, lol. And would get it today if that were my only option budget-wise. There are photographers better than me who are doing great things with it.

I intend to use the 800mm long end on a subjects that are not far, and keep it on 200-600mm for BIF that are not far also. I have the EF100-400mm II along with my EF600mm II but sometimes my zoom lens I feel it is not enough reach for BIF so the 200-800mm will be paired with my prime really well. EF100-500mm the price is too much for me . And it just a tad sharper than my EF100-400II IMO except that is an RF lens. Pre-ordered 10pm PST Nov 1, hopefully it will be here by December .

Heat distortion, atmospheric effects you get all of these too on $12K telephoto lens on any brand.

Peter2516 wrote in post #19575754
Heat distortion, atmospheric effects you get all of these too on $12K telephoto lens on any brand.

I thought if you had the money for one of those lenses you could hire someone to get rid of the atmospheric distortion before you shoot.

still agonizing. I have the EF100-400Lii and in a head to head test of my lens against a rental 100-500 the 100-500 was a "tad" sharper and a bit more reach but as a hobbyist after PP not that much difference.
I am wondering about the 100-500 vs 200-800, I already have a RF1.4x but the 100-500 can only be used down to 300mm with the 1.4

I also have a 90D and 7DII (7Dii for wet or spray off the rocks near Newport RI) and do use them along with my R7 and R6II, so I like to have lenses for them. In fact right now I am shooting birds out my den window with the 90D and 400/5.6.

Regardless of what lens I get I will be selling my 150-600C and probably the 600/11, a question would be the 100-400Lii if I opted for the 100-500 I would sell the 100-400Lii but with the 200-800 not sure although probably should sell it.

again as I say I am trying to decide between the 200-800 and the 100-500....


would the IF on the 100-500 (and also with 1.4) be better for BIF than that on the 200-800?

digital paradise wrote in post #19575767
I thought if you had the money for one of those lenses you could hire someone to get rid of the atmospheric distortion before you shoot.

Ha ha. Love it.

Tough decision to make, I have the 100-400mm II and that’s why I never upgraded to RF100-500mm with just a tad sharper and more money I can’t justify the extra 100mm reach even though it is an RF lens and L glass. But with 200-800mm more reach (extra 300mm) will come handy plus it is less money. I am glad it is 1899 and not $2k or 2.2k that first reported. I know this lens is not an L but it is just missing a 2 main factor to become an L glass.

Also there is also no focus distance limiter switch which I find very useful. Reduces hunting. Maybe there is some programming answer to that we are not aware of.

As for IS.

I.S. is measured at 7.5 stops at 200mm and 5.5 stops at 800mm. However, there's no IS mode switch on the barrel as the lens is designed to automatically detect panning and adjust IS as needed.


Source

https://www.dpreview.c​om …super-telephoto-zoom-lens

However they make mistakes. I have not found this at the Canon site yet. eManual is not out yet. For the 24-105 2.8 I noticed they listed the zoom as rotary extended but it's rotary internal. There is a link if you can spot an error so I used it. I just had a look and I see they corrected it.

I've never liked that switch on any lens. Pain in the you know what. You would think that after all those years Canon could have offered a programming option. Voice activated would be best so there is a fast IS transition between a perched and flying bird. Canon has never even added it to the EXIF data. You have to get 3rd support for that. Jeez. Kind of important info but I've stopped using the 3rd party app. Too inconvenient.

I'm on the fence about the focus ring. I never use manual focus unless I need to correct it when the computer messes up and is all over the place. It may be a pain if you use it for dual functions.

I do like the additional function buttons on the lens. There are never enough buttons.

I know that when I held a L lens and a non L lens to my eye I could see the difference. Just something it beyond better contrast and I could never find the words to describe it. I don't much about modern glass coatings to really say. I've never researched it.