Canon RF 200-800mm lens Review by a Bird Photographer

[@anthonyclements6020]

I left Baltimore in 1974, but in 1968 I lived about 250 yards from where Service Photo is now located. The 200-800mm lens is what I have been waiting for since the R5 came out as something versatile to carry alongside primes. I tried waiting to get something long and light to avoid getting the 800 f/11 but finally gave up and purchased the F11. Then I waited a long time after the 100-500MM came out since it is pricey and not as long as I needed for bird photography but eventually purchased it-not knowing something else was in the pipeline to come out just 6 months later. The 800 f/11 is incredibly useful if I need to walk through soft sand and squat for extended periods waiting for action to happen since it is so light. I once barely avoided falling over into the mud after squatting for a couple of minutes with a 600 mm f4 and trying to get up after my legs had tightened up and the muck tried to hold on to my boot. The 100-500 MM lens is small, light and incredibly sharp, but I recently did a video of a great blue heron when it was not bright enough to put on the 1.4 TC for stills. 500 MM was just not long enough for optimizing the video. One of my favorite shooting places has instances when I would need a 1.4 TC on the 100-500mm but also find that 420 MM is too long when the subjects are closer. The 200-800MM is 4 lbs. lighter than a 600 MM f/4 IS II and has most of the versatility of the 100-500MM except for the 100-200 mm range, which is not really needed if birds are your primary subjects. The 100-500 MM works great as a general-purpose carry around lens with its main limitation being the minimum 420 MM FOV when a teleconverter is in place. It may be the lens to have if Canon ever produces a professional level crop sensor camera in an R5 or similar body. Had I the patience I could have purchased the 200-800mm and saved $1600 over the 800 f/11 and 100-500 mm pair. The 200-800 on an R3 is very interesting combination to consider since the R3 has very good high ISO performance. As noted here everything requires a compromise in one area or another. I have seen another video in which the photographer chose to keep his 100-500 mm and send the 200-800 MM back, but that person was very often in lower light situations, even mid-day. The kingfisher video was fantastic. !

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Thanks so much for adding your thoughts. It adds to the discussion and much appreciated.

[@tenman76]

I bought my first DSLR- a Canon- at Service Photo in 1991! Nice saleslady called Karen. Great store.

[@Kellysher]

Shooting the R5 100-500. Weight is an issue for me. This lens is so tempting as a second lens. But the 100-500 is just so sharp and versatile. I can shoot Macro type photos with the min. focus distance, and landscapes at 100mm. For me, I’m waiting to see if the R5 ii crop mode is improved or the R7 ii is upgraded! I understand why this lens will be popular! But, for me, I’m looking to get more reach in the camera!

[@Chris_Wolfgram]

I just had this lens as a rental for a week. IMPO, it is the holy grail for the stuff I mostly shoot, small to tiny birds from 15-30 ft. Love the reach it gives me on my R7's. 1280mm equivalent 👍 It's funny, shooting small birds from very close, my DOF is very thin. So while a bunch of guys are whining that F9 is too slow, I was stopping it down to F11 or F13, to try and get just a bit more DOF. I prefer a little more than just a sharp eyeball 😉👍 Now if only I were able to get ahold of one for myself ☹️

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Awesome input. Thanks so much for sharing and watching. I feel your pain when it comes to getting these new lenses. I hate to see what getting the new R52 is going to be like.

[@Chris_Wolfgram]

@@whistlingwingsphotography or the R7 Mk II 😮

[@SpencerATX]

Hi Ron, I'm so glad that your review showed up in my recommended for this lens. I'm in exactly the position you pointed out, in which my budget will only allow for 1 bird photography lens. It was good to hear you also think it's a no brainer if you're only allotted one lens. I used to shoot with the R6 and 800 F/11, which for the money I loved! Long story short I sold all of my gear for a down payment on a home. I'm excited to have saved up again and be picking up an R7, using it with this 200-800mm. I have so dearly missed bird photography for the 2 years since I parted with my equipment. I don't think I realized how wonderful it was for my mind and the general meditative qualities of such a peaceful and patient creative outlet. Sorry to ramble, it's just that I've seen just about every review for this lens but they tend to be short and really lacking what I'd call some kind of confident expertise with regards to the lens. I'm grateful to be able to hear your experiences, you having used it for MONTHS and very clearly understanding the market for the lens. I can't believe the reach and quality we can get now for under $2,000! At decent apertures, too! On these new RF bodies like the R6 I had, F/11 was totally manageable, so I have very little concerns about a maximum of f/9. Canon seems to have done a bang up job on this product. I wish I could wait however long for an R7 mk. ii of some kind, that resolves reviewers complaints about rolling shutter/shutter shock etc but I'm sure I'll be very happy with the combination at these prices. Have a wonderful week, looking forward to exploring your catalogue. Best regards, SpencerATX

[@kennethlui2268]

I totally agree with everything you said. During panning mode, the image in the viewfinder does jerk a bit. That is a bit annoying, but not a deal breaker. F9 being considered slow, weight, bulky, external zoom, not weather seal are not issues for me. It is as sharp as the 100-500. For $1900, this is a great buy. Period. I appreciate that you spend some time in the field before you provide an opinion. Great images.

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Thank you so much for watching. And thank you very much for the thoughtful comments. I appreciate those who understand that it can take some time to put together a good review. Thank you again.

[@gavinrowley960]

Thank you Ron great video waiting for The Rf 200 800 to try out what I wanted to here great photography Ron love the pied kingfishers

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Thanks for watching. Hope yours coming in soon.

[@SteveSSBB]

Awesome and practical review, Ron. I'm happy to finally see a reviewer not gripping about the focus ring/throw. A minor ergonomic challenge shouldn't irk members of the most adaptable species on the planet. ;)

[@tdunster2011]

Fabulous Photos and advice. I think the handling of these smaller lenses is a massive advantage and possibly why image quality is much closer to that of the top tier lenses than many would expect.

[@ScottRitchie-bw9ls]

I really enjoyed that video Ron. I've got the R5 and the 100 to 500 and of course I'm pondering whether to get the 200-800 or to keep my powder dry and wait for the R5-2. R5-2 I hope will get rid of the rolling shutter issue. But I'll tell you what your video makes getting the 200 800 very very tempting. Don't tell my wife. By the way, your images of the Green Heron in-flight are just bliss. And you need to train your kingfishers. Pretty good at catching fish, but then they drop one or two of them in the water when they try to eat them. Keep it coming mate.

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Hey, thanks so much for watching and providing your comments and thoughts. Always appreciated.

[@karinwest919]

That is what a review is supposed to be.... after using it for more than a day! I have one on order at a local dealer, so looking forward to it! Don't know if you can take the time, but I sure would like a short video from you about a subject that you mention in one of your Settings videos: the reasons/conflicts why not to set AF on back button AND Shutter Button. I cannot find anyone who is really knowledgeable about this and would love to know your reasons to keep Shutter Button for Metering only. Thanks for sharing all your knowledge about taking the shots as well as the technology of these cameras and lenses! Much , much appreciated!!!

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Hey, thanks so much for watching and taking the time for an extensive comment. I will try and get to that video subject you mentioned. I have had conversations on that subject many times with clients. It continues to evolve as these cameras provide more and more flexibility in setup.

[@karinwest919]

@whistlingwingsphotography looking very much forward to it! Thank you!!

[@Morgan_In_Motion]

Thank you for the great video! This is the review I have been waiting for.

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Glad it was helpful! Thanks so much for watching.

[@wdd910]

Loved birds all my life, since I was 10 (now 63) - this great video inspires me to get the 200-800mm with an R5! Thanks

[@fintanmctiernan8284]

Hi Ron, once again, thank you for the excellent, real world experience review and your honest thoughts on this lens. I have one on order and I’m looking forward to getting it. Keep up the great work you do in making these videos and investing your time and energy for the benefit of your viewers.

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

I really appreciate you watching and taking the time to comment. It is people like you that I do these videos for. Just trying to help a few people when and where I can. It def is not for the money. Ha. ha.

[@erkkisiekkinen286]

I have this lens and and I love it ,it also works well with 1,4 ext. My emergency option for finnish dark days is Sigma 500mm f4 sports (which I got at very good price second hand) ,then I have to carry 1,3 kilos more weight..

[@DanBetty]

Great in depth review .. I have been on the fence, I think you convinced me. Love my harness and use it all the time with my 600 f4 !!!!

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Awesome. So glad you are getting good use from your harness. Also, thanks for watching and commenting. If you do get the 200-800 I am pretty sure you will really like it. It is a great lens for birds.

[@gavinrowley960]

Hi Ron hope you are ok received the lens a week ago attached to r5 been out once weather not very good in the uk very impressed as you said great reach tried 1,4 extender ok the light was good really happy so far take care Gavin

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Excellent. Thanks for sharing. Hope the light stays good for you.

[@ludowild]

Thanks Ron for this review! I share your point of view and your analysis! I bought this RF200-800 to pair it for the moment with my R7 but like you I am convinced that Canon will still make big progress in terms of increasing ISO, which is why I invested in this zoom! I'm waiting to see the new R5 Mark II to see if I invest and I think this future combo is going to be exceptional -) for weather resistance I filmed in the snow for more than 1 hour in the rain at -5 to -7°C and frankly there is nothing to fear Canon did a good job!

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Great to hear your experience with the lens. Thanks for watching and for sharing.

[@CanonR5II]

Great review Ron! Outstanding images with the RF 200-800!

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Many thanks! Thanks for watching and commenting.

[@gavindavis1300]

Excellent as ever Ron. I have mine on order and this has given me a good feeling!

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Good to hear! I am glad I help easy your mind about your purchase. I believe you will find the IQ to be quite amazing. The more I look at images from this lens the more I love it.

[@gianners]

Quite happy with my 200-800mm but find highlights seem to blow out fairly easily especially on backlit subjects... bright areas almost seem to glow. I didn't quite know what to make of it since I haven't experienced this with my previous Sigma lens... But Jan Wegener explained it might be due to lack of certain lens coatings. Like you, I also found the IS to be a bit "jumpy" while panning - I wonder if it would just make sense to just turn it off when tracking birds in flight. Still really love the lens and the reach + fast AF - will just take some adjustments in the field. I'm taking a trip to the Philippines to photograph birds. I can't even imagine travelling with a big 600mm f4 for one of these trips. Glad I have the option for this much reach in a fairly compact lens.

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Thanks so much for the comment and for watching. I have noticed that the lens coating on the front element is not nearly as good as on the 100-500 or 600 f/4 for example. It shows up when trying to keep the front element clean and fog free as well as with glare. I do not see the highlights issue directly and I shoot a lot of white birds in bright sun. But I have seen glare issues. Another cost saving step to keep the price down it seems.

[@RetrieverTrainingAlone]

Excellent! Can you post a link to your mossy oak camo for the lens? THANKS.

[@philipgowdy]

I have started to cull all these reviewers who try to tell me about a lens/camera which they have tested for a few days and don't even know where the camera functions are. Good to know you give the gear a real good workout on hard subjects..Subscribed. regards.

[@hawkforce3109]

Awesome review, Ron. I love my 200-800 paired with my R3

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Thank you so much for watching. I’m with you I love the 200-800 on the R3. Just an amazing combination.

[@stuartphotography1968]

Good to see you Ron, very happy with my purchase of the RF lens 👍

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Good to hear. Thanks so much. I wish I had more time to do videos but I am stretched thin these days.

[@SuriyaNarayanan987]

Amazing kingfisher shots!

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Thanks a lot and thanks for watching.

[@wetsyenoch7831]

Thank you very much for your extensive talk about the nitty-gritty of the lens to clear our doubts .

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

My pleasure. Thank you for watching and commenting.

[@robertstrickland1979]

Thank you for the outstanding review of the 200-800 lens my old friend. i have one on order which i am putting on my R7.

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Glad it was helpful! Good to hear from you.

[@andrewborton9627]

A great video Ron as always, yours are the videos I look out for.Terrific information.

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

I appreciate that! Thanks so much for watching.

[@mvp_kryptonite]

Thanks for the video. The lens appears to be impressive and thanks for highlighting noise reduction, ISO ans AF capabilities. Weight and versatility are huge now and the IQ being attainable at such an attractive cost is a no brainer. I might sell the 600/11 now and put this on the list. I thought all the RF cameras show the focal length, it’s an option in the menu I think for EVF and or rear screen

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Thanks for watching and taking the time to comment. I have not found that option on the R5 for showing the focal length. It is on all RF cameras newer than the R5 I believe, but I have not tested all of them, so that may be incorrect. If you can point to the exact menu for showing the focal length in the R5 that would be awesome.

[@i.k.7689]

Loved this review. Very different from others. I have a 200-800 on order. I am happy to see confirming success stories. Did sell my 100-500. Did not do well with my R7. Did ok with an R6. For now I am still using the 100-400 L ii with both, and those seem to work well together. I think the R7 will have issues with the 200-800 simply because at 32MP the R7 is at an 80MP equivalent on a full frame, and the lens may not have the resolving power for that density. That said I think it will do great on an R5 and possibly phenomenally on an R6 mark ii.

[@adude394]

Great stuff here! I've been waiting, and waiting, and waiting, and waiting some more, to get the 200-800. Looking forward to pairing it with my R6 Mk II, assuming the lens is finally available while I'm still around...

[@martineldridge1319]

Hi Ron, Another great video. I also like using the Mossy Oak Graphics Camo on my lenses. When I fitted it on my 100-500 the Zoom friction didn't increase but on the 200-800mm there's a definite increase in the friction. did you find this when you fitted the camo to your 200-800 Lens? I've actually removed it now as it made it too tight and jerky for smoth video work.

[@alansach8437]

I keep kicking myself because I had this lens in my shopping cart right at midnight when it was first announced, but talked myself out of it, telling myself to wait for the reviews! Now that I've seen positive review after positive review I wish I had gone for it! Now, alas, I am on a never ending waiting list!

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

I know a lot of people are feeling your pain right now. I hate that Canon and other companies announce stuff and they don't have but a few to offer it seems. Bad way to do business, but the way of the world it seems at this point in time. Thanks so much for watching and taking the time to comment.

[@SliverCreations]

Those sample images are awesome.Thank you! Will add this lens to my gear as soon as its available

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Glad it was helpful! Thanks for watching and commenting.

[@VinceNysse]

Great video! Mine has just arrived, can’t wait to use it with my R5. Have enjoyed my 100-500 so far, but looking forward to the extra reach!

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Thanks so much. Good luck I am sure you will love the lens. One thing I have concluded just recently is that the lack of a good coating on the front element causes fogging issues. I have had to deal with more fog on this lens then any in a long time. Working on solution, but not sure I will be successful.

[@VinceNysse]

@@whistlingwingsphotography thanks for the heads up on the fogging issue 👍

[@finnritslev4559]

Thanks for a thorough review. It convinced me to go ahead and replace my RF 800mm f/11 that I use with a R6mkII. However, I mostly use R7+RF 100-500mm L other than in low light.

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Thanks for watching and taking the time to comment.

[@dougsturgess2651]

Your thoughts about the 200-800 on an R5 aboard a small ship in Svalbard in August (midnight sun) vs. RF 400 2.8 w/extenders or RF 600 f/4? Will be shooting polar bears 300 meters away, possibly closer. Distressed with this decision. Thanks.

[@johnjuby6184]

Ron. I have R7 and R5 bodies and RF 100-500 plus RF 800 F11 lenses. Awaiting RF 200-800. Am thinking of gearing down in my old age to just an R6 MKII and the RF 200-500, maybe keep the RF 800 F11. I shoot only stills. I know the MKII is superior in low light. I had an R6. And I keep seeing that the MKII is crazy good with auto focus. What do you think? Thanks.

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

I think of the R6II and the R3's little brother. It is a great body if you can deal with the resolution. Low light it is very good. As far as lenses go, if the 200-800 holds up well to constant use over the next 3 or some months, I will probably sell my 100-500. The range of the 200-800 is just so nice for us bird photographers it is hard to ignore.

[@johnjuby6184]

Thanks, Ron, much appreciated.@@whistlingwingsphotography

[@dav14pawest]

Thanks a lot Ron😊. Now I have to buy this lens because if you say it’s that good then I know it really is. All kidding aside, I really appreciate the thorough review. I have the 100-500 and think it is terrific on my R5 but that 800mm reach keeps enticing me. You’ve answered the question that has been rattling around in my head ever since I heard about this lens - why would I need both lenses. Your answer is I don’t. This is a sincere thanks because I’ve learned a ton from your videos over the years.

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Thanks so much for the kind words. My goal is to provide good information that might help at least a few people. I am glad you have found value in watching my videos. The more I shoot the 200-800 the more I love it. There are some additional things to think about depending on what you shoot most often such as less effective coating on the lens than the 100-500 that tends to make keeping the front element clean and fog free a bit more difficult. Also, glare can be an issue, so using the lens hood is more important with this lens.

[@jean-louisrousselle1794]

Thank you Ron for an excellent review based on months of usage and 10’s of thousands of images 👍

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Very welcome. Glad you found it informative.

[@jeffolson4731]

Great review. I agree with you completely. I was one of the lucky ones who got theirs on December 14th and have shot 1000’s of images and a few videos with it. In short, I love it. I think it is great value. I have custom made plates I made and use. They are Arca-Swiss with a Cotton Carrier puck on the back. This probably makes me one of the few people that are happy they didn’t build a plate onto the foot. I found other Canon users want to relieve me of the burden of having this lens. 😂

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Ha, great on you. You should probably patent those plates. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

[@Geophoto63]

Ho Boy I had waiting for those box almost 3 month and it is on backorder yet!!

[@animusfault]

Love the content and smugmug images!

[@QVL75]

This is one excellent review video! One of the best! I shoot with R7 and RF 100-500L, and I find myself sometimes, although not often, cut off wings when the action was too close. There is a real benefit, at least for me, to have 100mm at the low end for crop sensor. I haven't found myself needing the 800mm reach on crop sensor yet. 100-600mm would be nice. For most people who have been shooting with primes, I suspect 600mm with a teleconverter on full frame body is the most they would use. Maybe if I try the 200-800mm and will find out what I've been missing 🙂

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Thanks so much for watching and the kind words about the video. It all depends, what, where, and when you tend to shoot. I have always loved getting in really close so even 1200mm is great for me. Many times to get the detail I want cutting off the wings is actually a goal when photographing a bird in flight. It can be very much personal preference. If you like the 100-500 you will find the 200-800 very similar and really fun to shoot I think.

[@QVL75]

@@whistlingwingsphotography I normally include the habitat/environment in my shots and rarely crop in post-processing. I prefer that style. Did have a few neck and head shots just because of the distraction and they turned out nice. Thanks for getting me thinking about trying more close-up style. Thanks again for the review. Your recommendation carries a lot of weight.

[@fulviogarri3872]

Complimentissimi fai foto bellissime

[@jgreysquirrel]

Can’t wait to rent this lens.

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Always the best way to know if it right for you, in my opinion. Thanks for watching.

[@erichansen7791]

Great review I'm still waiting for 200 800 which I ordered from hunts photo on nov 2 I think I will be the last person toget one that was ordered on nov 2nd can't wait looks like a super fun lens to go out with eric hansen

[@andyambrose4517]

Hi Ron...does the 200-800 have any restrictions when fitted with a tele converter... similar to the 100-500

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Nope. It can be zoomed just as if the tele was not on it. Thanks for watching and commenting.

[@lengt001]

Tnx for this video. I own the R6M2 with the 100-500MM 4.5-7.1 L and the RF 24-105 mm f4 L. In the display of the R6M2 one also can see the focal lenght. Think of getting the RF 200-800 mm also. At the moment in Holland it is out of stock and Canon can not tell me when it will be. The price here is € 2499,00. For me and my wife (with her Nikon P1000) we do wildlife and bird photography. Greatings Leo Lengton.

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Hey, thanks so much for watching and taking the time to comment. Glad you found the video worth watching.

[@chimpy9823]

Thank you Ron for a great video, your views echo everything I have said to people about this lens. For the money this lens is a winner and I think Canon has hit a home run with it.

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Well said! Thanks for watching and commenting.

[@JdilpkleRS]

I’m pretty much a novice bird photographer, a former Baltimorean at that. I just recently purchased the R6Mk2 and the 200-800 Cannon lens (on backorder). Will I be at a big disadvantage with the 24 megapixel sensor? I’m second guessing my purchase and really can’t afford to get anything else. I just found your channel and am enjoying it immensely. I’m 68 and want to get out and about while I still can! Thank you so much. Joe

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

No, you will not be at a big disadvantage with 24mp. It was not long ago we were happily shooting 18mp and making great images and printing them big. The R6Mk2 is a great body. You will enjoy it I am sure. Thanks for the kind words and for watching and commenting.

[@vivekthambu9751]

Hi , is it ok to put a lens sticker on the extention part of the lens like you have, please let me know

[@rherteux]

I've had one on my 100-500 for years now and I just put one on my 200-800. Just make sure that whatever you get is high quality. I would recommend you take a look at Mossy Oak Graphics.

[@WernerBirdNature]

Hi Ron, thanks for this great review, illustrated by so many awesome birds ! According to Phil Thach the 200-800 doesn't resolve as well on the high pixel density of the R7, but on my R5 it works great on my first shoots using it. I bet it will be even better on your R3. Because I can't afford a 600/4, I intend to keep my 100-500 for cases where the birds are close and/or the light is low, like in a hide, or when shooting puffins. But when I'd previously consider using the 420-700, I may now be better off switching on the 200-800. Where do you expect the tipping point to be in optimal usage between both of these zooms ?

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Don't know about the R7 given I have only tested it on the R3 and R5 and I find it to provide excellent IQ. With the 100-500 you are at 7.1 at 500 with the 200-800 you have f/8 at 500 and 600mm. To me that is just not a significant difference given the ISO performance of todays cameras and the ability to deal with noise in post processing that is now available. Really, the only time noise is an issue for me is if it is so bad that it starts to mask the detail in my subject. When that starts to be a problem is a person to person and use case to use case situation. I guess the overriding factor to me is that I can shoot 200-800mm without having to put on or take off a TC and I find myself zooming actively using that range on flying birds. Thus, I often get shots I would have missed with the 100-500. For a bird photographer like me, the 200-800mm range is just so much more useful than 100-500. In the end, we all shoot in different scenarios, so we each have to go with what works best for us. I sold my 100-500 and I am going with the 200-800. I have my 600 f/4 if I want a different look to my images, or I really need the speed.

[@WernerBirdNature]

@@whistlingwingsphotography Thanks for the extensive reply Ron! If could trade my 100-500 and some peanuts for the 600/4 I would know what to do. So I totally get your decision about the 100-500 and I do agree the f/9 is far away from the issue some make of it. As you more less wrote, when the 800mm allows to have the bird large in the frame, its details will be larger than the high iso noise and software (in my case DxO Photolab) nicely takes care of it, much better than shooting from the same position with the 100-500 using a slightly wider aperture and slightly lower ISO. I expect to be using the 200-800 more often than the 100-500 from now on, but in specific cases (when not even needing the full 500mm) its advantages in weight and aperture (even when not big) may make a difference. Early February, on a city trip to Marrakesh with the family, I was crazy enough to take the (camoed) 100-500 and managed several nice bird shots. The 200-800 would have been just a tad too large in that environment ;-) My wife has an R7, and when you avoid its rolling shutter it's IQ is pretty good indeed. The point of Phil was the 100-500 performs on sharpness just as good on the R6ii or R7, but the 200-800 (when pixel peeping) was softer on the R7 compared to his R6ii. He compared this with the first 100-400L not resolving the pixel density of a 90D

[@vladimirk9722]

Я из России, купил себе такой объектив, работает в паре с R5 , очень доволен этой парой!

[@rherteux]

It has been 5 months since you made this video. Curious, what did you decide? Did you get rid of your 100-500?

[@stephenbolger5925]

You hit on a potential big issue for this 200-800 lens. Here in Ireland we have to endure low light conditions for most of the year. I only have the R7 at the moment and its low light performance is not great compared to the R5 or R3. Is the 100-500 lens the better option for low light?

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

If you shoot in low light all the time then the 100-500 is not the best option either given it is 7.1 at 500mm. The best option is to find a good used 500 or 600mm f/4. Yep, they are more expensive, but if you can't deal with noise from the R7 by using Topaz or other noise reduction then you will need a faster lens so you don't have to shoot higher ISOs. Not much else you can do.

[@WestVirginiaWildlife]

I have a 600 f11 (lol) and noticed that the stabilization when taking videos of eagles overhead was very inconsistent and that made me think that having a panning setting like the 100-500 has would help in that scenario. But I'd rather get the 200-800 for the extra reach. Canon cripple hammer lol

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Yah, well, they have to do such things to keep the price down. It would great to have everything in a 1800 lens, but alas that is not possible these days.

[@WestVirginiaWildlife]

@ingwingsphotography Yeah. I like how lightweight the 600 f11 is and can be handheld for several minutes with little arm strain. That alone might keep me where I'm at for now. I have a 20-dollar shoulder-mounted system that provides mechanical stabilization but the front piece rests on my chest and my breathing often interferes with it lol. I'll probably get your speed shooter setup and the 200-800 eventually. If the stabilization starts to malfunction I could zoom out and crop stabilize in post lol.

[@garymeredith2441]

Ron A friend of mine bought the 200 - 800 he cannot get ANY birds in flight nothing is in focus , and he uses the R3 and the R7 like what I do , and both of those cameras will not produce ANY sharp images with that lens in flight . Now what I would like to know was all the photos you are showing here the osprey and the ducks all the birds in the water were all of those photos all taken with the 200 - 800 lens .

[@VinceMaidens]

Totally agree with you here, and I've been using it in horrible English winter light. All the way across it's sharp and i'm used to only shooting primes. I'm taking this to Kenya next week to really invest some image time in and see how I do. Bang for the buck, I'd rather this than the 100-500. I'm actually leaving a 600 home this trip and taking it and a 400 2.8.

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Hey, thanks for watching. I think a lot of people will be doing what you are. Leaving the big white at home for plane trips.

[@VinceMaidens]

@@whistlingwingsphotography hah just leaving one home, still taking one :) , but yeah normally taking 2 600 and now I'm taking one. Leaving my Shinn home and taking 2 Tilopa as all the gear will be a bit more manageable. As you said, airlines are cracking down now, unless you're in business and even some like Qatar (don't use them) are beating up folks even in business. This lens is giving options now.

[@denniss5977]

@@VinceMaidenshumble brag about two 600s but don’t fly business? SMH.

[@VinceMaidens]

@@denniss5977 not bragging about what I have, they are tools for what I do. What if I fly business? I don’t know why you’d bother or care

[@denniss5977]

@@VinceMaidensso you’re the only one who can comment on the internet?

[@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?

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

I have the Sigma lens you are using. I can say without an hesitation that it will be a very big positive improvement for you to move to the 200-800. An RF lens on an RF body, they are made to work together. The Sigma you are adapting and although many lenses adapt well, they never reach the performance of an RF on an RF.

[@gary_michael_flanagan_wildlife]

Thanks for the video, Ron! I am definitely selling my 100-500 also. I tried but I just can’t like the lens. Mostly because I love my 600mm f4 II lens, especially with extenders to 840mm. Although this lens has some compromising I think it could work great for days I don’t want to drag my big rig out. Especially for shorebirds with clearer backgrounds. Thanks for the video. Now the trouble of selling my 100-500. It’s a very difficult time to sell. I might need to use eBay and take the hits on fees.

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Yep, it can be difficult to get out with the big glass sometimes. I am all into embracing these new smaller and lighter lenses. They are great tools to have available. They make great images and are super flexible. The right tool for the job can be the tool you have with you. I feel I can def make great images with the 200-800.

[@gary_michael_flanagan_wildlife]

@@whistlingwingsphotography thanks Ron. My concern also is for deep forest when I like to shoot songbirds. I think I’ll leave that to my 600mm II. I did have a question for you, as I’m really old school, afraid to shoot over 2000 ISO even with my R3. I use lightroom to organize and photoshop to reduce noise with masks. On occasions when I do shoot higher ISO. Can you tell me which noise reduction software is best? And does it plug into photoshop? I’m just not sure how people are using all the noise reduction these days. Do I have to move the image from photoshop to another program or can I simply apply it in photoshop or lightroom? I know I’ll need it if I start using this lens more. Thanks

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

@@gary_michael_flanagan_wildlife Gary, I use Topaz DeNoise and also Topaz Photo AI. They act a bit different so which I used depends on the image. Generally Photo AI does better if the image has "heavier" noise. These products work as plug-ins in Photoshop, and they reside under the "Filters" drop down menu. So, you do not need to move your image out of Photoshop. They do an amazing job at selecting the bird and removing noise without taking detail away from feathers and the like. These are not your old noise reduction programs. I would def given them a try.

[@gary_michael_flanagan_wildlife]

@@whistlingwingsphotography thanks Ron. Will do!

[@gavinrowley960]

Hi Ron can you send me a link for your lens camo on the RF 200-800 I live in the uk thank you Gavin

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Sure thing. amzn.to/3wN5QxP

[@BasilVKfilms2018]

As you said this lens will be more popular and powerful once R1 or R5mark 2 comes. Issues with noise will be gone even 6000iso will be noise free

[@afriquelesud]

Would prefer to keep them white. In the horrific heat of the African sun, dark colours absorb more heat. If you are behind the steering wheel, the vehicle parked for hours and the lens protruding from its perch on a door side bean bag, the white helps to reflect some of the heat. Nikon never noticed. That's why we buy Canon. Even Sigma and Tamron are slow learners. Working in 45°C, with in-sun temps often well above 70°C, can be challenging.

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Good point! I agree 100%. It is nice to have it white under certain circumstances. thanks for watching and commenting.

[@tarjei99]

I'm drooling when I think of the Zuiko 150-400 F/4.5. I'm living in a place where my EF 600 F/4 with a TC lives at ISO 25 600. The light is bad in a real overcast Winter.

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

It can be trying at times when there just is no light to do what you want. There are so many "tools" available now to help us out on the hardware and software side of things. Just need to find the right combination and that can and often differs on an individual basis.

[@isotechimages.9130]

Some good points finally a lens hood with a non L series lens, some weather sealing on a non L series lens, a reasonable close focus distance, reasonable weight. Bad points, no focus limiter, no lock switch to prevent lens creep as the tight ring does not do it, zoom is too loose for me falls out to 800mm as soon as upside down, lens foot not arco swiss and not removable, weather sealing could be a little better. My most used and favourite lens would have this over a 150/600 f5/6.3 any day. I am no Canon fanboy as they S%#@! me at times but l commend them as the only company taking advantage of higher F stops with the mirror less advantages. I saw a comment from an OM Systems user say F9 you gotta be kidding, l bet he never tried the lens.

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Thanks for your thoughts. Much appreciated. I really think those who pass on the lens because of the speed will be missing something.

[@kennetht66]

I see a lot of images shot at 2.8 on Instagram that aren't sharp because of depth of field.

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Yep, DOF is something we should all be cognizant of. We all tend to get hung up on exposure and forget about what DOF will be like at the settings we are shooting.

[@christophercarlimages9003]

I appreciate the very in depth review. Overall, I do think you are overly optimistic with most Canon products. Is there ever anything that is sub par with these products? Not trying to be overly critical but Canon still doesn't have a competitor to Nikon's PF primes and if the rumors are true, they wont have a 45 mpx sensor (not really considered high in 2024) available in a pro body. I doubt that the autofocus performance and IQ are nearly as good as a fast prime. To me that's a big flaw for them. And I shoot Canon, so just being honest here. Canon's sensor performance is not up to their competition right now which is why the rumored flagship is only 30mpx. They obviously cant make a larger sensor that can match the frame rates of the A1 and Z9. Thats very telling in 2024. Not that we need 120fps anyway, but how about a 45mpx sensor in a pro body that can shoot 25fps? Canon shooters dont have that option and apparently wont have it for quite some time, if ever....Cheers!

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Oh, I mention several things in many of my videos that I don't like about products including Canon. We will have a 45mp sensor in the R5II that will do 25fps or even faster. We will probably have AI power AF too. It may not be considered a pro body by many, but many pros use the 5 series cameras including me. The AF performance of the 200-800 is great. I really cannot tell the difference among many of the newer lenses. The RF mount and communications systems have really brought a system where AF is really fast and accurate for almost all RF lenses IMO. I have been shooting the 200-800 with the 1.4TC and I am super impressed by the AF still being fast and accurate at f/13 and that is saying something given that not very many years ago stopping down to f/8 would cause AF issues on some cameras. Overall, I am not hung up on lenses and bodies much anymore. They are all so good that we are just splitting hairs in comparisons. I just have fun going out and making images with all this great technology. If you can't make good images on a consistent basis with any of these lenses and bodies that are on the market these days, then well, I don't know what to tell you. Thanks so much for watching and for taking the time to comment. Much appreciated.

[@christophercarlimages9003]

@@whistlingwingsphotography thanks for the reply! I agree that most of the products are more than adequate for making great images. But I still think Canon is not as receptive to the needs of many people in respect to a true flagship pro body and high quality lightweight lenses like the PF. Seems sometimes that their business model is high volume good value prosumer gear. But if "influencers" are satisfied with that direction than I'm guessing it will continue. I personally know many Canon shooters who agree with my take so I can say with certainty that they are ignoring a segment of the users. But that's their business decision. Thanks again for taking the time to respond!

[@BigFoot-w4d]

Primes will always be sharper, no matter what modern technology can do. EVERY serious pro will always have a 400/2.8 or a 600/4 for their REPUTATION. They’d be embarrassed if they didn’t own one … Budget lenses like 200-800 with small apertures are designed for the mass market, mainly hobbyists and enthusiasts. PS: Pro is defined as someone using their photo equipment to earn a living or derive a significant amount of their income through photography.

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

I could go into a long discussion about this subject, but I will refrain from doing that here. I will say this. A pro uses the tools they feel are necessary to get the job done. I do not think that having a big white is necessary just to impress. It is about their product. Take a look at their imagery. If it is top-notch, it does not matter what equipment they used to make it. I have seen a lot of world-class images come from bodies and lenses some may define as consumer or mass market. As they say, it is not the tool, it is how well you use it.

[@BigFoot-w4d]

Canon should have just replaced that 800/f11 with a good, super light weight 800/F8 lens that is better in AF and IQ!!

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Sure, but that would have been more expensive. Some would have been okay with that, others would not have been.

[@rockymanilow5115]

Packing in a bag not as tidy as 100-500. That foot should be able to take off.

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Agreed to a point , but I don’t find fitting it in a pack a problem at all.

[@jamesseward9263]

It be very nice if they made an L version of this lens as I’d pay $1000 more!! 😊

[@charliebaughman]

You failed to mention you cannot get the 200 to 800. Backordered to Nov 23

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Well, technically not completely accurate. I did mention that most companies including Canon tend to announce new products with very little supply actually available and I stated how much of a bummer that is. You must have missed that part of the video. Also, the 200-800 is trickling out to customers. I run a lot of photography tours and quite a few of my clients have received their 200-800s and a few recent clients said they received notices that their lenses where on the way. The norm has become that getting newly released lenses and bodies involves waiting and sometimes more waiting.

[@charliebaughman]

Sorry about that. I guess I missed that part.@@whistlingwingsphotography

[@loony7002]

an arca swiss foot would make handholding a heavy lens like this extremely uncomfortable and could even cause injuries to the hand.

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Interesting thought. Thanks for sharing.

[@tarjei99]

Most people turn the foot upwards when they are handholding the lens.

[@gbaines4284]

I have an arca Swiss on my 500mm f4 version II. A heavy lens. It was uncomfortable until I made a leather cover for it. The leather feels so much better.

[@blisteringbooks2428]

Saying that it is fantastic at that price point is worthless. I am trying to decide if it will be better than a 100-400Lii with a 2x, one reviewer said it would be better cropping images from the 100-500 to get to 800. Who knows. Only until it is available I can only listen to a third party view point. Also if you only look at files on a screen you may a well photograph through a plastic cup.

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Sorry you find my video worthless. Not sure what I can say about your comment overall. How else are you supposed to look at your images to initially evaluate them? Print them all? Yes, of course you can print them, but I am not printing all of my images to see how good they look. I have processed more images than I could ever count and I believe I know if an image will print well by evaluating it on an accurately calibrated monitor. That is how I do it and I am pretty sure many others do it this way too. Not sure what a plastic cup has to do with anything.

[@blisteringbooks2428]

@@whistlingwingsphotography the video wasn't worthless, it just lacked an opinion on sharpness. I did a comparison between the Sigma 50-500 and the Canon 100-400Lii, on my computer, rather than the reduced quality of the Internet I could see that there was little difference so I stated that, and didn't buy my own 100-400Lii. If you show processed images you generally add sharpness. I have been trying to find out how sharp images are, as opinion varies from very good, through soft at 800mm, to not worth upgrading from the 100-500. Sorry if I sounded offensive, frustration, maybe SADS, it rains almost every day in the UK. Video production excellent. I watched one a while ago where the guy was standing in front of a cluttered background n the rain sounding bored to tears.

[@hallodaar-r6m]

R3 AND R5 useless review most people cant afford that! if you want to do a good review talk about r7 and r6!

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Sorry, have to disagree with you a bit. The R5 is one of the most popular cameras in the field these days among wildlife and bird photographers. Thus, using that body to review the lens makes good sense to me.

[@hallodaar-r6m]

@@whistlingwingsphotography most people buy r6 r6 ii or r7 r5 or r3 are very expensive ofcourse it peforms good because these camera's are fantastic with every lens. Thats my opinion.

[@alansach8437]

​@@hallodaar-r6mThere are reviews available of this lens with these other cameras. The ones I have seen have been very positive.

[@paullanoue5228]

@@hallodaar-r6mThe high megapixel pixel count of an R5 would definitely magnify the flaws of a lens. It doesn’t hide flaws it reveals them. Don’t confuse the added detail of a high megapixel camera body with the sharpness of the lens. Detail is a product of the body and sharpness is a product of the lens. Sorry Ron, I hope I’m not overstepping here. The commenter seemed confused about sharpness and detail. Your video was great. You always present your subjects in a manner we can relate to in the real world. I’m going to order a RF 200-800mm because of your video. Thank you.

[@hallodaar-r6m]

You cant review new lenses with expensive camera body's! it isn's fair at all!

[@The_Idea_of_Dream_Vision]

Lol how is it not fair? Most people who can afford to buy that lens can afford those cameras.