Summary of my RF 200-800mm testing

#101
Klas R said:
It will be very interesting to read the reviews by "Bird-photographers" like Jan Wegener and Whistling wings on the new R5MkII […]
Click to expand...
Jan has an R5II with him on his current trip, but it will take a few weeks for him to return and compile the review. It’s the review I’m most looking forward to, since he isn’t using it to review the camera, he’s trying to take the pictures he wants.
And like you say, @rbielefeld will likely do a usage based review in the near future in the Florida heat.
For short trips, I’m curious what Duade Patton thinks about it, his habit of going out in the morning matches how I would use it in my free time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#102
docsmith said:
I use the R5. As you noted, the hit rate and focusing issues are very much related to "enough light." I have had bright days with great hit rates. Dim days are consistently lower hit rate compared to my other lenses, especially the 500 f/4. But even the occasional bright day, I go back and most images are good, but maybe not great in terms of sharpness. It is what it is. It still works and well enough that I take it out even on some dimmer days.
Click to expand...
Same experience with my R7 and my EF 500mm vs the RF 200-800mm - I guess the R7's AF performance breaks even a tad more down when it is getting dim. That said, I did expect that when I bought this zoom, and I am not disappointed. In bright light, the R7's AF performs OK with the 200-800mm, even @ 800mm, like this BIF example (cropped): _J0A0277.JPG
 
Upvote 0
#103
Thanks for sharing and doing these comparisons, it's very insightful.

As someone with the EF 100-400 II, I passed on the RF 100-500 - but this 200-800 is certainly more tempting. I've been looking for reach beyond 400mm for quite a while now. Wonder how it will do on the original R...
 
Upvote 0
#104
Today I have seen the first video testing & commenting the R5MkII along with the RF 200-800 mm by a well known birdphotographer. It is made by Duade Paton, and its not really a review, rather a first test: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNlsLvtRi64.

Although Duade does have some problems with the camera, I think these are the type of problems that will be fixed in a later software release.
Duade starts of in light conditions where he needs to push the ISO up to 6400. But from what I can see this does not pose severe problems, rather the contrary, he gets excellent shots. The AF seems to cooperate in a nice way.

So from what I can conclude the R5MkII seems to work excellent together with the RF 200-800 mm in all types of light.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
#105
I've now taken a series of shots of perched and flying birds with the lens on the R5 Mark II. My preliminary conclusions are that the AF at 800mm has distinctly improved relative to being on the R5, with much higher consistency of accurate AF for both perched and for tracking in flight as well as speed of acquisition. Interestingly, the RF 800mm f/11 has a larger focussing area on the R5 Mark II.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
#106
AlanF said:
I've now taken a series of shots of perched and flying birds with the lens on the R5 Mark II. My preliminary conclusions are that the AF at 800mm has distinctly improved relative to being on the R5, with much higher consistency of accurate AF for both perched and for tracking in flight as well as speed of acquisition. Interestingly, the RF 800mm f/11 has a larger focussing area on the R5 Mark II.
Click to expand...
I think the larger area started with the R6II/R8, but I don’t first hand experience with that lens.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#107
AlanF said:
I've now taken a series of shots of perched and flying birds with the lens on the R5 Mark II. My preliminary conclusions are that the AF at 800mm has distinctly improved relative to being on the R5, with much higher consistency of accurate AF for both perched and for tracking in flight as well as speed of acquisition. Interestingly, the RF 800mm f/11 has a larger focussing area on the R5 Mark II.
Click to expand...
I've confirmed a real improvement for AF for BIF at 800mm on the R5ii. It latches on to the eye at distances the R5 does not and maintains tack sharp focus.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
Upvote 0
#108
Not RF 200-800mm, but usefully related. The RF 100-500mm works very well with the 2xTC on the R5 and has excellent IQ but the AF is erratic. The AF on the R5ii at 1000mm is very consistent and so makes the shorter zoom even more competitive against its larger sibling for long focal lengths.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#109
AlanF said:
Not RF 200-800mm, but usefully related. The RF 100-500mm works very well with the 2xTC on the R5 and has excellent IQ but the AF is erratic. The AF on the R5ii at 1000mm is very consistent and so makes the shorter zoom even more competitive against its larger sibling for long focal lengths.
Click to expand...
Very interesting and useful information!

When testing my lenses with my TC's I found that the RF 200-800mm delivers OK sharpness with the 2xTC up to around 1350mm. Have you also tried this combination with the R5ii with satisfactory result (AF etc)?, and was there a clear difference when compared to the R5 combination?
 
Upvote 0
#110
Klas R said:
Very interesting and useful information!

When testing my lenses with my TC's I found that the RF 200-800mm delivers OK sharpness with the 2xTC up to around 1350mm. Have you also tried this combination with the R5ii with satisfactory result (AF etc)?, and was there a clear difference when compared to the R5 combination?
Click to expand...
I did a lot of tests with the R5 at end of Jan beginning of Feb. On black and white charts, the longer focal lengths did give small increases in resolution in the 800-1600mm range and the extra pixels brought out some features that were too pixellated at 800mm (I posted the charts earlier at the beginning of the thread). However, if I looked at the even more boring brick wall on which my charts are pasted, the longer focal lengths blurred the subtle shades of reddish brown and the greys of the mortar, presumably because of the loss of contrst.. The 100-500mm at 1000mm was the best. I'll check out the R5ii when I have time. I've never been happy with the RF 1.4x, and I have tried 3 copies
 
Upvote 0
#111
I have read the whole thread, and I am on the fence. I own an R6 Mark II, and I mainly shoot rocket launches (5 to 7 miles away, and mainly at night, but keep in mind rockets are bright when flying), and from time to time birds (I actually love this more and more).
I have rented the 100-500 many times and I love it, I am planning to rent the 200-800 soon. I have heard rumors of a new coming lens 200-500 f/4.
I take planes with the geat to shoot some rockets.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts!!!
 
Upvote 0
#112
Regarding the 200-500 f/4....can't buy a rumor. Not for sale. Always best to buy what is available at the time you need something. New stuff is always coming out, it is easy to have a regret here or there.

Between the 100-500 and 200-800. I've rented the former and own the later. I think you are doing the right thing in renting both. My initial thought would lean toward the 100-500L. It is much more of an all-around lens. Size/weight lets it travel and be used a bit better. Faster AF and the 100-200 focal length adds versatility. The IQ on the 200-800 likely peaks at ~600 mm. That said, a number of us have concluded the 200-800 is still better if you want/need 800 mm. IMO, if 500 is excellent, will be more flexible, and likely use it in a larger variety of instances, without knowing more, I would lean that direction. But if you think you will be >500mm most of the time with the lens with a lot of use out at 800 mm, then the 200-800 may be a better lens dedicated to that niche.

Two very good lenses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Upvote 0
#113
docsmith said:
Regarding the 200-500 f/4....can't buy a rumor. Not for sale. Always best to buy what is available at the time you need something. New stuff is always coming out, it is easy to have a regret here or there.

Between the 100-500 and 200-800. I've rented the former and own the later. I think you are doing the right thing in renting both. My initial thought would lean toward the 100-500L. It is much more of an all-around lens. Size/weight lets it travel and be used a bit better. Faster AF and the 100-200 focal length adds versatility. The IQ on the 200-800 likely peaks at ~600 mm. That said, a number of us have concluded the 200-800 is still better if you want/need 800 mm. IMO, if 500 is excellent, will be more flexible, and likely use it in a larger variety of instances, without knowing more, I would lean that direction. But if you think you will be >500mm most of the time with the lens with a lot of use out at 800 mm, then the 200-800 may be a better lens dedicated to that niche.

Two very good lenses.
Click to expand...
Thank you
 
Upvote 0
#114
docsmith said:
Regarding the 200-500 f/4....can't buy a rumor. Not for sale. Always best to buy what is available at the time you need something. New stuff is always coming out, it is easy to have a regret here or there.

Between the 100-500 and 200-800. I've rented the former and own the later. I think you are doing the right thing in renting both. My initial thought would lean toward the 100-500L. It is much more of an all-around lens. Size/weight lets it travel and be used a bit better. Faster AF and the 100-200 focal length adds versatility. The IQ on the 200-800 likely peaks at ~600 mm. That said, a number of us have concluded the 200-800 is still better if you want/need 800 mm. IMO, if 500 is excellent, will be more flexible, and likely use it in a larger variety of instances, without knowing more, I would lean that direction. But if you think you will be >500mm most of the time with the lens with a lot of use out at 800 mm, then the 200-800 may be a better lens dedicated to that niche.

Two very good lenses.
Click to expand...
Sums up my opinion. I am glad to have both. For insect work, birds in flight and travel, the RF 100-500mm is one of the best lenses out there. For heavy cropping of small birds images etc, the RF 200-800mm wins out, but the RF 2xTC on the 100-500mm is pretty formidable. The RF 200-800mm's AF is significantly improved on the R5ii and now is a competent BIF lens at 800mm and zoomed back to 500mm pretty close to the 100-500mm.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

AlanF
RF 200-800mm vs RF 100-500mm very close up
Replies
9
Views
4K
docsmith
docsmith
AlanF
RF 200-800mm: 500mm vs 800mm etc with Birds
Replies
13
Views
4K
AlanF
AlanF
AlanF
RF 200-800mm vs RF 100-500mm vs RF 800mm on R7 and R5
Replies
63
Views
16K
AlanF
AlanF
Canon Rumors
The Canon RF 200-800mm F6.3-9 IS USM may not ship in quantity until August, 2024
Replies
6
Views
1K
YuengLinger
YuengLinger
fox40phil
RF 500 f4.0L & RF 300 2.8 WHEN!?
Replies
8
Views
887
Speedfinder
S
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Media
Menu