One Day with the RF 200-800 f/6.3-9 IS USM.

#41
docsmith said:
There seems to be enough interest, I thought I'd share this part of my evaluation of the RF 200-800.

Limited to my backyard set up that consists of my feeder with a stand that are about 30 ft away from my office window. The Juncos have been hitting my feeder a lot lately, so using the R5 I took out the 200-800, Sigma 150-600S, EF 100-400 w/1.4tc, EF 500 II, and EF 500 II w/ 1.4tc. I took about 40-60 shots with each set up within about 25 mins. The settings were 1/1000, f/8 or f/9, and ISO 1000. These are unprocessed images scaled in LR to 1500x1000. Eye-AF set to animal in servo was used.

Cropping in for some Junco headshots:

A)
View attachment 214062

B)
View attachment 214063

C)
View attachment 214064

D)
View attachment 214065


E)
View attachment 214066

F) (bonus)
View attachment 214067


The key:
A: RF 200-800 (maybe focused just in front of the eye, but I saw this several times)
B: EF 100-400 II w/ 1.4tc
C: EF 500 II
D: Sigma 150-600 Sport
E: EF 500 II w 1.4tc
F: RF 200-800...I like this one a lot.

I am impressed. I still prefer the 500 II w/1.4tc, but the RF 200-800 was close enough I am very impressed.

But...at least for this one guy on one afternoon with a bunch of lenses and a camera, this test also elucidated key difference. Hit rate.

This is very subjective, and a small sample size, but under ~EV 13 conditions, out of the 30-60 images I took with each combination, I considered the following to be "sharp":

Sigma 150-600S: 87%
EF 100-400 II w/ 1.4tc: 76%
EF 500 II: 100% :)cool:)
EF 500 II w 1.4tc: 87% (I shot less with this combination and hit one bad stretch)
RF 200-800: 68%

So, pretty good light, and the RF 200-800 was most prone to lose focus. Checking on the conditions Sunday, it was EV 11 during the snowstorm and I still got good images, but the AF did struggle.

Had the RF 200-800 been available when I was upgrading into the super-telephoto range...it would have been my first super telephoto lens. I can easily recommend it. The IQ is great. But if AF/hit rate is critical, just be aware that is where this lens struggles especially in lower light.

I am still going through images from the storm, but I did like this one (taken with RF 200-800):
View attachment 214072
Click to expand...
Great post! I learned a lot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
#42
Thanks. Glad you all thought that was an interesting comparison. Looking at it this morning, I think the Sigma 150-600S and EF 100-400 w/tc images were tighter crops than the others. While I am not trying for perfection, I did just edit those.

And...to both show bokeh and so you can see what tight crops those headshots were here are the uncropped images:

RF 200-800 (1/1000, f/9, ISO 1000)
Headshot 200-800-2596.jpg

EF 500 II w/1.4tc (1/1000, f/8, ISO 1000)
Headshot 500 14tc-2651.jpg

Downsized in LR. Unprocessed in every other way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Upvote 0
#43
Making my way through phots I took during the snow storm. I often do not get Blue Jays at my feeder, they tend to stay in the trees. So I was happy to get these:

small--3.jpg

small--5.jpgsmall--6.jpg

And I like this Goldfinch perched in a nearby Butterfly bush:
small-1680.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 9 users
Upvote 0
#44
So a little more light today and down to ISO 3200 on the R7 for the hummers. These shots are all 100% crop and other than running "enhance" to get rid of the noise and a few minor lighting adjustments, these are default LR processing with no additional sharpening. The fist two are at 800mm and the last (the bird with big ears) is at the other end at 200mm. This 200-800 is a very sharp lens over the full range.



E57A1994-Enhanced-NR.jpgE57A1984-Enhanced-NR.jpgE57A1931-Enhanced-NR.jpg
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: 6 users
Upvote 0
#47
Here is a comparison test against the EF 800 f/5.6L. All shots are at 1120mm on R7. The big L has the EF 1.4x III attached and the RF 200-800 has the RF 1.4x attached. The air was good, but the backdrop clouds were changing rapidly, so ignore the sky. I shot the L at f/9 and f/11 as I have found that it is not all that happy at f/8 with the extender and it peaks at f/11. The big lens was on a tripod (because I can't meaningfully hold it) and the 200-800 shots were handheld. I think this speaks very well for the 200-800 given that the R7 is an acid test for resolution. The power pole is about a mile from the house, so this should translate well to Astro use. All shots are default LR processing with no adjustments and 100% crop.


200-800 at 1120mm f/13, 1/1000, ISO 400

E57A2023.jpg

EF 800 f/5.6L at 1120mm f/11, 1/320, ISO 100

E57A2033.jpg


EF 800 f/5.6L at 1120mm f/9, 1/1000, ISO 200

E57A2029.jpg
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
#48
Dragon said:
Here is a comparison test against the EF 800 f/5.6L. All shots are at 1120mm on R7. The big L has the EF 1.4x III attached and the RF 200-800 has the RF 1.4x attached. The air was good, but the backdrop clouds were changing rapidly, so ignore the sky. I shot the L at f/9 and f/11 as I have found that it is not all that happy at f/8 with the extender and it peaks at f/11. The big lens was on a tripod (because I can't meaningfully hold it) and the 200-800 shots were handheld. I think this speaks very well for the 200-800 given that the R7 is an acid test for resolution. The power pole is about a mile from the house, so this should translate well to Astro use. All shots are default LR processing with no adjustments and 100% crop.


200-800 at 1120mm f/13, 1/1000, ISO 400

View attachment 214121

EF 800 f/5.6L at 1120mm f/11, 1/320, ISO 100

View attachment 214120


EF 800 f/5.6L at 1120mm f/9, 1/1000, ISO 200

View attachment 214118
Click to expand...
I had done a series of tests with the R5 + 200-800+1.4xTC at 1120mm vs R5 + 100+500+2xTC at 1000mm, with DPP4 + DLO + denoise using Topaz, but had not uploaded them, which I have now done and added to https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...m-vs-rf-800mm-on-r7-and-r5.43183/#post-983088.

The-digital-picture has the 1000mm distinctly sharper, and I find better contrast and sharpness as well.
www.the-digital-picture.com

Canon RF 100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM Lens Image Quality

View the image quality delivered by the Canon RF 100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.
www.the-digital-picture.com www.the-digital-picture.com
 
Upvote 0
#49
AlanF said:
I had done a series of tests with the R5 + 200-800+1.4xTC at 1120mm vs R5 + 100+500+2xTC at 1000mm, with DPP4 + DLO + denoise using Topaz, but had not uploaded them, which I have now done and added to https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...m-vs-rf-800mm-on-r7-and-r5.43183/#post-983088.

The-digital-picture has the 1000mm distinctly sharper, and I find better contrast and sharpness as well.
www.the-digital-picture.com

Canon RF 100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM Lens Image Quality

View the image quality delivered by the Canon RF 100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.
www.the-digital-picture.com www.the-digital-picture.com
Click to expand...
So far, is the 100-500 with 2x on the R5 likely to give the best results of what is available (aside from one of the heavier and more expensive primes)?
 
Upvote 0
#50
EricN said:
So far, is the 100-500 with 2x on the R5 likely to give the best results of what is available (aside from one of the heavier and more expensive primes)?
Click to expand...
I do use the 2x on the 100-500mm quite a lot. However, it does require decent light at f/14 and the AF is not wonderful. I also use Topaz to sharpen it rather than DxO which doesn't work well with its lens sharpening module for the 2xTC on this lens (or the 1.4xTC). I have posted a comparison between the 800/11 and 100-500 at f/11 of a Little Owl at long distance, testing the lenses at their limits, and there's not much between them.

Show your Bird Portraits

A female Phainopepla perched atop a coffeeberry bush watching for early morning prey. R5 RF600 w/1.4X 1/2000 : f/8 : ISO 1000 One of the female Western Bluebirds topping off the tank. R5 RF600 w/1.4X 1/1600 : f/8 : ISO 640
www.canonrumors.com www.canonrumors.com

This week, by coincidence, I took Little Owls at about 65m and posted one on the Bird Portraits thread. Here is a comparison on the R5 of the 800/11, top - more face on, 1000mm, and bottom one by wife with the RF 100-400 on the R7. The light weight combo doesn't shame itself despite the short focal length. I don't use the 1.4x on the 800/11 as I don't see enough extra real resolution to make sense for me.

309A0109-DxO_Little_Owl_800mm.jpg309A0134-DxO_Little_Owl_1000mm-lsss.jpeg3R3A5635-DxO_Little_Owl_400mm.jpg.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
#51
AlanF said:
I had done a series of tests with the R5 + 200-800+1.4xTC at 1120mm vs R5 + 100+500+2xTC at 1000mm, with DPP4 + DLO + denoise using Topaz, but had not uploaded them, which I have now done and added to https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...m-vs-rf-800mm-on-r7-and-r5.43183/#post-983088.

The-digital-picture has the 1000mm distinctly sharper, and I find better contrast and sharpness as well.
www.the-digital-picture.com

Canon RF 100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM Lens Image Quality

View the image quality delivered by the Canon RF 100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.
www.the-digital-picture.com www.the-digital-picture.com
Click to expand...
Thanks for the additional info. I find the 200-800 to be close enough to my EF 800L (except for brightness) that I am quite satisfied. I have the EF 100-400 L II, which is very similar to the RF 100-500 except for that last 100mm and it accepts TCs normally so I kept it. In Bryan's comparison, I suspect that if the 100-800 with the TC were zoomed back to 1000 mm, the result would be pretty close given that the 200-800 falls off quite a bit in the last 100 mm.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#57
a025.gif
Nicely done, docsmith.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#59
So I went out to a local park that has a great combination of estuary and trees that birds like to frequent. It did not disappoint.

BTW...my first cedar Waxwing....
small-2789.jpg
small-2998.jpg

small-3084.jpg

small-3138.jpg

small-3173.jpg
small--9.jpg
small-3327.jpg

And one more from my feeder from yesterday (rainy).
small--8.jpg
 

Attachments

  • small--9.jpg
    small--9.jpg
    1.3 MB · Views: 6
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

roby17269
At the zoo with the RF 200-800mm f/6.3-9
Replies
3
Views
227
roby17269
roby17269
neuroanatomist
RF 24-105mm f/2.8L IS USM Z
Replies
17
Views
4K
Diko
Diko
neuroanatomist
RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM
Replies
19
Views
4K
Click
Click
M
R1. I got one!
Replies
35
Views
958
mmmm
M
neuroanatomist
RF 28-70mm f/2L USM
Replies
1
Views
1K
Maximilian
Maximilian
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Media
Menu