Canon RF 200-800 - Small Aperture Lenses are Frustrating for Wildlife Photography

They added on a turd?

I saw Janine's of Pangoline PS video of 200-800 as well, as probably most of us did, and yeah, she and Sabine are wonderful ladies ☺ but it made me lol when she "unintentionally" smuggle the serious downsides of this lens for wildlife shooters, like 25600 iso in sunny day haha 😆It's a pity that Canon didn't do any lens like wonderful 200-600 of Sony and Nikon, closed constructions, relatively fast at 600/6.3. I know exactly why they didnt - because none would buy RF100-500 f7.1 anymore for it's ridiculous price... So, for now, the only alternative in the range of money for Canon users is to have A7III+200-600 - it's almost the same price as RF100-500 itself 🤭OR be patient and wait.. it looks like in February 2024 there will be first Sigma RF lenses announced, I wonder if there will be any lens that would challenge the 100-500 or 200-800.

I have both RF 600 and RF 800mm f/11 and and both are fine lenses.
I started using them with the R6 but the small AF caused me to upgrade to R6 Mark II where the AF area is far larger at 80% vertical and 80% horizontal. I do also have a R7 where the AF area with these two lenses are 69% horizontal and 80% vertical. which I found ok.

Here in Germany, where I live, it's 500€ more expensive than the Nikon 180-600 and about 900€ more expensive than the Sony 200-600.
Even if they all were the same price, I'd still rather a 600 mm zoom with f/6.3. To me, this makes no sense, should be cheaper than those zoom lenses, and I really don't get why Canon can't just release a 600mm zoom like everybody else. Different isn't always better, and 2/3 more light at 600mm is pretty significant.

Fully agreed - why I held off on the 100-500 and instead went with a (cheaper) Canon 600mm f/4L non-IS. :) Yes, a newer 600/4 would be nicer still - but the old ones still produce way more pleasant shots than modern, slow zooms.

You may not read this, as it's two weeks since the video was posted but here's a little of my experience with Sand Martins etc. I have a Sony A1 with the 600 f4 GM lens. It's a great set-up but those Sand Martins are extremely agile and where I am, they come in very close. The big 600 is too tunnel visioned for using on them, I also have the Sony 200-600 & a couple other of their lens but for these birds, the 100-400 is just about right. Having that in/out zoom is what makes the difference for me. I have no idea what Canon do in that range, but all the best in getting those pictures.

I’m a newbie 6 years of photography don’t know much I always think of upgrading thinking that will fix everything I use an old 7d2 and 100-400mkii for wildlife of course everybody wants reach last year world photography contest the top 10 used cameras at least 10 years old and just so you know I’ve almost been published in Natgeo 14 times it’s a lot more than just your gear and yes I don’t foto bag ❌💀

If I was thinking of getting this lens, I would rent it for a week or two at a time of the year when I would really feel I could the best use out of it and then decide whether to buy or not.
I think this could be an excellent lens for stills and especially for video. Time will tell.

"Frustrating "? That's ridiculous! You KNEW it was a small aperture lens!! If you are a professional, you should have enough money to buy bigger guns. So you got nothing to be frustrated about it. If you are non-professional like me, you would enjoy using this lens and, again, you have nothing to be frustrated.

I contemplated this one for the eventual trips to Boca Chica for Starship launches, but the infrequency with which that would happen doesn't push me to drop $2,000 on this. I'll stick with a 100-400 and 2x teleconverter on my APS-C. It'll get the job done.

Thank You for a great video , very helpful in making a decision on the 200-800mm .. Having already the 100-500mm & the 800mm F11 is as good as it gets.. Can only dream a the 600m F4 !!!

Even 100-400 RF is better than this lens. For 670€.

I'm waiting for full reviews after the lens ships and might rent one for a week to try it out. I'd love a monster $12,000 lens but realistically, the competition in my life is my current setup with Canon's 100-500mm + 1.4x extender. 800mm at f9 might not be great but it's better than 700mm at f10. At least if it's sufficiently sharp.

I'd really like for Canon to open up the RF mount to third parties so Sigma et al. could provide some more options. That's a big benefit of the Sony ecosystem right now.

If anything that frustrated you, then you should do it.

Geez, 25 minutes of blah, blah, blah. All to say it is not as good as a prime that is much more expensive and larger, and not a zoom. Duh.

You're talking about difficult to find Birds .

Could you just Imagine trying to get a photo of a belted kingfisher with this 200 - 800 lens ?? sorry it isn't going to happen with this lens .

Hugh I totally agree with you you've got it right here , Canon is just not getting it they are making lenses to cheap and then the other lenses are WAY too expensive of lenses and not doing what Nikon is doing to make things sensible and affordable .

Would like to see a comparison between the RF 200-800 @ 700mm and the RF 100-500 with the RF1.4 TC @700mm on the R5. That would determine whether the new lens is of interest.

Other concern is that this lens isn't that great at 800mm f/9 either /referring to The-digital-picture test/, as is visibly worse corrected than f11 in terms of CA, while sharpness is only OK.

Tend to agree with you about this lens. I'm retired and have friends who own Harley Davidson motorbikes who only take them out on the occasional dry Sunday afternoon. These bikes are worth more than a Canon RF 600mm F4 L IS Lens but this is their choice. So I'm going to use this as a means of justifying (to my wife) as to why I'm going to purchase a Canon RF 600mm F4 L IS Lens and a Canon R5 Mk2 camera body.

Just bought an Olympus 75-300mm f4.8-6.7 for US120 for a G9. Small, light and ‘good enough’ is my winning criteria. So the hot rate will be 40% and the bokeh, what bokeh?

Go with the Nikon Z System >> for Wild Life especially The NON extending Cheaper and Brighter Nikon 180-600 VR f5.6 - F6.3 (Brighter than the RF 100-500 f7.1 !!!) Kicks the 200-800 RF out the Park

I like your ideas on aperture😅. I dont like J eject cannon if gin i70

Thank you for your thoughts about this lens. I've been waiting for this...with a lot of reviews I felt they were more selling it and not reviewing it. Of course it is a nice lens, but one can't expect it to be great or compairable to prime lenses. I used to buy this sort of lenses before, thinking/hoping it would get me prefect pictures. But they just don't. Of course, it is a peronal and mostly financial decision...but I rather save a little longer and buy me the lens that gives me the quality I want.

Well, if u already have a 500 f/4 ofc u dont need the 200-800, and u were lucky to get it at 3.5K and not 13.5k. But if u just got your camera and have 24-105 only, the 200-800 is a killer at $2K. The only problem with this lens the missing focus ring.

I have RF 800 f11 and the 200-800 has USM instead of STM and (but i'm not sure) a bigger focus area on the R6. These are 2 valid thing to buy it.

I have watched countless wildlife photographers who love this lens. Sure it's not a Luxury lens, and Canon has never claimed it was, but most people who can't afford a ten to twenty thousand dollar lens this one may be perfect. The biggest clue about this lens for me is that it is not an "L" lens. What is so hard to understand about that.

Pangolin Photo Tours is based in Botswana, not South Africa. :)

I totally agree with photographing rarer species, that's why I photography Canadian Geese, because no one photographs them 🤣🤣🤣👍 That Sigma 500mm F4 is a lens I've had my eye on for awhile, it's not cheap and I just haven't pulled the trigger. Interesting to hear about the focus speed when adapted to the new Canon RF Cameras.👍

I usually shoot at f5.6-f8 with my EF 600mm f4, so I see no problem

Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts about this lens. Your video is probably the only really honest review I've seen so far.

I have the RF 100-500mm and I owned the EF 600 f/4 III, but sold it to pay of the remainder of the mortgage on the house a couple of years ago. I would be looking at old pics and when one stuck out as an impressive pictures it was invariably the 600mm f/4. After 2 years I again had the finances to buy the RF 600 f/4 this past month. When I went into the store the manager asked if I had considered the RF 200-800. I said yes, but the images you get with the 600 f/4 can not be compared. It is also the only lens I feel comfortable with using the 1.4 extender on and getting acceptable results. Essentially it becomes an 840mm f/5.6.

I've also heard the argument that a lot of people shoot with their 600mm f/4 stopped down, but the more light the faster it focuses, even if you are shooting stepped down. I hear the same thing about the f/1.2 or f/1.8 vs f/4 primes. True, you may shoot them at f/4 or 5.6, but the focus is going to be a lot better on f/1.2 stepped down to f/4, than an f/4 shot at f/4. The 2 and 1/3 stops ISO gain also means means an ISO 6400 becomes ISO 1280. Of course the 200-800mm is lighter, but if I am never going to really like the photos, what is the point? I kept making the same mistake by getting crop bodies rather than better glass or getting closer. I did get some excellent pics with my 80D, 90D, and R7, but at the end of the day my personal keeper rate was much less than those of the full frame camera bodies.

Also, the diffraction limit on the R7 is about f/6.3, and the R5 is about f/9. The 100-500mm is just above the diffraction limit on the R7, but the 200-800mm is really pushing it if you want to crop a lot.

Rf800 f11 for videography of birds with the canon r7...
What are your thoughts?

I love the Sony 200-600/5.6/6.3...cheers

I cancel my order, too. There no good pictures in the net taken with that lens.

I am looking at 500mm f4 ef is version 1. Same money as an Rf 100-500 etc. Apples and pumpkins comparison. You need both.

Whoa! Those f4 photos make the point!

So here we are 8 months later, and although Canon still hasn't gotten off of their @$$ and made this lens more available, their are a LOT of folks out there, who have used, owned, and reviewed it. Seems to be really solid. I myself rented it for a week, and I'd say, it is > the Holy Grail for small bird photography. It is going to be SO much more useful than any $12K or $16K Big white prime, ever could be.
I'm just curious if you still think it was a good decision to cancel your order ? Or if you might reorder it ?

It’s not much of a budget lens if spending nearly $2,000 turns out to be a disappointment. I think I’ll stick with my RF 100-500 and if necessary,i will just get a 1.4x and enjoy better image quality over the extra 100mm reach. Thanks for your insight, not everyone will agree with you but you certainly raised some excellent points.

I am a hobbyist and have been using this lens for 2 months. I have taken a lot of great photos from it, yeah F9 is frustrating but denoise is amazing now. Background is indeed an issue when since we are unable to control the distance between the subject and background, but overall I am still very happy with it. The sharpness is amazing, and I actually zoom out often at 300-600 for larger birds. Its also relatively light. I bought this on discount and I couldnt be happier with it.

Thank you for the honest video. I am just starting, about to retie from my current job and wanted to focus on something else. I already made a mistake buying the EOS R8 but looking to build up my lens base. This help, I almost purchased the 200/800 guess I am going to keep looking :) Great video!

Fabulous lens for bird photography. Got it just after release. Used this lens to replace my RF 100-500mm lens. No complaints and no regrets.

When Canon has their biannual sales, do they ever discount the RF 600 f/4?

Hello I have both canon 100 to 500 and 200 to 800. When I look at my photos on my computers you can not tell what lens was used for that shot.

Its just cheaply made crap at the ene of the day, doesnt even have proper lens coatings.