Canon RF 200-800 REVIEW: The ULTIMATE “Budget” Wildlife SUPER ZOOM Lens?!

[@bwphotoguy1]

The reason I will start to move to Canon mirrorless and the RF mount.. Put that 200-800 on the R7 and it's insane focal length.

[@이마크-r8e]

Gotta be pretty good during the day, maybe not so much towards the evening.

[@Kevon420]

Yeah, even though the light gathering ability is compromised having a nearly 1300mm equivalent field of view is crazy.

[@imjooboy]

I find it difficult enough to track BIF at 850mm. Can’t imagine how difficult it will be at 1300mm.

[@SolamenteVees]

@@imjooboy This 100% (500mm for me!)

[@yeurick4398]

​@@이마크-r8enot that, the iso performance of my R7 is crazy, i shoot my brother soccer mathes, morning, noon, evening and night, the only thing i noticed is the AF struggling in low light

[@arkansasoutpost]

I didn't like Polin the first few times I watched his videos, but he's won me over through the years. Besides being a good resource for photographers, his channel is a good example of how good KZbin can be when it's done properly.

[@froknowsphoto]

Thank you

[@Sepia1989]

True, my first impression is he's not serious. Then I realized he's actually very serious which makes his content much more professional than most reviewers out there.

[@Herkulez1981]

Things that I like about Jared is that he gives irl reviews, some reviewers just show charts etc and those doesn’t always tell the real story . Some people think a lens is useless just because it has little worse test chart then the other although irl difference is more or less not noticeable

[@macbaar6073]

Yes my dogs and cats hide the first and last moments of his greetings….

[@gilleswalther5964]

yeah he is very consistent

[@ViciousXUSMC]

Interesting, saw your mention of the 100-500 and how you were better to crop than to use them with TC. I did my own testing and had the same conslusion, but when I posted it everyone just assumed I was wrong and had some flaw in my testing. And that was straight up IQ, not even taking into account the shutter speed loss, flexability, cost, and easy of packing.

[@PeteBreen]

14:25 - wow! that flamingo shot is pure gold.

[@TheodoreSchnell]

I photograph birds and wildlife, and my lens arrived in early October, 7 months and one day after I ordered it. I am extremely happy with this lens.

[@tubefgb]

I liked the flamingos with the water background, beautiful effect!

[@breemetravel1746]

This video dropped while we were at Allen's Camera picking up our 200-800!! Fro realz!! It was ment to be!

[@jedcheng5551]

As an aircraft photographer, the background isolation doesn't matter. This is absolutely ridiculously good. My tamron 150-600 was destroyed in an airshow by rain recently. I am absolutely going for this What i did with the 150-600 or 50-500 is that i put my hands at the end of the lens and push/pull the end to zoom. It shouldn't be a problem for me

[@FrictionSlide]

Thinking about this glass for the same use case. Really excited to try it out.

[@g.e.gaviationphotography419]

Yeah I am a Military photographer in Australia mainly fighters and Airshows, my mate is the F-35 display pilot back in June he broke my 80d and Tamron 150-600G1 couldn't keep up with him lol, i use this new lens no issues better then I thought even try in grainy weather 1/60 ISO 100 F25 super sharp prop blur amazing

[@budthecyborg4575]

The degrees of rotation on the zoom ring is probably fine if you just keep it at 500mm and then you can equally zoom in or out with the same amount of hand movement.

[@mvp_kryptonite]

Bingo

[@slampest]

Bongo

[@KurtisPape]

I use my 200-600mm a lot at F8, when I add a 1.4x converter it becomes 840mm F9 but I stop down to F11. I'm using the same apatures as this Canon lens without problem. Opening up to F6.3 is such a marginal benefit in low light I prefer be at F8 for increased sharpness, I only use F6.3 if I want the background slightly smoother.

[@LE-ht7pz]

That's not how the loss of "stops" work. With a 1.4x (so sqrt(2) times) teleconverter you lose a whole stop, so you get F/(8xsqrt(2)) which is roughly F/11. Stopping down one F-stop then gives you F/16.

[@KurtisPape]

@@LE-ht7pz When I add a teleconverter my 200-600mm goes from F6.3 to F9. My lens isn't F8, I just shoot at that because it's slightly sharper. Some people say 'stop up' for shutting the aperture but I say 'stop down', I don't mean a full stop.

[@LE-ht7pz]

@@KurtisPape Ah, sry! Sounded like you we're talking about a 600mm F/8 at the long end. :) Should have read to the end.

[@PASquared]

Personally prefer the Sony or Nikon solution of using a 1.4x TC on the 200/180-600 when you really need that range. Otherwise you have a brighter lens when you dont need the insane range. Additionally, internal zoom is ideal for unpredictable or fast moving subjects

[@andrewsarchus6036]

I'm yet to see an instance where you wouldn't actually be better off cropping than using the converter.

[@paasosentomi]

I had this lens on pre order at first. But later on realised 100-500 is the one for me since that 100-200 is so versatile. Also for me in Finland the 200-800 would cost about 2700 euros while i got the 100-500 with winter cashback for 2500. Wish we had same pricing here as you guys in NA

[@greygoose3936]

Canon did a great job with the price here. I love my Sony 200-600 and the absence of a similar lens is what kept me on the sony platform. This will he a big hit for bird photographers

[@Bapun_Mishra]

We were watching Jared with EF and FX lenses. We're still watching him with RF and Z. But the 'horizontical' never changed.. 😂 Amazing video as always..

[@ludowild]

Thanks for this review Jared! With my R7 I used to use my Sigma 150-600 Contemporary but I often lacked 100 to 200mm to take the portrait of Goldfinch or other small birds! So I bought this RF200-800! I'm super satisfied with it! It must be said that I film at 60 to 70% and in video the quality gap between the Sigma and the RF200-800 is enormous! And above all, the RF200-800 is completely silent on video! When I use my floating blind I will be able to stay 5 meters from the birds and take close-ups the further I am from them the more it suits me (so as not to disturb them)

[@Universal_Craftsman]

Is the buffer really too small? A lot of people hate on it.

[@ludowild]

@@Universal_Craftsman the buffer could be better the rolling shutter could be better but for the price it's a great aps-c

[@alansach8437]

​@@ludowildThe buffer is larger than the buffer on the 7d Mark ii that it replaced. It's even larger if you shoot c-raw. It feels small because the camera is blasted up to 30fps. As for rolling shutter, obviously it depends on the subject, but on average with smaller flying birds it tends to affect maybe one in ten shots. Larger birds move slower, so fewer rolling shutter issues.

[@bigotonbrand]

Jared is my photo mentor. Ty for your videos

[@imjooboy]

The Sigma 60-600 works pretty well. Granted it’s not designed for Mirrorless, but still a good lens. I often shoot it with a 1,4x tc

[@checkarpeat]

That’s what I thought. If you put an 1.4x tc on the sigma 150-600 you pretty much get exactly the same focal length of this lens. And in addition it’s still a brighter aperture.

[@hy7968]

@@checkarpeatIt would be a 840mm f9 with worse sharpness. But without the teleconverter it has a wider aperture

[@Xirpzy]

You can put a tc on this 200-800mm if you want even more reach so there really is nothing compareable in a 600mm lens. If you dont need the 800mm then the RF 100-500mm will give you better images than the sigma even with tc, with the drawback of being awkward to use.

[@game2572]

So you can buy the 100-400 and 200-800 for the price off the 100-500

[@unknownKnownunknowns]

Id skip the 100-400. The shots i’ve seen are fine but not enough background separation

[@rockutron9000]

This lens is insane. At that price I don't feel bad about it either as a hobbyist.

[@davepastern]

would have preferred internal zoom and a focus limiter...and a removable collar. Wouldn't have cost that much more for these to be added to the lens...

[@Mr09260]

Yes Nikon and Sony can help you with Internal Zoom @@davepastern

[@JGZphotography]

Regarding a UV filter on the lens, I partially agree, especially on super-zoom lens as low-priced UV coated filters tend to diffuse light affecting sharpness at full zoom. This is like using a zoom lens behind window glass as the glass impurities WILL affect image quality. However, as a sports photographer on field sidelines, a quality UV filter will offer protection against dust, moisture, and impacts against the lens rim when not using a lens hood and is good glass protection insurance. I use a collapsible rubber lens hood instead for the best cushioning for rough handling of my cameras, like on basketball and tennis courts. On the other hand, when doing portrait or studio photography, I''ll remove the UV filter for the optimum image capture. There are pros and cons ot everything and nada is perfect. Right?

[@arkansasoutpost]

So many things are a question of tradeoffs. UV filter vs no filter. APS vs full frame. Cheeseburger vs bacon cheeseburger. It's a complicated universe.

[@acardena13]

Agree with this as well as I work primarily in desert motorsports photography. The amount of dust that the gear get pelted with is insane and in some instances, it's protected by rocks and other flying debris.

[@Xirpzy]

I honestly dont know what to believe. I've watched comparison videos by a few youtubers with and without filter and the difference is pretty much non existant. Even when looking at pixel level. Nothing like shooting through a window. But many of the professional photographers say its a trap to use filters. Makes me wonder if they have also tried both or if its an unnecessary fear they have. I should do my own tests to know for sure.

[@game2572]

Jared remember one thing when doing reviews most other reviewer forget. A lot of photographers can't afford the really high end stuff so they don't have a lot of internal focusing lenses.This is not intended for the R5 or R3 crowd it is intended for the RP or R8 crowd.

[@IllusionInfusion]

+1 on this. I have an RP with the 100-400 and something like this intrigues me for birding.

[@rvd07]

Can I use this lens for Canon 80D for wild life photography ? I know 80D doesn’t have buildin IS for Camera body

[@WarszawskiProforma]

no because it has RF mount and 80D has EF mount. You can use EF glass on the R mirrorless bodies with the adapter, but you can't use RF glass on the older mirror bodies.

[@rvd07]

@@WarszawskiProforma thank you so much for letting me know , I wasn’t aware of RF lens uses

[@SubiTrekker]

The extreme zoom throw of this lens is similar to that on my Nikon 200-500, and is the main criticism many have of Nikon's lens. I "solved" my long throw problem by adding a inexpensive, easily attached/removed video focus throw lever on the zoom lever. Since I almost always use the lens on a tripod, this simple little gadget works well for me. Sorry, I can't give more details, as it is against KZbin rules, but I think most people are bright enough to find one online.

[@MassMediaArtistry]

After being a loyal watcher for 14 years I am completely convinced your the best at what you do in the entire world thank you for all your help

[@teejaysimon]

Watching this review after having the Blue Angels in town for Seafair. I have the RF 100-500 and ended up taking a lot of photos with the 1.4 extender on as 500 felt too short for a lot of nice detail shots. This review is making me consider purchasing the 200-800. I use the 100-500 without the converter a lot and am very happy with it most of the time, but for the eagles we have around here, the 500mm is often too short. The things I dislike about putting on the 1.4 are: 1) I can't go any lower than 300mm on the body which puts me at 420mm and often that is longer than I want on the short end. 2) out at 700mm I'm at f10. So this lens would allow me to have the shorter end at 200mm and still keep me at f9 rather than f10 on the long end (not that there's a huge difference, but f9 would be a bit better). Plus factor the bulk of the 100-500mm with an extender and I'm guessing there's not a huge difference in weight and balance to this lens. I'd love the fancy telephoto primes, but most of what I shoot at these focal lengths are for hobby, therefore it makes zero sense for me to purchase those spendy primes. I think this could be a good addition next to the 100-500mm and possibly a replacement (as I also have the RF 70-200 f2.8; so the need for the 100-500mm in addition to a 200-800mm may not be necessary). A long winded, "this review was helpful for my particular situation."

[@swistedfilms]

My only question is whether this lens is as sharp as the RF 100-500 L f/4.5-7.1. I own one and it can keep up with the sensor on my R7, something that my adapted EF 70-200 L f/2.8 Mark III wasn't able to do. Now, actually USING it on the R7 is probably insane (f/14.4 at 800MM!) but then there's the R5: can it resolve that 45 MP sensor? If it can then this is a fantastic budget wildlife lens. You can do a 50% crop on the R5 image and still print at 24x36 confidently. Thanks for the review!

[@boalkestrup]

no still f9 at the r7😊

[@jeffolson4731]

I use this lens on both my R7 and my R5. I use it mostly on the R7 for the reach. This lens is surprisingly sharp. I don’t really see a sharpness difference between it and my RF 100-500. The advantage of the RF 100-500 is slightly faster focusing and lighter weight. I still use the RF 100-500 for BIF. I would be surprised if you were unhappy with the ability to resolve for the sensor on the R5. I think it does a great job.

[@swistedfilms]

@jeffolson4731 thanks for the information! That's just what I was looking for!

[@princip6656]

Sorry, I usually don't take raw photos, I don't have time for processing. Many megapixels are also not my favorite. It's different for lenses, I like good lenses. I'm not always in favor of sharp photos, but I like them to be richer in color and the right moment is of great importance to me. That's how I like to do it.

[@ThatOneDudeNick]

Been eyeing this hard. I think this is going to be my big purchase this year. I'm a birding newbie shooting on an R8.

[@jeffolson4731]

I like this lens so much I am considering selling my RF 100-500 and getting another 200-800. To me it is good news when people say they don’t want this lens because it is f9 at 800.

[@thor9722]

Finally Jered made review for 200 800. I preordered it last year. After 1 months use it, I do like this lens. It has decent sharpness and zoom (800mm) reach for squirrel and small birds with shallow depth of background. It focus fast but not the fastest. It is a little bit heavy for my noodle arm, and weight balance is a little bit weird especially when you change lens. A tiny ignorable fringing on the bright object. Weather seal is just as red ring lens, I used it in rain, snow under -2F. It has no problem. It is built by very solid material, I dropped it on the snow accidentally it still works fine.

[@thor9722]

In addition the zoom ring did feel a little bit looser after one month. And small tripod can’t handle the weight of this lens. I shoot it most time at 800mm so I didn’t zoom in and out that much frequently.

[@swistedfilms]

Have you used this lens with the R7? That sensor is very demanding and not every lens is capable of meeting the requirements for sharpness on it.

[@Herkulez1981]

Nice with a real world longer review !

[@thor9722]

@@swistedfilms No, I only used it on R6. I did watch other KZbinr tested in on R7 you can watch their videos as reference. Be honest I think there should no problem if you use this lens on R7. My personally option when aperture is wide open and at minimum focus distance this lens is slightly sharper than 800 f11, 600 f11, and 100 500 + converter. Slightly less sharper than 100 500 without converter. But I highly doubt you can tell the difference until you zoom in to check the detail on your 5K screen.

[@mendermom7943]

I would really like a side-by-side comparison of with the 100-500. Is 200-800 better than the 100-400 as far as image quality? Did you shoot this on the R3 or the 5? Thanks!! I still have the original R. I like the 30mp but am disappointed with other things. Apparently "we've" hit "our" 10 year anniversary. My son has informed me. "Mom, are you still watching him? ... "

[@olddvr]

This lens, and my R7 will be perfect for shooting the Blue Angels’ practices this season once they get back to Pensacola. From the vantage point at Fort Pickens across the bay from the Naval Air Station… I can’t wait! Thanks for the review I’ve been waiting for Jared!

[@MatiasMatusAcebo]

As a sports photographer I'm thinking of buying this lens to use it in Surfing because of the amazing 800mm. What do you think? Maybe with a full frame RF camera like the R5?

[@g.e.gaviationphotography419]

I bought it Christmas eve in Australia for $3100, $399 off, when I bought the RF 100-400 I thought what have I done, but not with this lens felt great, little hint if you need to go 200-800 rapidly use it like a trumpet like the Tamron 150-600

[@denault3985]

The RF 200-800 is the perfect airshow lens, long reach.

[@squidward3333]

I was using a 150-600 sigma on my R6 back in August for an air show… hand holding that thing… this is a game changer.

[@Gremlack13]

As an enthusiast canon shooter with a r6ii, a 24-105 f4 and 70-200 f4, this 200-800 is right in my wheel house of skill and affordability. Interested to see how it fares in the future, and very interested to potentially get one of my own.

[@clayl7899]

I don't use the zoom ring with my Sony 100-400mm g master lens, I put it in Smooth and use the hood and little door for the filter adjustment to pull and push it to the zoom I want. I bet it works on this lens also and you will not have to worry about zooming issues

[@RevUnstableBoy]

I currently have a R6Mii and a Sigma 150-600 with the RF-EF adapter. kinda want to upgrade to this to get more reach and the quality might be a bit better, but have to budget for it. do a lot of aircraft (both full scale and radio control) photography and some nature so a big zoom is real nice.

[@swistedfilms]

One of my favorite photos was taken at an airshow with the Sigma 150-600. It was sharp enough that I could read the name of the pilot on the side.

[@mmacey84]

Doesn't matter how big your lenses are. Heat blur will always get in the way. And only gets worse the bigger the lenses get.

[@lemonkng3188]

$1800 for a 600mm or 800mm lens its an amazing Budget lens especially if it produces quality images. Iv got the Nikon 180-600 im my cart now😊. Im glad to see Canon making this lens so affordable..

[@alexharkness]

Liking the 'Stabilization ON/OFF' 1 option switch + clever IS

[@macbaar6073]

Sony wake up! The lion sleeps tonight till the end of Summer Olympics in Paris…… uuuuiiiiiiiauuuiiiiaaaauiiiiiii

[@jeffreyhill4705]

This is a great birding lens with an R10, r8, r7. This is a great scouting when going to a new location, before pulling out the big white glass. I also assume you can travel father with this over an F4. The 100 to 400 is probably the best hiking lens.

[@drjtcmurray]

Great review, but testing on the R3? This lens is more likely going to be purchased by someone on an enthusiast body, such as the R7. How do you feel that would change your review?

[@nevmedeiros1822]

Pairs well with an r8 also

[@djack4125]

Easy to zoom from 400 to 800mm. It is rare that someone will need to zoom from 200 to 800.

[@tom_k_d]

Here comes the caveat, though: ISO 5000 is much more grainy on an R8 or R6II or R5 than on the R3, with which these shots were taken: R3 should have about one full stop advantage in low light.

[@stepheneckert4006]

It’s about the same

[@MassMediaArtistry]

Get a r3 it’s cheaper by a$1,000

[@tom_k_d]

@@stepheneckert4006 This ist not what the many sample pictures and comparisons available show me: R3 shows 2/3 to 1 stop better noise behaviour, compared to R5 / R6II, consistently - and it better does, given it's price point and relatively low pixel count. Also, better DR is to be expected with a BSI sensor. My point is: testing a 'budget' lens with a high end body is possibly not the typical use case. The max senstivity I would want to shoot on my R6 or R5 is ISO 3200. This RF 200-800 is still a nice offer, but it has it's low light limitations.

[@randalalansmith9883]

This is interesting because (2024-Oct) Canon store on AMZ is selling this model for significantly *more* than photographer outlets. And it's not even bundled with accessories.

[@Skux720]

800mm in a handholdable lens is a game changer.

[@mikechapes6951]

Which do you prefer the 100-500 or the 200-800 for wildlife? I like to take pics of waterfowl. Thanks

[@froknowsphoto]

200-800 all the way

[@jamieekinney]

As a wildlife photographer, I disagree with Fro on this. The 200-800 is fine for stationary wildlife, but high ISO required to shoot at 1/1200-2000 second shutter speeds would result in super noisy images. It could work for larger, slower birds on bright days, but will struggle for small fast birds and lower light conditions within a forest or sunrise/sunset when birds are the most active.

[@alansach8437]

​@@jamieekinneyFor those circumstances you really need an f4 supertele. The 100-500 isn't all that faster. At 500 mm the 200-800 is f8. That's 1/3 stop slower than the 100-500, which is 7.1 at 500mm. Don't think a third of a stop is a game changer! If it is, drop down to 455mm on the 200-800 and you've got 7.1. That's what? Two or three steps closer to get the equivalent field of view? Pretty close! But IF you have the light, you have the option to zoom into 800!

[@naludog8087]

Thanks for the comment. I have the 100-500. If I get a RF 2X extender will I achieve the same quality results as the 200-800 at the same focal lenghs 500+@@alansach8437

[@adude394]

I recently added an R6 Mk II to my gear, and picked up the 800mm f/11. That was a good way to get that extra reach for a reasonable cost. Even after it for a short time, I've gotten nice results with it, particularly shooting the full moon a couple of weeks ago. However, I've decided that I do want a bit more versatility in a super-zoom, so I'm going to be trading the 800 in to get the 200-800. Thanks for posting!

[@alangonzalez6478]

I’ve seen a lot of 200-800mm videos and none have mentioned it’s use for outdoor sports. At least one con came out in this video with the high aperture and background noise. Guessing 100-500 would be better to go in this case (youth soccer)? Currently use 70-200mm 2.8, but son is going to larger pitch soon so been looking at longer zoom range lenses.

[@messylaura]

a simple collar over the zoom ring with a sticky up paddle will make that long zoom throw alot easier esp for wildlife on tripod

[@tellthemborissentyou]

If it were an internal zoom it would always be the length of the 800mm and it would be fixed at f9. So think of it getting smaller when you zoom out rather than getting bigger when you zoom in.

[@kennethlui2268]

It is as sharp as the 100-500. Great lens at great price. I can handhold with not much issues. When I put it on monopod, I balance it so that it doesn’t flop between 500-800 mm which is the zoom range I normally shoot at. It is not for BIF during low light, but fine with static subject. For fast action in low light, you need to pull the big gun like the 600 f4. I prefer to use it on the R5 which has better noise performance.

[@Xirpzy]

Its a great lens to have. So versatile and having that reach is insane. I do think a more compact maybe 400-800mm up to f6.3/f7.1 would be interesting and perfect for how I shoot birds. Being able to find the bird and then quickly zoom in. Less zoom range but brighter lens and shorter throw. Its rare that I want to go wider than 400mm. Just a thought I had. I would definitly buy this 200-800mm if I didnt already have the 100-500mm. For environment shots the 70-200mm makes the most sense.

[@rcc3338]

with the RF 24-240 and RF 200-800 + RF 16mm pancake, you got ALL focal lengths covered in 3 relatively compact lenses

[@berndf0]

There is no focus range limiter. Isn't that a problem with things like bird in flight because if he loses focus and happens to hunt to minimum focus distance, he will not be able to recover as the bird is so blurred that it is invisible? That is at least my experience with other lenses lacking a limiter.

[@SNoWMaNx8x]

Fire arms are combining ideas from photography Cannon might want to think of a Throw lever. That would be an easy attachment to make.

[@rockatanescu]

As a person invested in the MFT system, I always found the system great if you're using mostly telephoto lenses, as the 100-400 from either Olympus/OM-S or Panasonic were compact, priced better and with more reach than the comparable lenses from Canon, Sony or Nikon. I think this lens just killed the MFT system.

[@oscarbaezsoria1650]

The MFT system has been dead for years.

[@ChalkandIron]

This "budget" lens for me would be great for like Surf photography. I'd keep my 100-500 for general nature photography and likely some street photography.

[@drkskwlkr]

It makes absolute sense that the tripod mount collar is not made removable. Otherwise there will always be the bright mind who will remove it to save weight and then mount the tripod/monopod by the screw at the camera base. The RF bayonet is made to hold 2 kg lenses but the thread at the camera base will easily break under the combined weight of the camera and the lens, especially as the center of gravity is so displaced to the front and creates a leverage.

[@photobeast]

Actually F9 on something like a 35 mm lens because of the narrower field of view, the fact that the glass is not a true one-time magnification, because magnification ratio plays a factor here, and the lens not being a telephoto it will not have Compression! So pretty much compression causes blurry backgrounds. It magnifies the subject to PULL IT OUT from the background. With the lens of this size with a long barrel and a large diameter optic. The porta potties you speak of most likely will be blowing out, or as I should say, "Compressed" which then means you won't be able to tell the difference. I just did some tests with a 50 mm versus a 500. One was 1.8 aperture and one was at 4 and the F4 WON 🎉 by a landslide THEN I replicated the same test with the 85 mm F 1.8 versus the 800 mm f11! And the 800 mm f11 beat the dog s*** out of the 85 mm

[@jeremywatson8108]

Hey Jared, great video. What field monitor are you sporting in this video. 17.41 minutes in

[@TheRealTonyCastillo]

Month late and 3 dollars short. Lots of interest in the lens when it was officially announced and released on the 14th of DEC. I was lucky to get one of the few available in my state. Great lens, seems to work better on my R6MII vs the R7. Passes the wind and snow tunnel test for sure.

[@swistedfilms]

What problems are you having on the R7? Is it sharp enough?

[@chiragtandonn]

​​​@@swistedfilmsprobably autofocus and lack of ibis related problems

[@TheRealTonyCastillo]

AF seemed a little sluggish with birds in flight. @@swistedfilms

[@arunmaroli]

Please include hair test to your reviews, if your hair get stuck inside the lens when you zoom out, does it uproot from scalp while zooming back in?

[@13dubois]

Jared- love the videos been watching over 10 years. I would recommend that you ask Canon why they cannot deliver this lens to those of us who ordered over 5 months ago and still nothing and no word. This lens is unobtanium.

[@Wheels_Unlimited]

Black Keys - Tighten Up

[@TechnoMasterBoy]

I think it would be better to just have some 150-600 f5-6.3 lens or whatever with a 2x teleconverter, would give you a reach of 1200mm, and wouldn't be that much higher stops at the longest end being f12.6 And unlike the Canon RF 200-800, the 150-600 ones are actual budget lenses and doesn't cost 3k, but can be found for 1k, or less if you buy it used. I know, in the country Jared is in, the 200-800 is 1900$, but the price goes both ways, the 1000$ 150-600 lenses probably cost 37% less just like the 200-800.

[@kingghidorah8106]

people shooting 600mm on APS-C: First time?

[@bigboi36]

that 100-500 is a beast. I do like 200-800 too. I am a Nikon tog' and gravitate to S-line. The100-400 is a sweet lent but I would like to see a 100-500 S-line too. I will be getting the 180-600 though.

[@JoshSiewert]

The Grand Slam is amazing love it!

[@RobBulmahn]

I really wish they brought out this lens a lot sooner. I definitely would have gotten this instead of the 800 and later the 100-500.

[@g.e.gaviationphotography419]

I had a feeling, that either a 150-600 or 200-600 might come out so I got the RF100-400 as a gap lens

[@hawaiifreespeechnews]

I have a 70-200mm and regret getting the 100-500mm now that this thing came out 🤦🏾‍♂

[@peterdobson1166]

The extender picture at 24:52 was shot with a RF 100-500 not 200-800?

[@patandthecats5983]

I've hade this lens for about a week it's been doing great but I have 2 complaints. 1. No lens lock to keep lens in place while walking. 2. I can't use hood and polarizer at same time.

[@JimS-b3q]

Tighten Up, Archie Bell & The Drells

[@FindLoveTravel]

would you say it would be just better to put an extender on the 100-500 instead of adding this lens to the bag?

[@toneohm]

17:41 that's the Burncat playground? (or however it was spelt) use to be a legit skate spot in Philly back in the early 2000s.., small place but alot of good bench lines were shot there., ground was crappy.., then they redid the whole park and it wasn't the same

[@JenHamon]

800mm seems like overkill. I'd rather have the extra stops of light. Cameras have so much resolution these days it's no big deal to drop into crop mode or crop in post when I want a tighter view.

[@HansMartinØvre]

Im thinking about this lens, but first have to cash in my Sigma 300/2.8 and Tamron G2 150-600. Time will show if I is able to do it before I get to old. Im already an oldtimer. ;-)

[@TroyRubert]

I would love to see a wild starship launch with that thing.

[@Herkulez1981]

That would be insane

[@timothyroe5020]

Justgetting back into photography but i might add this lens to my triad. I could go from 28 to 200 at F2.8 and then reach out and touch something all the way to 800 mm without breaking the bank. Thanks Jared!

[@jimbo27]

Love the podcast raw talk is the best, great discussions, always enjoy hearing your opinions

[@jerseygirl386]

Which is better, the rf 100-500 or this lens?

[@jamesclaassen8843]

I'm looking to upgrade from a Sigma 150-600 to the Canon 200-800. Would you feel that it's enough of an improvement to justify the jump from the $800 Sigma lens to a nearly $2,000 Canon lens?

[@johngorniak1230]

Nice review!, and love the Fridge reference!

[@alcosound]

This looks like the ideal lens for air shows to me (I am often forced to severely crop my photos from the 100-400 lens with my 80D)

[@asterisk606]

Under $2,000 is fantastic for a lens with this much range. Good on Canon for making it reasonable.

[@joee6506]

Archie Bell and the Drells “Tighten Up”

[@Burmeng]

Men 7:32 dolorean preset fro pack The detail is like an art❤❤

[@itzik_levi]

I have both a Sony A74and a Canon R6M2, I'm thinking if I should buy the Canon 200-800 lens or maybe the Sony 200-600 and also buy a Konvortok 1.4, which is better..? For the best possible image quality

[@robcarr9968]

What are you typically shooting with these super tele?

[@s0d4c4n]

Hey Jared, is that the same white paint on the white R50 that's itself slightly different from the white paint on the L zoom lenses?

[@Me-sr7kw]

so if you were using for wildlife photography. Which lens would you choice, the RF 200-800 or the 100-500?

[@JeffreyPadell]

looking for a comment from you, I have the RF 100-500 and R6ii and R7, I am wondering if the RF 100-500 with the R7 (160-800 crop factor) vs the R6ii with 200-800, which would be better? Of course putting the R7 on the 200-800 is insane reach, but trying to decide whether to get the 200-800 or just keep using the RF 100-500 with the R7 when I want 800mm

[@mvp_kryptonite]

Rent the 200-800 if you can

[@JeffreyPadell]

@@mvp_kryptonite No one has it, but Hunts Photo in RI where I am #1 on the list for the lens has a 30 day no questions asked return policy so I can try it for a month and return it if I don't like it.

[@swistedfilms]

I've found that with the 100-500 on my R7 I tend to get heat distortion, even on relatively mild days, at that kind of reach. I think being at 1280MM would only make that worse. If you get the 200-800 I think I would stick to the R6M2. The lens would be at f/14.4 on the R7, and I'm asking around here in the comments section to see if anyone knows if it's even sharp enough to resolve the sensor.

[@boalkestrup]

no still f9 at the R7 . the F number dont chance.😊

[@nerrelloader4226]

So often I go to wetland areas and the birds are on the other side to me which is inaccessible. This lens will give me the detailed shots I am looking for. Thanks for the review.

[@kylegoodman5196]

I have rented the RF 100-500mm L for bird shooting and for a whale watching excursion and got good results. This seems like way more bang for the buck despite the weight and aperture differences. The only downside I could see is it might not fit in my backpack as perfectly as the 100-500 does.

[@Mcfly1095]

Hello I'm an amateur looking to improve my lens. Currently I have an r6 mark 2 with the rf 100-400 F5.6-8 lens. I shoot majority nature/sports. I love the detail and explanation with nature and other wildlife that you showed but would this be good as well for sports? Would you suggest getting the 200-800 or go with the 100-500? Thanks for the advice!

[@hstein27]

Go with the 200-800. With the 100-500 you'll often find you're cropping too much for small birds, if you shoot those.

[@Mcfly1095]

@hstein27 okay great thank you! I will probably save up for the 200-800 lens sounds like it will do the nature needs and can work well enough for the sports side of photography too.

[@bhargavrajyaguru6887]

I don't know whether I have missed or what, which camera you used to test this lens?

[@samthetoolman8068]

This is a great lens for a hobbies or an enthusiast

[@Wynner3]

I can't wait to compare it to my 600mm F11.

[@phillesfan98]

How do you think this lens would look for outdoor sports?

[@unknownKnownunknowns]

Same Q