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

[Jeff USN Photog 72-76]

I figured it out, in the AF menu the custom functions had "Electronic full time MF" to ON, in Manual it was OFF and Electronic MF focus was set to OFF in the custom modes it was ON
Turned them both on and now the control ring focuses in Manual.

 

[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.

Some test comparisons with the camera-to-subject distance fixed (about 18' or 5 1/2 meters). The white/yellow lure is approximately the size of a small bird. SOOC RAWs, no post processing, tripod mounted, manual exposure and focusing. Full frame images showing uncropped and 100% cropped sections.

RF 200-800 and EF 100-400II both at 400mm:



Now comparing the two with the addition of the EF 1.4xTCIII on the EF100-400II:



To me, the results are SO close that I would call it a tie. One would have to pixel peep all the time to really worry about it.

Interestingly, the RF 200-800 focuses much better (in terms of accuracy). The 100-400, having a mechanical manual focus ring, has a much coarser/looser focus resolution and is not conducive to fine manual focusing when compared to the 200-800. The slightest bump on the ring can knock the focus off the target. Even with spot AF with the R5 and on a tripod, the EF100-400 showed slight back-focusing by just a fraction of an inch (the 200-800 nailed it every time). However in terms of speed of AF, I imagine that the EF100-400 would be faster to acquire the subject because the focus resolution/sensitivity is coarser (although the 200-800 is still very fast - enough for many BIF situations).

 

[Mr Roboto]

Of course one buys the 200-800 to go to 800 so here's that setup at full zoom:


Going to 800mm drops the aperture to f/9. Still very good considering that this is wide open.

 

[Mr Roboto]

Wow I just noticed that you can almost make out the blossoms on our neighbor's pear tree behind me in that reflection - that's some serious resolution for this zoom lens!

 

[Greyswan]

Some test comparisons with the camera-to-subject distance fixed (about 18' or 5 1/2 meters). The white/yellow lure is approximately the size of a small bird. SOOC RAWs, no post processing, tripod mounted, manual exposure and focusing. Full frame images showing uncropped and 100% cropped sections.

RF 200-800 and EF 100-400II both at 400mm:
View attachment 154888
View attachment 154892

Now comparing the two with the addition of the EF 1.4xTCIII on the EF100-400II:
View attachment 154893
View attachment 154894

To me, the results are SO close that I would call it a tie. One would have to pixel peep all the time to really worry about it.

Interestingly, the RF 200-800 focuses much better (in terms of accuracy). The 100-400, having a mechanical manual focus ring, has a much coarser/looser focus resolution and is not conducive to fine manual focusing when compared to the 200-800. The slightest bump on the ring can knock the focus off the target. Even with spot AF with the R5 and on a tripod, the EF100-400 showed slight back-focusing by just a fraction of an inch (the 200-800 nailed it every time). However in terms of speed of AF, I imagine that the EF100-400 would be faster to acquire the subject because the focus resolution/sensitivity is coarser (although the 200-800 is still very fast - enough for many BIF situations).

Thank you for doing this, it's so useful!

I am quite surprised at how close they are - I would give the edge to the 200-800 as it does seem to capture a little more subtle detail in the shiny parts of the lure. The 100-400 without tc is still very close, which is surprising given the age of the glass formulas.
Even with the 1.4 tc, though, there's hardly any difference. Quite fascinating.

How speedy s the AF on the 200-800? I think this is where the newer tech has the edge, especially paired with in-camera ibis as well.

How does the 200-800 feel weight-wise? I have had both the Tamron and Sigma 150-600 lenses and never had a problem handholding them. If the 200-800 is comparable I would have no problems.

I wonder if this thread could be a sticky for a lens-comparison thread as well for those who would like to contribute.

 

[Mr Roboto]

Thank you for doing this, it's so useful!

I am quite surprised at how close they are - I would give the edge to the 200-800 as it does seem to capture a little more subtle detail in the shiny parts of the lure. The 100-400 without tc is still very close, which is surprising given the age of the glass formulas.
Even with the 1.4 tc, though, there's hardly any difference. Quite fascinating.

How speedy s the AF on the 200-800? I think this is where the newer tech has the edge, especially paired with in-camera ibis as well.

How does the 200-800 feel weight-wise? I have had both the Tamron and Sigma 150-600 lenses and never had a problem handholding them. If the 200-800 is comparable I would have no problems.

I wonder if this thread could be a sticky for a lens-comparison thread as well for those who would like to contribute.

You're welcome, Chris. Glad to do it - I was curious as well.

Regarding the weight, they are the same! (to within 25 grams):


EF100-400II: 1640 g
EF 1.4xTCIII: 225 g
EF to RF Adapter: 110 g
Total: 1975 g

RF200-800: 2kg

Swinging the 200-800 around takes a tiny bit more "effort" due to the weight distribution over a longer piece of equipment.


The EF100-400 setup is better balanced due to the position of the left hand with less weight out beyond it.
But that lovely inverted tripod mount on the 200-800 makes a great carrying handle!

I'm not familiar with Tamron and Sigma products so I can't answer that question.

 

[Mr Roboto]

How speedy s the AF on the 200-800? I think this is where the newer tech has the edge, especially paired with in-camera ibis as well.

Focus acquisition is very snappy and fast. No problems with most waterfowl in flight. I will have to put it to the test on faster birds (swifts, swallows) a bit later when they arrive.

As for focus accuracy and tracking, consider this 15 contiguous frame sequence as the R5 tracked the drake mallard as the pair flew directly towards me at full speed:


Each frame has the drake in reasonable focus (this is not my best work - for illustration purposes only ). Picking a random set of six images, here are 100% crops (each 750 x 500 pixels) with no post processing:

 

[Greyswan]

Focus acquisition is very snappy and fast. No problems with most waterfowl in flight. I will have to put it to the test on faster birds (swifts, swallows) a bit later when they arrive.

As for focus accuracy and tracking, consider this 15 contiguous frame sequence as the R5 tracked the drake mallard as the pair flew directly towards me at full speed:
View attachment 155000

Each frame has the drake in reasonable focus (this is not my best work - for illustration purposes only ). Picking a random set of six images, here are 100% crops (each 750 x 500 pixels) with no post processing:
View attachment 155001
View attachment 155002

Thank you! That's quite an amazing sequence considering its coming towards you. I mean, there are enough in focus to get good images from the sequence.

That is one nice lens. Drat, I feel my bank balance squealing...

 

[Mr Roboto]

Thank you! That's quite an amazing sequence considering its coming towards you. I mean, there are enough in focus to get good images from the sequence.

That is one nice lens. Drat, I feel my bank balance squealing...

I'll have a better feel for this lens by this time next month after the warbler migration kicks in.

But so far, I'm impressed. The performance is better than I expected. I'm looking forward to using it in the field and traveling with it!

 

[edmidlifecrisis]

It's a slow beast. Getting heavier to haul around!!! And lens speed is a limitation. But it works.

Little green heron portrait by Ed Spenser, on Flickr

Osprey incoming. by Ed Spenser, on Flickr

Osprey on the nest by Ed Spenser, on Flickr

Eye closeup by Ed Spenser, on Flickr

 

[Mr Roboto]

It's a slow beast. Getting heavier to haul around!!! And lens speed is a limitation. But it works.

Great examples, Ed!

When you say "slow", do you mean the AF or the f/9? Or both? Just curious as I haven't yet tested it on my target subjects.

 

[Cap'n Fishy]

Another comparison...

Speckled wood...

5D IV plus 100-400 II plus x1.4 TC @ 560 mm (Exif says distance = 1.57 m)...

R5II plus RF 200-800 plus x1.4 TC @ 560 mm (Exif says distance = 1.94 m)...

Both cropped for composition.

 

[edmidlifecrisis]

Great examples, Ed!

When you say "slow", do you mean the AF or the f/9? Or both? Just curious as I haven't yet tested it on my target subjects.

The F9 !! Sometimes in low light the AF can slow up too due to the small aperture.

 

[Britain]

@800

 

[Britain]

@800

 

[Mr Roboto]

And so it starts.
Stopped by my favorite migration hotspot yesterday for the first day of service of the 200-800. The early migrators are here already.

Blue-gray gnatcatcher (m):


A drab female Yellow-rumped warbler


male Prairie warbler (a lifer for me)

another gnatcatcher (note the unusual oof branches)


I kept forgetting that this is a zoom. I had it set at 800mm the entire time so tracking these speed demons was a bit tricky at times.
The manual focus was nice to bring it back into range when it sometimes lost track of the birds.

 

[Cap'n Fishy]

I kept forgetting that this is a zoom. I had it set at 800mm the entire time so tracking these speed demons was a bit tricky at times.
The manual focus was nice to bring it back into range when it sometimes lost track of the birds.

I've been finding one of these quite good for finding the birds at 800/1120 mm...

TTArtisan Dot Sight - Bristol Cameras

TTArtisan Dot Sight - Bristol Cameras - Established UK Independent Camera Store With Great Prices - Genuine UK Stock - Based In Bristol City Centre

www.bristolcameras.co.uk

It's not perfect. It really should make a tighter grip on the hot shoe, so you are not having to zero it - then re-zero it so often. But it definitely helps.

It helped me find the birds among the branches a few days ago...

Willow warbler...

Greenfinch...

Goldfinch...

 

[Mr Roboto]

I think I'll just resort to zooming back if/when I remember.
It was funny to me after I got home. I'm used to using the 500+1.4 combo so much that it's typically not that difficult for me. More like "it's right there, why didn't you use it?"

But actually my left hand was pretty busy cranking the focus ring. Not sure why the AF was not working that well for me. Will be tweaking this combo a bit...

 

[Cap'n Fishy]

I think I'll just resort to zooming back if/when I remember.
It was funny to me after I got home. I'm used to using the 500+1.4 combo so much that it's typically not that difficult for me. More like "it's right there, why didn't you use it?"

But actually my left hand was pretty busy cranking the focus ring. Not sure why the AF was not working that well for me. Will be tweaking this combo a bit...

What I was finding, when using the 200-800 with the x1.4 TC, was that I was having to start at 280, find the bird among the branches, crank the zoom all the way to 1120, and sometimes by the time I got there, the bird had moved, and I had lost it. So, crank back to 280 and try to find it, then crank back to 1120... and again it's moved... So, start again...

And, even starting at 280, it was difficult to find the bird when the branches are all so similar-looking through an EVF. This great spotted woodpecker was a nightmare to get homed-in on (it was before I got the dot sight)...

First time I tried the dot sight, I was wishing I had had it when I was trying to get the GSW.

 

[Greyswan]

The F9 !! Sometimes in low light the AF can slow up too due to the small aperture.

Well, it doesn't seem to be too much of a detriment for you! great photos! Are these handheld?