Canon RF 200-800mm f/6.3-9 IS USM

[Mr Roboto]

more shots of willow
(sorry - my warblers, kinglets, flycatchers, et al are still a few weeks out)

 

[Mr Roboto]

Interestingly, the minimum focusing distance varies a LOT with this lens.
I measured 17 1/4" working distance (from the front end of the lens to subject) at 200mm while it is 108 1/2" at 800mm.

Good to remember when something unexpected lands close (like a dragonfly or butterfly). Quicker to use the zoom to achieve focus instead of moving back unless one has a very specific angle of view in mind to control the background.

 

[Mr Roboto]

As I mentioned earlier, the sharpness wide open is impressive.

I did a quick test - tripod mounted, near minimum focusing distance, timer delayed shutter actuation with electronic shutter. SOOC RAWs with no correction, no sharpening, no noise reduction.

 

[Cap'n Fishy]

Interestingly, the minimum focusing distance varies a LOT with this lens.
I measured 17 1/4" working distance (from the front end of the lens to subject) at 200mm while it is 108 1/2" at 800mm.

Good to remember when something unexpected lands close (like a dragonfly or butterfly). Quicker to use the zoom to achieve focus instead of moving back unless one has a very specific angle of view in mind to control the background.

Yep - been working on that. See post #696 on previous page.

I was out trying for butterflies again yesterday. With x1.4 TC on. I got caught out on my first speckled wood by being too close to it at full zoom. While I was still trying to decide between whether to step back at 1120 mm or to reduce zoom until I got focus, it flew off!

But after that, I tuned-in to switching between less zoom and standing further back. Staying further back has its advantages in not spooking the butterfly while you are creeping up on it. But that is at the expense of it being harder to keep focus on the eye at 1120 mm. The animal eye detection on the R5 II doesn't seem to work with butterflies - not from behind anyway, which happened to be what I was mostly faced with. So, I switched to locked single point, so I could place it where I wanted it.

I took about 100 frames, of which I kept 6, based on sharpness of the eye at 100% (ignoring focal length and distance). The focal length of the 6 keepers were:

1120
1120
560
1120
840
754

I set the 560 (400 mm on the lens) one knowing I was too close for 1120. The last 2 were a case of being too close and pulling back the zoom until I got focus.

Here's the last 2, both of a comma (first one decidedly dog-eared!)...





What would be interesting would be to see a resolution comparison between the RF 200-800 @ 400 (or 560 mm with x1.4 TC) versus the EF 100-400 II @ 400 (or 560 with x1.4 TC), both at minimum focusing distance.

 

[Mr Roboto]

Great info, Col, thanks again for the examples!

What would be interesting would be to see a resolution comparison between the RF 200-800 @ 400 (or 560 mm with x1.4 TC) versus the EF 100-400 II @ 400 (or 560 with x1.4 TC), both at minimum focusing distance.

That would be interesting especially since I gave up using the 300mm f/4 with extension tubes for field macro work in favor of the 100-400II for when I'm chasing more animate subjects (the RF 100 is better for more controlled/deliberate shooting at higher magnifications).

Since I don't have a 1.4x for RF, I would be interested in doing a straight 400mm comparison with both lenses before the dragonfly/butterfly/frog season begins. If the results are comparable, the 200-800mm would be an all-around wildlife lens for me. Trips to Central America with just the 200-800mm would be ideal since birds/hummingbirds/butterflies/frogs/millipedes/monkeys could all be easily captured without ever changing lenses or adding tubes/converters. And transporting a relatively small package would be a super bonus

 

[Cap'n Fishy]

Great info, Col, thanks again for the examples!


That would be interesting especially since I gave up using the 300mm f/4 with extension tubes for field macro work in favor of the 100-400II for when I'm chasing more animate subjects (the RF 100 is better for more controlled/deliberate shooting at higher magnifications).

Since I don't have a 1.4x for RF, I would be interested in doing a straight 400mm comparison with both lenses before the dragonfly/butterfly/frog season begins. If the results are comparable, the 200-800mm would be an all-around wildlife lens for me. Trips to Central America with just the 200-800mm would be ideal since birds/hummingbirds/butterflies/frogs/millipedes/monkeys could all be easily captured without ever changing lenses or adding tubes/converters. And transporting a relatively small package would be a super bonus

For sure. I never had to worry about being armed for either birds or butterflies when I used the EF 100-400 II plus x1.4. It did both, as I had no other options! I still have it, so could use it - and it would be fine for butterflies - but I would be missing the chance to double the focal length to 1120 for birds, which I can now do. Yesterday was a good example - midway through getting the butterfly shots, a wren appeared briefly. I wasn't close to it, but as it was as clean a shot as you are going to get, I had to go for it...




I know that is a better shot than I would have got from that distance with the EF 100-400 plus x1.4.

I think I am pleased enough with the butterfly results from the 200-800 at various focal lengths for me to carry on with it for now, anyway.

 

[Mr Roboto]

That's a great shot! Wrens are pretty shy and can be elusive to photograph.
Definitely rare to see them out in the open like that.

 

[MSH411]

Long shot with a deep crop but these two wondered thru behind our house.

 

[Cap'n Fishy]

That's a great shot! Wrens are pretty shy and can be elusive to photograph.
Definitely rare to see them out in the open like that.

They seem to be particularly shy and elusive this year - ever since I got the 1120 mm combo!

 

[Cap'n Fishy]

The 200-800 (with x1.4 TC) has opened up a whole new world to me. Shimmer! It seems like every second day you take shots, further than about 20 yards away, at 1120 mm, they are destroyed by shimmer: distortion of the air.

An example from today - it's a doozy!

 

[West Coast Birder]

Interestingly, the minimum focusing distance varies a LOT with this lens.
I measured 17 1/4" working distance (from the front end of the lens to subject) at 200mm while it is 108 1/2" at 800mm.

Good to remember when something unexpected lands close (like a dragonfly or butterfly). Quicker to use the zoom to achieve focus instead of moving back unless one has a very specific angle of view in mind to control the background.

View attachment 153169View attachment 153170

What am I looking at here? Something to do with fishing?

 

[Cap'n Fishy]

What am I looking at here? Something to do with fishing?

Orvis Battenkill...

Thought everyone was familiar with an Orvis Battenkill?

 

[Mr Roboto]

Still waiting for the birds to arrive so I had some time to continue doing more testing to explore the strengths and weaknesses of this lens.

As @Cap'n Fishy mentioned in post #704, I too was curious to see how it compared with the EF100-400II at 400mm for close-up shooting. Just some quick one-off shots to compare shooting distances and resolution at 400mm focal length. RAW images shot full-frame (R5) with no post processing (other than conversion to JPEG and resize for the forum). A 100% crop of the focus point is included with each lens sample.

The RF 200-800mm at 400mm at closest focusing distance and max aperture (f/7.1):


Now the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II at 400mm at closest focusing distance with matching f/7.1:


Just for kicks, I threw in the RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM at 400mm (forgot that max aperture at 400mm is f/8 for this lens):


I know the last two seem counterintuitive since the EF focuses closer than the RF version yet the subject size is smaller.

The results weren't too far from what I expected in terms of sharpness.
I was more interesting in the minimum working distance/subject size comparison.

Any thoughts?

 

[Mr Roboto]

I must be really bored because I also compared it with the RF 600mm STM

Again, same setup as previously stated. Checking minimum focusing distance/sharpness/subject size at 600mm:




Pretty large differences in all parameters (focusing distance, sharpness, and subject size).
I am impressed with the 200-800. The RF600mm is still a great compact lens.

 

[Mr Roboto]

Last test - I promise!

Comparing again with the RF600 STM of a subject that is roughly the same size and distance to what I normally shoot (small birds). That knot in the fence is approximately the size of a bird's head. I set the 200-800 at f/11 to match the 600mm. Again these are SOOC RAW images shot full-frame (R5) with no post processing (other than conversion to JPEG and resize for the forum) and the cropped sections are 100% crops (600 x 600 pixels).



I have to say that I'm impressed with the resolution coming out of the 200-800mm. Canon did good.
Glad I bought it. Now waiting with great anticipation for the migration to kick in. Let's get on with it!

 

[Greyswan]

Still waiting for the birds to arrive so I had some time to continue doing more testing to explore the strengths and weaknesses of this lens.

As @Cap'n Fishy mentioned in post #704, I too was curious to see how it compared with the EF100-400II at 400mm for close-up shooting. Just some quick one-off shots to compare shooting distances and resolution at 400mm focal length. RAW images shot full-frame (R5) with no post processing (other than conversion to JPEG and resize for the forum). A 100% crop of the focus point is included with each lens sample.

The RF 200-800mm at 400mm at closest focusing distance and max aperture (f/7.1):
View attachment 154416

Now the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II at 400mm at closest focusing distance with matching f/7.1:
View attachment 154418

Just for kicks, I threw in the RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM at 400mm (forgot that max aperture at 400mm is f/8 for this lens):
View attachment 154423

I know the last two seem counterintuitive since the EF focuses closer than the RF version yet the subject size is smaller.

The results weren't too far from what I expected in terms of sharpness.
I was more interesting in the minimum working distance/subject size comparison.

Any thoughts?

I've been pondering the RF 200-800 as a replacement for the EF100-400mkii so this is quite useful. Have you tried reducing the EF image down to the same size as the 200-400 to see how the detail compares at the same size, not just the minimum fd? Or shooting at same distance for both to compare detail?
The 200-800 certainly is nice though.

 

[Mr Roboto]

I've been pondering the RF 200-800 as a replacement for the EF100-400mkii so this is quite useful. Have you tried reducing the EF image down to the same size as the 200-400 to see how the detail compares at the same size, not just the minimum fd? Or shooting at same distance for both to compare detail?
The 200-800 certainly is nice though.

Good point about testing these at the same shooting distance. I was also thinking about putting the 1.4x on the EF and testing them both at 560mm since that was also the setup I sometimes shot before when I didn’t want to carry the big white prime.

I’ll see if I can get to it before the weekend is up.

 

[GeoffSFAs10]

Its out of stock... BUT

this lens now shows up on Canon's refurbished site. 1709 for it, seems like might as well just buy one new.

 

[Jeff USN Photog 72-76]

I have a question on the control/focus ring on the 200-800. On my R6ii it works fine, when the AF/Control/MF switch is set to AF the ring focuses when turned, when set to control I have it set to change the AF method and MF is as it says Manual Focus.
With my R7 however, MF focuses manual as expected and "control" changes the AF method, BUT AF does nothing. For my other RF lenses I have the control ring set so it controls AV and they work fine but the 200-800 doesn't do anything when turning the control ring when the switch is set to AF.

Has anyone had this issue with this lens and the R7?

 

[Jeff USN Photog 72-76]

Really weird I must have something set up wrong on the 200-800, in C1 C2 and C3 the control ring does the focusing and it does it in "P" although I never use that. In M it does nothing.
I normally use one of my 3 custom modes, almost all the time it is just this weekend I was using manual and that is when I noticed it. As I said it works with the R6ii but that has an extra dial setup (4 vs 3 for the R7). My other lenses such as the 100-500 have separate focus rings so not an issue.

I will have to spend some time comparing the two cameras side by side I guess.