Canon RF 200-800mm IS USM (3 Viewers)

[Brad Hacker]

What AF setting are you using? In my opinion the Spot AF on the R7 is the worst thing about it because the spot is too big. If the bird is small in the frame (which they usually are) it can't find the bird properly a lot of the time. On the plus side, other AF settings such as the Whole area AF are a huge improvement on what I've had before.

This is a problem with all the R-series cameras: the center-spot is about twice the size as it is on a D-series camera. If you are used to using a DSLR and using the center-spot AF to photograph birds, you will be disappointed by the existing mirrorless bodies in spot AF mode. A solution is to use back-button focus, "pre-focus" with the center spot (or use manual focus!) and then roll your finger over onto eye focus and then hope that the camera finds the bird's eye rather than something else; often I have to roll back and forth between the two buttons. If the bird is big enough and the eye contrasts enough with the bird's face, this usually works. If the bird is too small, the eye not contrasty, or nearby leaves, bark, waves or some eye-like part of the bird (e.g., nightjar tail spots) is "more attractive" to the AF eye-detect, you may be doomed. While annoying compared to a DSLR, the low-light capabilities and BiF capabilities of the R-series cameras outweigh the center-spot AF deficiencies enough that I switched from DLSR to mirrorless after a long period of using both together in the field. In my opinion, it is the AF capabilities that need the most improvement in all mirrorless cameras used for bird photography and I am "desperately" waiting to see what Canon has achieved with the R5 mark ii and the R1.

(If anyone knows of a truly meaningful side-by-side comparison of small-bird AF of top-end Canon/Sony/Nikon mirrorless cameras, I'd like to see it.) People I know with more than one manufacturer's mirrorless body report minimal differences.

 

[Clive Watson]

This is a problem with all the R-series cameras: the center-spot is about twice the size as it is on a D-series camera. If you are used to using a DSLR and using the center-spot AF to photograph birds, you will be disappointed by the existing mirrorless bodies in spot AF mode. A solution is to use back-button focus, "pre-focus" with the center spot (or use manual focus!) and then roll your finger over onto eye focus and then hope that the camera finds the bird's eye rather than something else; often I have to roll back and forth between the two buttons. If the bird is big enough and the eye contrasts enough with the bird's face, this usually works. If the bird is too small, the eye not contrasty, or nearby leaves, bark, waves or some eye-like part of the bird (e.g., nightjar tail spots) is "more attractive" to the AF eye-detect, you may be doomed. While annoying compared to a DSLR, the low-light capabilities and BiF capabilities of the R-series cameras outweigh the center-spot AF deficiencies enough that I switched from DLSR to mirrorless after a long period of using both together in the field. In my opinion, it is the AF capabilities that need the most improvement in all mirrorless cameras used for bird photography and I am "desperately" waiting to see what Canon has achieved with the R5 mark ii and the R1.

(If anyone knows of a truly meaningful side-by-side comparison of small-bird AF of top-end Canon/Sony/Nikon mirrorless cameras, I'd like to see it.) People I know with more than one manufacturer's mirrorless body report minimal differences.

I'm not an expert on the technology but the obvious question is surely if the centre spot AF technology already exists from the DSLRs, why couldn't they incorporate that into the mirrorless bodies?

 

[Brad Hacker]

I'm not an expert on the technology but the obvious question is surely if the centre spot AF technology already exists from the DSLRs, why couldn't they incorporate that into the mirrorless bodies?

The short answer to your question is that a DSLR uses a focusing sensor that is separate from the imaging sensor. A comprehensive answer can be found in this article All about Autofocus; Autofocus - Wikipedia may help in comprehending the Canon article.

 

[mike nesbitt]

A couple of images taken with the R7 + 200-800 @ 800mm.
I found it hard work with this combination and keepers were at a premium. Even after discounting all the images that were poor because of the difficulty in tracking the subject. It didn't deliver in a lot of situations where I had the bird framed and nailed with the focus point, where I would have expected a decent image It may have been a settings thing but a lot of images were too soft, perhaps I need to buck up or reduce my expectations. I expect the R5 is a much better option for the BIF with this lens.

 

[AlphaFan]

A couple of images taken with the R7 + 200-800 @ 800mm.
I found it hard work with this combination and keepers were at a premium. Even after discounting all the images that were poor because of the difficulty in tracking the subject. It didn't deliver in a lot of situations where I had the bird framed and nailed with the focus point, where I would have expected a decent image It may have been a settings thing but a lot of images were too soft, perhaps I need to buck up or reduce my expectations. I expect the R5 is a much better option for the BIF with this lens.

Completely agree. We’ve been having a long string of poor weather. So, unfortunately just about every opportunity I’ve had to test out this lens has been on gloomy overcast days. However, I went on a birding trip this past weekend and took thousands of images. My experience were very similar to Mike. Discounting the poor lighting conditions and the tracking issues there were far fewer keepers than I would have expected if using my RF100-500. The reach with this lens and the R7 is insane but it certainly comes with the cost of soft images, especially at max focal length. I will be interesting to see how this lens performs when attached to the upcoming R5II.

 

[Barred Wobbler]

200-800 on the R7 yesterday.

 

[Clive Watson]

The short answer to your question is that a DSLR uses a focusing sensor that is separate from the imaging sensor. A comprehensive answer can be found in this article All about Autofocus; Autofocus - Wikipedia may help in comprehending the Canon article.

I had a go at using One Point AF as an alternative to Spot AF on the R7 yesterday and that seems considerably better, much less hunting. I'm tempted to suggest that Spot AF on the R7 is a total waste of time.

 

[Barred Wobbler]

One from this morning - a late singer.

R7 and 200-800

 

[Brad Hacker]

...Discounting the poor lighting conditions and the tracking issues there were far fewer keepers than I would have expected if using my RF100-500. The reach with this lens and the R7 is insane but it certainly comes with the cost of soft images, especially at max focal length. I will be interesting to see how this lens performs when attached to the upcoming R5II.

The 200-800 is softer than the 100-500 on the R5 mark I--which I interpret as a feature of the lens, not the body--so I don't think that the R5 mark II will be any different. Be happy to be proven wrong

 

[Barred Wobbler]

The 200-800 is softer than the 100-500 on the R5 mark I--which I interpret as a feature of the lens, not the body--so I don't think that the R5 mark II will be any different. Be happy to be proven wrong

Is this with similar subjects at the same range, or similar subjects at different ranges, using the 800mm to bring the subject 'closer' than the 500mm does, so they are similar sizes in the picture. Genuine query. I'm not being argumentative in asking this, because I've not done the comparison myself, but the tendency to use the 800 at longer range than the 500 will inevitably introduce a degree of softness caused by atmospheric deterioration cause by humidity, dust etc.

 

[Brad Hacker]

I compared (my) new 200-800 mm and (my) well-used 100-500 mm using a tripod-mounted R5 to photograph stationary bird sculptures and text at a constant distance such that the subject was full-frame at 800mm. At the same f-stop, I compared 500mm vs 500mm for both lenses, 800mm vs 500mm+1.6X computer crop, 800mm vs 500mm in R5 crop mode, and 700mm vs 500+1.4X T/C. No direct sunlight, no wind, and a modest temperature (20-25C). This comparison was intended only to look at image sharpness and does not account for satisfaction you might experience with either lens under real-world conditions, which could certainly be different--not least because the 200-800mm gives the AF fewer things than the bird to latch on to.

You can get an idea of what I saw (I tossed the images after I was satisfied with the answer that the 800 images are slightly softer) at this lens comparison site. Given that the 200-800 mm is the cheaper lens (e.g., at Adorama), perhaps this result is unsurprising. You might turn my logic on its head and conclude that because the 200-800 is cheaper and almost as sharp as the 100-500 that it is a better choice. It comes down to personal preference. In my case, I prefer image sharpness.

 

[Dave Williams]

I compared (my) new 200-800 mm and (my) well-used 100-500 mm using a tripod-mounted R5 to photograph stationary bird sculptures and text at a distance such that the subject was full-frame. No direct sunlight, no wind, and a modest temperature (20-25C). This comparison was intended only to look at image sharpness and does not account for satisfaction you might experience with either lens under real-world conditions, which could certainly be different.

You can get an idea of what I saw (I tossed the images after I was satisfied with the answer that the 800 images are slightly softer) at this lens comparison site. Given that the 200-800 mm is the cheaper lens, perhaps this result is unsurprising. You might turn my logic on its head and conclude that because the 200-800 is cheaper and almost as sharp as the 100-500 that it is a better choice. It comes down to personal preference. In my case, I prefer image sharpness.

The 100-500 is less expensive than the 200-800 at Panamoz , even cheaper at E-infinity ( but less warranty),even at WEX here in the UK the difference in price between the two lenses is minimal now that there's a £500 cash back offer on the 100-500. I would love to know why the 200-800 wasn't classified as an L lens, presumably Canon also don't think it's quite there to the required standard.

If you placed the two lenses at a distance where they both produced a similar full frame shot the 100-500 would be closer to the subject and as such has an advantage. Put it back next to the 200-800 and to get a similar sized image of the subject you need to add a 1.4TC and then compare sharpness.
I love my 100-500 to bits but the 200-800 is an additional option when you can't get close enough to your subject which is often the case.
Reach isn't everything of course, although we all tend to be a bit obsessed with it, one of the biggest gains that can be made in wildlife photography is time and patience not necessarily the equipment you have at your disposal.

 

[tony.saw]

Where do you get £500 cashback. The Canon offer is £300 afak and you need to have brought a mirrorless camera more recently than -1/08/2022,

 

[Dave Williams]

Where do you get £500 cashback. The Canon offer is £300 afak and you need to have brought a mirrorless camera more recently than -1/08/2022,

 

[tony.saw]

Ah, via WEX only )I assume they do not use the Canon offer!)

 

[mike nesbitt]

The focal length of the lens + the 1.6 crop gives this rig some insane reach. It's certainly a challenge with flyers and I cut it some slack re the ultimate IQ.

 

[mike nesbitt]

R5 + 200-800

 

[Barred Wobbler]

The focal length of the lens + the 1.6 crop gives this rig some insane reach. It's certainly a challenge with flyers and I View attachment 1581885cut it some slack re the ultimate IQ.

Yes. The R5 definitely plays better with the lens for tracking birds in flight. The extra reach of the crop body means it's like tracking them while looking through a drinking straw.

 

[AlphaFan]

We just had a long Holiday Weekend with a mix of sunny and cloudy days so I was able to get a greater depth of field experience with the R7 and RF 200-800. Overall I was very well satisfied with the results. As has already been said, one should expect images to soften a bit at max focal length. Of course I”ll still favor my RF 100-500 when the extra focal length will not likely be needed, but it is nice to know it’s available when I do. So the RF 200-800 is beginning to grow on me. Like any other device it will take some getting used to, but I certainly don’t regret buying it and am satisfied with it’s performance at such a reasonable price.

I do have a question for the group though. For R7 owners — how do you find the AF performance at equal focal length when comparing the RF 200-800 to the RF 100-500? I seemed to struggle a bit more but am uncertain if this was just my subjective perception.

Forest


Undergrowth


Sunny


Overcast


Dusk

 

[Barred Wobbler]

Completely agree. We’ve been having a long string of poor weather. So, unfortunately just about every opportunity I’ve had to test out this lens has been on gloomy overcast days. However, I went on a birding trip this past weekend and took thousands of images. My experience were very similar to Mike. Discounting the poor lighting conditions and the tracking issues there were far fewer keepers than I would have expected if using my RF100-500. The reach with this lens and the R7 is insane but it certainly comes with the cost of soft images, especially at max focal length. I will be interesting to see how this lens performs when attached to the upcoming R5II.

View attachment 1580787View attachment 1580788View attachment 1580789View attachment 1580791View attachment 1580790View attachment 1580792

Poor light for many of these. Diver was three weeks ago, gadwall a week later and the rest a few days ago, so all January light. R5II+RF200-800.