Canon RF 200-800mm f/6.3-9 IS USM lens review

[@adrianrcarr]

I have been waiting for this review! I never seriously consider buying a lens until I watch the Christopher Frost review.

[@CRaul87]

Same

[@ej_tech]

I wish he also did micro four thirds, then.

[@CRaul87]

@@ej_tech and lumix FF as well

[@allend6137]

Same

[@Twobarpsi]

Same

[@FrankSD76]

Thanks! I’d seen other reviews but you still managed to bring up some good points and new information. Nice work.

[@lnz971]

1.99 lol

[@christopherfrost]

Thanks for your support!

[@classic.cameras]

Christopher I have always wondered. How do you do these test charts with lenses like this? You must be near a mile away at 800mm.

[@jdpattok4357]

You'd be surprised how much 800mm is not nearly as long as you imagine.

[@ZaberAnsaryOfficial]

More like 20-25ft for a A4 sized chart Lol.

[@RFGfotografie]

Whenever I buy a zoom lens like this, I will be using it on a APS-C lens. So that you added that part was very handy.

[@aquss33]

wow, that's actually really nice as a 320-1280mm, more or less unheard of on APS-C

[@SMGJohn]

@@aquss33 MFT and APS-C tend to be king of kings in the telephoto world because of this, slap on a telephoto extender and get up to 2400mm

[@anonymousl5150]

@@SMGJohn Unless you use a 60 megapixel full frame, which would match 26 megapixels on apsc when cropped in the same. Although there are 40 mp apsc, those tend to kill telephotos like these due to early diffraction being the consequence of high pixel density

[@pierrevilley6675]

Keep in mind an APSC sensor will struggle a lot in low light at F9.

[@anonymousl5150]

@@pierrevilley6675 If u understand how cameras work you know f9 on apsc is same as f9 on full frame in light gathering density. All you did was crop parts of the sensor.

[@fotoevia]

"The sea washes away all the evils of men." says in greek the last label. Excellent review as usual Chris!!

[@ME2K23]

Eye sea what you mean 😉

[@jbrownson]

I find your lens reviews super helpful and concise, and you come up in every search I do. Joined Patreon, thanks.

[@HuFilms]

Nice one Chris, not surprised at all with your conclusion. I held off on this lens because I felt it wasn’t really any better than the cheap f11 800mm. And that’s the focal length this lens will live at most of the time for a lot of bird / wildlife shooters. I honestly feel that this is a better video lens than photo lens.

[@Chris_Wolfgram]

well from that standpoint, you are correct. Its not really better (or worse) than the 800 F11 @ 800mm (which is another fantastic birding lens... my favorite :) . But it is a lot more versatile, and has the zoom when and if you need it. Also, the much shorter MFD is a big plus. I will likely eventually get this lens, when it is in stock, and as a refurb for $400 off ;)

[@HuFilms]

@@Chris_Wolfgram I've just picked this up today so I'll likely do some videos on it if you're interested.

[@dr_squirrel]

Thanks for this video! Although I have owned this lens for over two months and really put it through its paces, I was still excited for my favorite reviewer‘s verdict. I am really happy with the lens, even on the R7. I also felt a slight loss in contrast and sharpness on the long end but nothing to troublesome in real-world use. Of course a 200-800 mm lens has to be a compromise, but in this case It’s a good one

[@ludovicgrignou]

Enfin un vrai test ! Merci pour cette vidéo.

[@jimscarff4634]

One quirk that did not see been mentioned in the review or comments in the comparison between the RF 200-800 lens and the RF 100-500 + a 1.4X Teleconverter, is that the teleconverter physically blocks the ability to zoom out into the 100-300mm portion of the zoom. As a result if you add the 1.4X to a full frame camera like the R5 the available zoom range shrinks from 100-500mm to 420-700mm. It you add the 1.4X to the RF 100-500 on crop camera like the R7, then the zoom range shrinks from 160-800 mm to 672-1,120mm. In both cases the 100-300mm portion of the zoom cannot be used because the telextender blocks it. If the animal you are trying to photograph approaches closer, you have to go through the cumbersome and time-consuming process of disengaging the teleconverter and storing it safely. For me this is a high cost that is eliminated with the 200-800mm and a significant benefit of that larger lens.

[@MawsYT]

For someone who gives Canon a ton of FREE advertisements, I'm shocked they only lent you the lens instead of outright giving you one. Not saying you're owed anything, of course simply because you do. I just mean, Canon is a multi million dollar company, and I would think that reviewers such as yourself deserve some free gear especially since, again, it's more free advertisement for them. But hey, what do I know. I'm just a mere consumer. Great video as always!

[@williamchan8866]

I think because this is not an L lens there could variations in quality. On my copy I’m very impressed by its image quality and many top birders are also impressed by how good it is. So double check with your retailer about their exchange policy in case you get a lemon. Although this maybe tough to do considering supplies are still low.

[@sircas1224]

Awesome review! I think I’ll continue using my 100-500mm lens instead! And even better zoom range on my R7 than this lens on full frame!

[@adude394]

Excellent review, and quite a lot of food for thought. I'm quite certain I'm going to add an R6 Mk II to my kit in the fairly near future; all of my gear is currently DSLR, with my 7D Mk II and my 1DX Mk III doing the bulk of my work. All of my lenses are Canon EF or EF-S, with the exception of an old Tokina 19-35mm and a Sigma 150-600C. The 200-800 seems like a reasonably decent way to get that really long reach without completely breaking the bank. OTOH, as they say, you get what you pay for, and it does make me wonder if some of the less than ideal things you pointed out make it entirely worthwhile. I have done quite a bit of research, and I've determined that I could use my 100-400 to good effect on an R-body camera, even with the 1.4x teleconverter. I'll have to give it some more thought; as much as I have tried to develop my photography skills, I doubt I'll ever be able to justify the purchase of a five-figure lens like the f5.6 L (also, my wife would probably have me locked up).

[@Mike0193Azul]

I’ve gotten all my lenses based on your sharpest lens award/compilation of the year videos 💚

[@stefanbadass5357]

Bravo!

[@angeloop]

Hi Cris. Thank you for your reviews. I hope some day you start to do review of micro four thirds lenses. I recently bought an olympus camera and discovered a world of beautiful tiny cameras and lenses

[@Jay-sr8ge]

OM will never send their products to independent critical reviewers. They have an army of ambassadors who sing praises to every product they release, including the mediocre ones.

[@StrangerTwenty]

I was pretty sad seeing how the lens performed in the video, but I did end up buying the lens months later and I received it yesterday. I took some photos with it today and I was honestly blown away by the quality of photos I got. It's much better than I was expecting. It outperformed my 100-400 ii with the 1.4x iii teleconverter on my R5 so I'm pretty happy with my purchase, phew!

[@simonthibodeau7082]

I really wish you could also test all of these super telephotos with TCs as well. It would really help paint a clearer picture for each!

[@simonthibodeau7082]

@joeyyambor9350 what I really wish is that we could compare this lens at 800, with other lenses like the other brand's 600 f6.3 zooms + 1.4x!

[@The-50-Simmer]

had it for 2 days. The long trow on the zoom is a NO GO for me. absolute nightmare for birding.

[@budthecyborg4575]

When most people use a prime lens it sounds funny to hear complaints about also being able to zoom.

[@simonthibodeau7082]

Arguably the most valid criticism of it tbh!

[@JayJayYUP]

Total opposite of focus throw on most lenses today. I wish more lenses could have longer focus throws like this one zooms. I like to manually focus, and with wide apertures, nailing focus at times is so difficult.

[@Bayonet1809]

@@budthecyborg4575The long throw makes the zoom functionality much less useful, so it is loosing the only advantage it has over a prime.

[@simeonandrews8223]

Interesting... It is true I usually use mine at 800mm; the zoom is usually when I'm trying to do bird-in-flight photos, and need to zoom out to get the bird; but then I'm almost never going to 200, just back to 4-500, something like that, so the throw seems fine to me. Maybe if I'd had the 100-500 lens or the Sony 200-600, as I hear those have shorter throws, I'd feel the same as you. For myself, though, I find the long throw slightly annoying, but not a big deal at all. As to primes... this is still much brighter than the 800mm f11 prime, and it's much lighter than, say, at 400 or 600mm f4 prime. But to each their own!

[@RFGfotografie]

You don't wanna know how long I've waited for you reviewing this lens :P Awesome video yet again,

[@ForrestWest]

I enjoy the lightweight, excellent stabilization and very good sharpness of the rf800mm f11. It's so enjoyable to carry that I can do without the zoom range

[@TomCornell1]

Hi Chris, another great review. Any chance of an RF-S 10-18 review soon?

[@hoos2177]

Very nice review. It would be very interesting to compare this lens to the 100-500 with 1.4 converter.

[@rev.chuckshingledecker]

A lot of real world wildlife photographers' tests show this len holding up much better that the test charts when compared to the 100-500 with 1.4TC (to make the lenses as close to comporable as possible). I still hope to get this lens some day, but it will be awhile longer as I'm still in the process of upgrading to RF lenses where my old Sigma EF lenses just don't work as well on modern mirrorless autofocus systems. Hopefully with a year I will have this, and my kit will feel truly complete.

[@The_NSeven]

Would love to see a review on the little RF-S 10-18mm

[@Military_Archive]

Hey everyone, does it support 2x extender?

[@Chris_Wolfgram]

I rented this lens for a week, took many thousands of shots with it, both from my back yard blind, and in the field. Freaking loved it. It’s weird…. You showed plenty of examples for the sharpness…. Or lack thereof. But this lens seemed very sharp to me, for real world use. Maybe I just don’t know what a sharp photo is ? But if any of you would like to see my work, there is a link to my photo page in my channel. All of my EXIF info is included below each photo. Several on there from my week with the 200-800. Maybe they will or won’t be acceptable for you ? Funny thing is, I find the cheapie RF 100-400 with a 1.4 TC, and most especially my beloved 800 F11 to also be plenty sharp. Rarely do I need any sharpening, and if I do, it’s always because I was slipping, but NOT because the lens wasn’t sharp enough.

[@Chris_Wolfgram]

@@Tegneaufreakjmpo, but I think that might only matter if you were doing giant prints or something. I know from scouring the internet almost daily, looking for beautiful, high quality bird shots, that rarely do I see any sharper than mine. My sharper ones I mean 🙂 My photo page is “not just” a collection of my technically best, sharpest shots. Aesthetics matter too. I understand that @ 100% one might see a slight difference. But considering that probably 99% of the uses of digital shots, well probably 99.9% of mine, are sized down to 3 to 5 mp’s or less for digital viewing, it’s usually impossible to discern a difference.

[@jimscarff4634]

Chris, all the many photos of small birds you have posted on Flickr taken with the RF 800 f/11 are amazingly sharp. You are doing masterful work with that lens. But please label where you got those photos! I know enough about birds to have a rough idea but always looking for places I should travel too.

[@Chris_Wolfgram]

@@jimscarff4634 thank you 🙂 If there are any particular shots your really curious about, shoot me a short message under that shot, and I reply with the place 👍

[@ME2K23]

That lens is useful, but I hope they make a version with a wider aperture at the long end, even if it makes it a little bigger...

[@vitaminb4869]

Wow. The image resolution at 800mm is disappointing.

[@aquss33]

Well it is an amazing focal range for a full frame lens and it's also not very expensive for something like that, normally this shit costs 10.000€ or more

[@Beaver-be8vk]

What we’re you expecting for $1899? It’s not L glass

[@vitaminb4869]

@@Beaver-be8vk The 800mm F11 STM has much better image quality and costs half that. Yes, it's not zoom, but for half price and the likelyhood of it being used at 800mm most of the time anyway is a strong reason to consider this lens over 200-800. It also weighs a lot less too.

[@tonyesposito9602]

@@vitaminb4869 I sold my 800mm F11 and now own the 200-800, sharpness is very good and the F9 is more useable the biggest difference between the 2 lenses is the focusing it's night and day difference especially for birds in flight, It won't replace my RF100-500 or my 600mm F4 but it's a brilliant lens for birding when you don't want to carry the big lump about 🙂

[@altonmarsh]

An earlier review by another reviewer damned with faint praise. This one ends with saying you’ll “probably” get fantastic pictures. I guess if you use it in ideal conditions at ideal settings mentioned in this review you will not be disappointed. But forget photographing in trying conditions or the wrong settings for best sharpness or you will be disappointed. My other Canon lenses seem to be good in all conditions and at all settings. I looked at the one-star reviews of the 200-800 on B&H just now, and all three discuss solely the purchase experience and not the lens. Apparently word of the scarcity of the lens has not reached them and one or two blamed B&H for failing to make Canon provide more copies of the lens. Throw those reviews out and you’ll “probably” end up with a rating that exceeds the current 4.2 out of five stars.

[@NotAnotherChannel_Channel]

Great review. What a zoom range.

[@lewcehjitl3282]

The non removable tripod foot is a huge bummer 😢.

[@TuomoTanskanen]

Thanks C! I think your sharpness test saved me 2.5k. It is not sharp enough to get it when I have 100-500 and 1.4x already.

[@vitaminb4869]

That's 700mm F10. Do you think it's better than 800mm F9?

[@TuomoTanskanen]

@@vitaminb4869 It is close enough to not warrant 2.5k, for me. That’s all I’m saying.

[@robertbrown6060]

I had this dilemma. But having got both I think the 200 - 800 better than the 100 - 500 with TC. Plus more reach and no messing about with TC. I’ve taken great pics in poor light too. I’d happily sell the 100 - 500 now.

[@simonthibodeau7082]

Fair to say, people should probably get one or the other, depending on budget, use cases, how much they can comfortably handhold, etc. I've been telling people with 100-500s, just get the 1.4x, and save that money for a prime instead! I say this even as someone who skipped the 100-500, and will likely get this one when it goes on sale, mostly because that extra 1000+$ isn't worth it for me.

[@Xirpzy]

100-500mm with tc is a nightmare lol. Without tc its better but with tc its worse than the 200-800mm. 500mm often isnt enough for me. That being said, the reach and less hassle with tc are the only reasons I would consider this lens over the 100-500mm.

[@4FRodrigo]

Great review! I'd ratter have this long lens with push and pull, just like the old EF 100-400

[@przybylskipawel]

Pity you don't test m43 gear. I would like to know how this one on R7 compares to the OM-Sigma 150-600mm f5-6.3 for m43. Slighty tighter equivalent AoV but slightly dimmer eqivalent apeture. Taht would be en interesting comparison.

[@seth094978]

That or the 150-400 f4.5, which is a more direct comparison in terms of light gathering and focal length, if not price.

[@przybylskipawel]

@@seth094978 That would be a strange comparison. Only the max eq. focal length without TC and eq. apeture at max. focal length would match. Olympus is optically stunning lens with stellar OIS, internal zooming and fantastic build quality and ergonomics but is INSANELY overpriced. Canon is optically mediocre, rough on the build and ergonomics and has mediocre IS, but it is much cheaper. Also it is intended to be used on expensive FF bodies like R5. Very difficult to compare. But when you pair Canon 200-800mm with R7 (32,5Mpix but with heavy AA filter) you get very similar reach, eq. apeture, weight, overall design and pricing. What is to be tested is performance.

[@simonthibodeau7082]

​​@@seth094978that's the one I wanna see, out of curiosity. They would be very similar in theory!

[@Thomasjcolbert82]

I’ve been waiting too!! This channel is #1. I have the 100 to 500 and want to see how comparable this lens is to the one I have even though that’s not an L.

[@Beaver-be8vk]

I’m so glad I skipped this lens and just got the RF 100-500L. With my R7 I have all the reach I need and sharpness is never an issue.

[@OhhhhhhhBugger]

Same here! Best long zoom I've ever used.

[@keeganflahive1604]

Still haven’t gotten my order I made back in December lol

[@badboyvr4]

Good review, but I think I'll stick to my RF 100-500mm + RF 1.4x Teleconverter combo.

[@Magnetron692]

Hi Chris, many thanks! There's a shoulder pod made by Novoflex. I recently purchased one and it helps a great deal for such telephoto lenses. I have the Canon EF 4.5-5.6/100-400 mm L IS USM. Best wishes, Ralf

[@Alexander_Kushnarev-117]

Despite your video, I'm still going to buy 200-800. Loved the review Duade Patone uses this lens with the R7.

[@MrBrockley3]

Duade Paton seems to never give bad reviews, makes me think is he being paid.

[@Jay-sr8ge]

Omw of the few people who spoke up about the pulsing issues with the adapted sigma lens and the R7 poor performance. But yea he's generally not too critical

[@IntothewestOkotoks]

I’ve been using this lens for a couple weeks on my R7. It’s relatively sharp (at 600-800), focuses quick, quiet, and feels well built. I have no regrets getting it. It’s tracked a few BIF quite well. That extra reach over 500 (or 600 compared to older Sigma/Tamrons or even Sony) is well worth it for a lot of birding.

[@GP996_LB]

​@MrBrockley3 He's been quite critical when there's issue (for example his videos about r7) He's more focus on hobbyist like himself and most of us, where a little bit of softness (which might be fix in post) won't affect our enjoyment of taking photos in the nature.

[@gerardferry3958]

surprising how little gear interests me nowadays, this is an exception

[@NECPER]

A really good and fair review I think. I have this and the RF100-500 and I think they each have pros and cons but may add to different use cases. I currently only have the R7 camera. Your review gives me the impression that this lens performs best on a full frame camera like the R5. Is that a correct assumption?

[@ajc4000]

I wonder if the RF 100-500 performs better than this lens when cropping or using a 1.4 extender.

[@truthseeker6804]

this is better than crop or 1.4x. but at same focal lenght 100-500 is slightly sharper. if you need the extra reach go for this. you can also add alittle sharpening in post.

[@lensman5762]

Hmmm, F9? I have a super Achromat 4" deep sky observation telesope that is F9. Its about a meter long. Now we put these on our cameras?

[@MrMartinek99]

Why not? Do you see some issue? Sony or Nikon would be 840mm f9 with TC1.4. This is close enough without neccesity of buing additional gear.

[@joerg_koeln]

For highest performance the prime lenses (400mm, 600mm, 800mm) are still available. I would have been surprised by a much better performance - who would still by prime telephoto lenses if a much cheaper zoom delivers the same performance? This lens is an interesting compromise for those who cannot / do not want to invest 12.000-17.000 $ into a professional lens. 30 years ago there were only prime lenses and no (relatively) cheap zoom alternatives available.

[@RynaxAlien]

I'd love to see mirrors lens since they are smaller by half and lighter. Papper thin metalens are even more interesting

[@Eduardo-lz9qr]

Algún día harás el review de algún lente m4/3?

[@thor9722]

After watch your video I also did some iso 12233 chart testing with my R6: aperture changed from wide open down to f11 on each zoom, turned off the stabilization on Tripod, iso fixed at 100, used 2 sec delay shot, and view the raw file with 100% zoom in. I can’t tell too much different from 200mm 250mm 325mm 450mm 500mm 600mm, they all looks sharp for me. However I saw slightly (not easy noticeable) soft at 707mm at f9, and my 800mm is slight better than 707mm. I even feel like this soft more looks like some fringe against white. But if I took it from the closest shoot distance I can't tell soft from all focus range. I think my sharpest zoom is at 200mm not 600mm, they are pretty close though. All of sharpness difference I observed with R6 are not significant as you showed with R5. I also saw another test video shows this lens shows softness with R7. I guess this lens might not perfect for high resolution camera like R7/R5 especially if someone considers only the appearance of Morie Pattern is sharp.

[@tonyw3250]

I don't own this lens, but i've seen some amazing sharp photos taken with it.

[@Wildridefilms]

2 major problems with this lens. 1. Aperture: It would not be a problem if it was f6.3 upto 500 or 600mm and then slowed down to f9 at 800mm, similar to their 100-500, which was f5.6 at 400mm, very similar to it's contemporaries and then offered the extra reach at a slower aperture. But this is f8 at 600mm, 2/3 stops slower than its competition. 2. Sharpness: Would have expected it to be sharp wide open as it is a pretty slow lens but it doesn't seem to be any sharper than any of it's competitors with teleconverters attached.

[@robertcudlipp3426]

This is another, typically, thorough and pragmatic review. Have always been glad that don't do BIF etc, as quality glass has always been very, very pricey. Imagine that an L version of this, or similar, focal length Canon RF would be kidney sale price range. However, for really dedicated loooong distance shooters, you would keep an expensive, high quality lens, basically for life.

[@skyscraperfan]

Do you have to turn the zoom ring or is it possible to just pull it out? I love that at my EF 100-400 II. I hardy ever use the zoom ring of that lens. I wonder how my 100-400 with a 2x teleconverter would compare to this lens.

[@jeffreyhill4705]

Do you think that on the R7 Diffraction was already an issue around f9?

[@theodoremann1461]

I always trust your reviews. I do wish you would check out the Leica v-lux 5.

[@gumperP]

Do you think that the F/9 is OK for our "light" and climate? I see a lot of reviews of this lens in sunny countries etc, but being in Ireland myself, I worry that the just general dullness of the weather would make it even more difficult to use for birding, and sports photography actually. (Baseball...yes even in Ireland.) Thank you for the great review!

[@anthonyhershko]

I got the Sigma 60-600, I started to have blurry pictures since I did the last firmware update 2.0, and I wonder if the 200-800 better? The price tag of this lens is HUGE! (Here in the Middle East is 10400...). Thanks

[@ronwilson9855]

Like many others I am not sure about this lens, initial pr was great, but I already use the Sigma 150 - 600 C, (R7) so with a 1.4 extender get over 800 range now, is it worth swapping??? a comparison review would be very interesting. As always a great video and as honest as you promise.

[@zegzbrutal]

AF and Stabilisation will be better

[@drbeardo6960]

Finally..!!! Thank u boss👌✌️

[@coz2112]

Nice review. It also has 2 customizable buttons.

[@Toamserippa]

Isn't it just one button in the settings, with different orientations?

[@simonthibodeau7082]

While a nice addition, I believe it can't be used for focus presets, which is the main reason you'd want it there. Bit disappointed in that tbh

[@PhilippeDHooghe]

Chris I"m really impressed by this review. I"m sure the willdlife shooters will be too. This ticks all the right boxes. Impressive. Where did you stand for the 800mm shot... somewhere in the back of the garden? 😁

[@samcreel]

Oh Chris, I believe you were a bit too harsh this time. We have to consider that telephoto lenses are the most complex to make, which translates into being the most EXPENSIVE in the market by far, specially those that get you to 800mm. So, I think it’s a fairly solid piece of glass, and you get what you pay for.

[@nordic5490]

I appreciate his honesty. Other reviewers I respect, eg Jan Wegener, came to a similar conclusion.

[@simonthibodeau7082]

Fair to say, it's overall very similar to most 600mm zooms+1.4x TCs. Whether you like the no TC needed aspect, or the versatility of removing it for a bit more aperture, comes down to preference at the end of the day.

[@Wildridefilms]

Not very harsh. Companies like Sigma makes sharp zooms at a lower cost. This is a weird lens from Canon. With it being so slow, it atleast had to be sharp wide open. That's unfortunately not the case. All of the other FF 600mm f6.3 zooms are sharper than the canon. I doubt if they are any softer than the Canon, even with their respective 1.4x TCs, getting you 840mm at f9

[@cyrilhamel8289]

I was wondering... At what distance did you test the lens? Cause I think I remember you usually do at (30 or) 40x the focal length. But here it makes a bit of a challenging distance... 😬 And as always, very pleasant to watch and very useful review 😊

[@mvp_kryptonite]

Interesting review and thanks for putting it together. Wish it looked a bit better and that tripod collar was detachable. Zoom ring could be improved too. At least too it’s fully compatible with the extenders unlike its more prestigious 100-500 brother.

[@trym2121]

I wonder if you know the optimum sharpness mac focal length. 500 is nice maybe the limit is at 650 or 700?

[@IamNoOne-001]

Nice Review man!!! Question: in your Opinion, Wich one has better sharpness the Nikon Z 180-600mm at 600mm/f6.3 or the Canon 200-800mm at 800mm/f9?

[@cy9nvs]

You can just open both reviews at 4k in two different tabs, pause when he zooms in at the test chart and switch back and forth with the tabs, lines up perfectly. In my opinion, the 180-600 looks significantly sharper and shows no chromatic aberrations, while there's some quite heavy purple fringing with the Canon.

[@simonthibodeau7082]

180-600 clearly better at 600... There is no question it's sharper. Whether it's that significant to be noticeable in normal use remains to be seen. But, it'd be nice for Chris to test with TCs though. A more fair comparison would be 180-600+1.4x, vs the 200-800.

[@astrobotnautics5291]

0 Is it time to grab a Sigma FPL or something of the like maybe? L-mount have had somme fantastic lenses recently

[@coolhairstyle]

"Yongnuo YN 11mm f/1.8S DA DSM WL Lens" review? I think it looks interesting.

[@jorgepinogarciadelasbayonas]

Glad i am still shooting with Nikon since 2012. Much better value for the money.

[@GungKrisna12]

That lens is suitable for daytime wildlife, plane spotting, taking kite photos, etc. Question for all: At what ISO you think we must must shoot everytime? (Since I think lots of people are mostly only looking for apertures)

[@thegorn]

Just use auto iso

[@alansach8437]

There is no ISO that we must shoot every time. In the old days I would alway fret about going over around 800. 400 in the film days. As a wildlife photographer I would sometimes push 400 speed film to 800, because it gave better results than shooting 800 speed film. Nowadays I shoot auto ISO, or fv mode on Canon (setting aperture and shutter speed to my liking). These modern mirrorless cameras handle high ISO so well, and what noise is produced can be mitagated so well in post, that I no longer worry about ISO. 3200, 4000, 6400, 8000! 10,000!! I've made and sold beautiful 20x30 prints taken at all of these. Aperture and shutter speed are artistic decisions. ISO has always kind of been forced on us. Now it doesn't matter as much. It's really liberating!

[@undifinder6643]

I still havent received this lens from my local shop, 9 backup orders and only received 1 after 4 months... So i bit a bullet and got 100-500mm instead for now.

[@DrZeeple]

Ah, I don't feel so bad about my short 600mm now, as the 800m is only so so.

[@seanteague2522]

I’d say after watching this test, this would be a great lens for an R6 at 20 mp.

[@jukeboxjohnnie]

Looking at your previous tests i think Id be happier with the 100-500mm...

[@robertbrown6060]

I hugely respect these informed reviews. But I think it’s a little harsh. Yes relatively heavy, yes a zoom throw that takes a bit of getting used to but I think image quality is actually very very good. Or am I easily satisfied ? I think it’s better than the 100 - 500 with 1.4 TC. Just my opinion as a birder and owner.

[@simonthibodeau7082]

Do keep in mind, Chris never tests TCs in his telephoto reviews. Can't paint the whole picture without it. Early tests have shown, that 200-800 ever so slightly edges out the 100-500+1.4x, in terms of detail rendition at a distance. Thanks to that extra 100mm, and the slightly loss of IQ on the 100-500 with the TC. So yes, it is the better lens, ever so slightly, at those extreme focals. Obviously, at 500mm the 100-500 is phenomal, close to prime quality. Arguably, one might say the 100-500+1.4x combo is somewhat more versatile in a wider range of situations, being so much more lightweight. People who already own that combo, probably don't need to get this 200-800. Overall, being cheaper (and I do expect the price on the 200-800 to go down eventually), it makes a whole lot of sense in the lineup. I'm also probably going to get the 200-800, as someone who couldn't justify the 100-500+1.4x. I only need the longer end anyway, and that price is just good enough to make it reachable for me. I'm still gonna wait for sales or for used/refurb deals, but it's nice to finally have a dream lens to look forward to!

[@nordic5490]

The Digital Picture has interactive test charts. The 100-500 + 1.4tc has better iq.

[@robertbrown6060]

@@simonthibodeau7082 I have no doubt that the 100 - 500 without the TC would be optically better. Chris would, no doubt be able to show that. But for me, the difference I image quality is negligible. If you are into bird photography as a birder rather than a ‘ photographer’ then I’d recommend the 200 - 800 without reservation. As you say, the price will come down. The only caveat I have is that it is rather heavy and I’ve had a stiff neck after carrying around all day. The weight does sort of creep up on you after a while.

[@simonthibodeau7082]

@@robertbrown6060 For a 2kg lens such as this one, I would strongly recommend a cotton carrier G3 harness. It will make carrying this in the field a breeze. Other options would include cross body shoulder straps such as the black rapid, or the peak design slide. But the harness will always be superior. One thing for sure, NEVER use a simple neck strap for a lens like this! Glad you are enjoying it! I'm looking forward to acquiring it as well but I'm gonna wait a few years to save up, and wait for the price to go down a little bit. Maybe I'll wait first to upgrade my R7 for the R7ii, or a used R5, again, in a few years. I'm still happy with what I have now. Cheers mate!

[@robertbrown6060]

@@simonthibodeau7082 Apologies, I should have been more specific. I was using a black rapid. I was carrying it for most of the day and still got a pretty stiff neck which I didn’t expect because I used to use a Tamron 150 - 600. It might just be coincidence. As for the price, it will come down I’m sure. I use the R7 with my EF 100 - 400 as well, that is a great combo. I’m hoping I will get used to the 200 - 800 though. I do think it’s a great lens for birders.

[@thegorn]

This is the John Holmes of lenses

[@boredcat7]

Always enjoy your uploads even though I’ll probably never buy this lens 😸

[@KevinOpar]

It would make a nice pairing with the r6II

[@IsaiahMcAllisterImagery]

I wouldn't drink that Crystal Clear Pepsi if you were planning on it Chris.

[@turtledovechen176]

Very surprise it doesn't have a lock function, with a lens like this I think a zoom lock is a must, or it will just start get longer and longer and get caught up on things when you are trying to hike or even run with it

[@simonthibodeau7082]

The tension ring does just that. In fact many reviewers have pointed out that the lens has zero lens creep even on the loose setting, and even say, it's a bit too tight even on that loose setting. Overall, lens creep is not a issue, might be the opposite even.

[@turtledovechen176]

@@simonthibodeau7082 I certainly hope it work as well as you said because I'm planning on buying one Although I still think a lock function is a better solution, a zoom lock makes it possible to design the zoom to be light, so it could be easy to turn or even enable pull zoom, and could be lock at certain position and is quick to release Also zoom lens will loose up with heavy use, so even if it is OK now, it could become a problem a few years down the line With all of that said, I'm still planning on buying one tho, my sigma 150-600 is getting quite old now

[@simonthibodeau7082]

@@turtledovechen176 as an owner of that sigma lens myself, I am also interested in upgrading to this 200-800! Maybe in a few years though. Honestly, you might be overthinking it a bit. Lens creep IS an issue with the sigma 150-600C, I can confirm from first hand experience, but yes, indeed the lock mostly solves it. But, you should probably watch Jan Wegener and Duade Paton's review of the lens. They explicitly state that, even on the loosest setting, the lens features zero lens creep! In fact, they find it a bit too tight in that setting. Lens creep will never be a problem with this lens, it is a 100% guarantee. For example, I can also attest first hand, lenses like the rf100-400, even on a cotton carrier harness, aimed straight down, suffers from ZERO lens creep, even on long hikes. The zoom lock is not even necessary! If a lens doesn't have lens creep, it doesn't have lens creep. If it does start to loosen after 2-3 years, just go one notch on the tension ring, and it won't be a problem again. One might argue, because the tension ring is all around, and the switch is on a precise location, it's even more ideal and easy to reach! Especially, being able to set exactly the tension you want for zero lens creep. Sometimes, it is a bit annoying on the sigma, having to turn off that switch everytime you deploy the lens, especially if your eyes are locked onto a subject and you need to do it from muscle memory without looking at it. The tension ring outright just solves that issue entirely! It's a pro, not a con imo. Don't overthink it 😅 there are other more important things to look at when comparing these two lenses anyway. Which is why I do recommend you check out Duade Paton's 45 minute review! Cheers

[@Thomasjcolbert82]

Now that I have watched this review. This lens seems fairly good. I guess we have to remember that it is a 2 to 800 mm lens. The next closest thing is the 100 to 500 which I have and it’s $2700 with 300 mm less of zoom The F11 is a lot cheaper, but it has a smaller focusing window and it’s already a fixed 11. Looking at the pictures that Chris has put up, they look really nice even though his chart shows that it’s not a super sharp lens I think I have to use this in reality and look myself to see how they really are Also, the throw of the zoom is long but so is my 100 to 500. I can just throw a tele converter on my 100 to 500 and then I have pretty much the same thing as this lens. So I don’t think anyone in this section should be hesitant to buy this unless they have $16,000 for a 600 F4. I think we are all starting to ask a little too much out of these inexpensive super zoom lenses but maybe that’s just me

[@G95G95]

Telescoping lenses need long zoom throws to overcome the seal friction, that's why I'm really hoping an internal zoom RF 70-200/2.8 comes to market

[@G95G95]

@@Tegneaufreak probably similar to what the telescoping one started at, I'll of course wait years to get a used one much cheaper.

[@Fallington]

I'm new to photography and still learning the tech ropes - can someone explain what's meant by a 45MP sensor being "demanding" and why wildlife photographers often prefer APS-C sensors due to their "extended range"?

[@marximus4]

A 45 MP sensor is going to be more "demanding" than say, a 24 MP sensor because the pixel density is greater on the 45 MP sensor. This means that it's more difficult for lenses to resolve all those pixels. So a lens can appear "sharper" on a lower megapixel camera. I find the RF 24-240 to be plenty sharp on my R6, but I don't like using it on my R5. You get more "reach" with an APS-C camera body because it's smaller than full frame, which effectively makes it a "crop" of the center of a full-frame body. So it's like you're "zooming in" without the loss of megapixels. The crop factor of most APS-C bodies is about 1.5x (so you can multiply the focal length by 1.5 to get the effective or full-frame equivalent focal length), but with Canon, it's 1.6x, so in the case of the 200-800, on an APS-C body, it'll have the full-frame equivalent field of view of a 320-1280mm lens (multiplying by 1.6).

[@Fallington]

@@marximus4 thank you, very good explanation and makes perfect sense. You should start a channel teaching newbies like me!

[@marximus4]

@@Fallington I think the market is saturated, haha. There are plenty of free resources online and on KZbin explaining lots of aspects of photography. I myself learned probably 90% of what I know about photography from online sources.

[@seth094978]

If you view at 1:1 pixel level, then a higher megapixel sensor makes a lens seem worse, but only because you're zoomed in more. If you view or print both at the same actual size, then the higher megapixel image will pretty much always look sharper.

[@Fallington]

@@marximus4 yes I've been reading and watching loads so I've got a fair understanding of what's what, some bits still baffle me though so thanks for taking the time to explain 👍🏻

[@WesleyKingdom]

It's an interesting lens, but I'd rather have something like 600-800mm with fixed aperture.

[@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?

[@simonthibodeau7082]

As an R7+sigma 150-600C owner myself, I would say yes. I won't upgrade now, but probably will sometime in a few years. The 100-500 was too big of a jump, but this one I think is worthy, and the price finally seems right compared to other brands. One thing though, I'm still not sure if I will upgrade to FF first. This 200-800, is unquestionably, more suited for FF than APSC. But, seems like early reviews do mention, it works great with the R7. Btw, Duade Paton on YT just published his full 45minutes review of the lens. Obviously he will go more in depth on it and help us better make a decision on it. I'm about to watch it, and you probably should too!

[@jamesclaassen8843]

@@simonthibodeau7082 perfect. Thanks so much. I'm actually watching that video as we speak. Thanks again for your comments.

[@ludowild]

I don't understand the results here because to use the 2 regularly with my R7 here is what I think: in terms of photos the quality is similar which we do not find here just compare Christopher's test on the Sigma 150-600 HSM C and this one to see that according to him the difference is enormous no on a daily basis it is identical even a little better for the RF200-800 for the video part it is day and night the RF200- 800 is well above I made videos in crop mode with the RF200-800 so going to coef 2.4 I believe at 800mm so at 1920mm so I don't know how to find my words in English but basically in video the RF200 -800 passes through air better than the Sigma 150-600! I don't regret my purchase! After the R7 disappoints me a little when focusing against the light or with big differences in contrast, I find this problem with the RF200-800! I already had it with the Sigma 150-600! Otherwise, what a pleasure to have an optic that is finally completely silent on video! Generally speaking, the autofocus is much faster and more sticky, especially in video. Weather resistance I shot videos in the rain and snow at -5 -7 degrees without any problems. I'm waiting to see the release of the R5 mark II to potentially buy it and pair it with this RF 200-800! Best from France, Ludo

[@IntothewestOkotoks]

I think the comments “more suited” to FF will usually go with any of Canons FF lenses, partly because the FF bodies most talk about is the more expensive R6II, R5, and R3. However, this lens absolutely works great with the R7. I’ve been using it for a few weeks, and it’s quiet, focuses quick and sharp. There are times where I have to remind myself it isn’t a L lens.

[@simonthibodeau7082]

@@IntothewestOkotoks I really think it applies much more on an 800 f9 than say, a 500 f7.1, a 600 f6.3 or a 400 f8. 800 on APSC is borderline too much reach lol, and the F9 also. You can think of it in terms of equivalency in reverse: 800 f9 on FF, is like 500 f5.6 on APSC. But 800 f9 on APSC is like 1150mm f14 on FF. Clearly, this lens is better suited for FF. I don't think the same can be said for the 100-500 for example, which pairs super well with the R7. I see what you mean, but I think this one just crosses a line for me, idk 😅 I would much rather shoot this 200-800 with an R6 or R8, whereas a 600 f6.3 on APSC is kind of a sweet spot for me. Of course, it will still do really well with an R7 or R10, no doubt. Good to know it works well for you, thanks for sharing!! Who knows maybe I'll get the lens first, and wait a generation or 2 before going FF and delegating my R7 as a 2nd body.

[@GerhardBothaWFF]

Thank you. Thinking about this one. The long zoom throw I feel is a good thing. Just stop zooming in and out for 2 seconds and think about it... I think the optical performance is amazing - probably. What else can you come up with to get to 800mm that has any better performance? How does shooting the same chart compare to the 800mm F11? Or an RF100-500 with a 1.4x TC? My gut feel is you will have to fork out for that RF 800 F5.6L or RF 600 F4L+1.4xTC to do any better. Never mind the many other factors that come into play when shooting long lenses. I have seen too many claims of softness on long lenses that were not softness at all. It was usually vibration as a result of technique or atmospheric conditions. So just go and empty your bank account and buy all the options so we can see the comparison for free OK? Just kidding. Thank you. Every bit of information helps and I appreciate what you have done.

[@SSJSephiroth]

Sure would be nice to get mine instead of waiting about 8 months now. Backorder gets longer like wtf

[@80-80.]

I want this. Canon is the king of affordable telephoto.

[@dr_squirrel]

at last they are 💪🏼💪🏼💪🏼

[@Vantrakter]

It's almost twice the price of the Sony 200-600 here. And its zoom action is quite a bit slower... still, it's longer.

[@PillsGrabber]

@@Vantrakterthat’s the thing. I’d love to see how its 800mm compare to Sony’s/Nikon’s 600 zoomed in 33%

[@jlw3306]

Especially with the 1.4 TC, the Sony 200-600 will be very comparable to the canon here, but still much more affordable.

[@MrPetebuster1]

Did you listen to the review? Its not that great

[@simonthibodeau7082]

Idk what happened during that stabilization test lol, but I've heard people say they can reliably shoot this lens at 1/100, which did surprise me. Wild Alaska posted some pretty awesome video footage with this lens and it was on a complete other level in terms of stability. I believe he said himself this lens was pretty on par with Sony, just under Nikon as is to be expected. Pretty odd results indeed. Its something that scared me about this lens. Guess I'll see when I do try it in person.

[@Wildridefilms]

1/100s on an 800mm lens is just 3 stops. And Sony's OSS is pretty mediocre on their 200-600 as well. The Nikon 180-600 is the best right now on FF. Overall, MFT lenses like the Leica 100-400 and the Olympus 150-400 are probably the pinnacle for handheld stabilization.

[@simonthibodeau7082]

@@Wildridefilms well said. It does put it in perspective doesn't it, for photography, 3 "good" stops is usually all you really need. What I've read online seems to confirm your thoughts. Seems like Nikon has the stabilization crown atm especially with their new PF primes, with combos like om1+100-450, or the g9ii with their 100-400 being very close. Fair to say, especially at 800mm being more demanding, this 200-800 would be stable enough for photography, but would require some zooming out or some form of extra support for reliable video stability. The long zoom throw and being external zoom also doesn't make it ideal for video. But for photographers it should be more than enough. Most of these have come a long way from the DSLR days in terms of stabilisation anyway.

[@hongk0ngfu3y]

$1900 usd or £2300 GBP. ill have the USD version please.

[@budthecyborg4575]

It looks like the 800mmf11 prime just barely has better image quality in the center despite being f11, though the cheaper prime also has worse corners. Or if you compare with the old 400f5.6 with a 2xTC the old lens combo also has slightly more resolution. In all of these cases though the R7 really needs a faster aperture, Canon needs to hurry up and make a 500f5.6 like Nikon, Fuji and Sigma have.

[@simonthibodeau7082]

What killed the 800 f11 for me was the 6m MFD. Pretty glad to see this one now. Being a zoom, slightly sharper, slightly faster, better AF/stab, weather sealed are also all great pluses. I skipped the 800 F11, but honestly that now does look appealing for me. I'd be surprised if that 400 f5.6 +2x is actually true. In any case, this lens is far superior in other regards that it makes it worth it imo.

[@budthecyborg4575]

@@simonthibodeau7082 Thus far the Nikon and Sigma 500f5.6 lenses are the only thing to come up as upgrades from the old 400f5.6, except those aren't for Canon... 🙁

[@simonthibodeau7082]

@@budthecyborg4575 the new sigma 500 f5.6 is indeed pretty interesting, but I believe it is even more expensive than this 200-800. Still pretty early for conclusions on it, but indeed, it would be nice to see it come to the RF within say the next 5 years. Early reviews do seem very positive, weight being of course its biggest advantage as well. The Nikon 600PF is imo in a whole other ball game as far as price goes. If you mean the older 500PF, yes, I'm guessing, especially if bought used, must be a great lens. While I won't have the budget for them myself, it seems obvious that Canon should follow Nikon and Sigma's steps, and start making PF lenses as well, for the (higher end) crowd who truly values 1.5kg lenses with serious optical prowess. They would just "make sense" in the lineup, especially since our (Canon's) zoom are all slower too. Having faster, smaller, lighter PF primes would greatly complement those slower zooms! I mean... Arguably, the old ef400 5.6 has been superseded for a while now... By the ef100-400 mkii. That lens is, in pretty much every way, a better version of it. In my personal opinion, all of these lenses however aren't a "good" comparison of the 200-800, we're getting into apples/oranges here. This lens is a whopping 2kgs with 95mm front element! Whereas all the ones mentioned here are more in the 1.5kg, 77mm front element range. They are just different animals. The best lens to compare this 200-800 to, is undoubtedly, the Sony 200-600 paired with a 1.4x. Or, Nikon's 180-600 paired with a TC. Even the third party 600 f6.3 zoom don't do it much justice, since those aren't very good with TCs at all, to begin with. Personally, the fact that it achieves similar performance, for a similar price, without a TC, means that, *if* you were going to use the TC often on the Sony anyway, having that TC built in (a LOT less hassle), for around a third stop or two less in the 300-600mm range, and equal or better performance at 800mm, for me, makes it more appealing. Not to mention how, going back to the topic of MFD and closeups, while being external zoom with that long throw is a downside, *just* the fact that unlike Nikon and Sony's 600 zoom, this lens has VERY little focus breathing, makes it a lot more appealing for small songbird photographers such as myself. The Sony, at the minimum focus distance, is actually only 320mm! That's much much worse than this 200-800.

[@pierrebeaupre8249]

Yet another review of this lens that I purchased back in December but I'm still waiting for it. I guess it's no lens for you if you are not a KZbinr!

[@RFGfotografie]

For that price, even if it isn't a L-lens. I would have expected way better performance. Like for that money I rather have the 100-500 lens.

[@ronrotunno2901]

For sure, I’ll stick with my 100-500 and crop in post.

[@susanbyrne7946]

For the money you won’t get a 100-500

[@ПётрБ-с2ц]

08:37 "zoom mechanism much faster than this..." is it electrical?

[@Bayonet1809]

No, but it is slow to turn.

[@dscottstoness2436]

Hmm - pretty close to the 100-500 at 500; and 500-800 without fussing with the 1.4x For me this makes it a winner - if you have to choose 1.4x on or off all the time, the 200-800 wins for usability.?

[@KurtisPape]

Nice review! Sharper than I expected, sharpness looks comparable to the Sony 200-600mm with a 1.4x converter at 840mm F9 compared to the Canon at 800mm F9, then sharp at 500mm F8 like the Sony

[@williamchan8866]

In real world use this lens is very close to the 100-500…only a side comparison you can only tell the difference. This is why so many top bird photographers are using this lens.

[@cy9nvs]

Just makes 0 sense to me, that this lens is significantly more expensive than the faster 600mm zooms from Sony and Nikon, at least here in Germany. For the current asking price, I honestly expected more, wouldn't be surprised if the mentioned zoom lenses from the competition are just as sharp at 840mm with the added 1.4 TC, as this lens is at 800. Flexibility is really all this lens has going for it, with some quite heavy trade-offs. Chromatic Aberrations, specifically purple fringing, also seems very pronounced with this lens, while there's no hint of it in the Nikon/Sony lenses.

[@rvpcqp]

I agree, would rather have the flexibility of a shorter faster 200-600 f5.6-6.3 and add 1.4x or APSC body for extra reach… however, consider where it fits into the RF ecosystem; the 100-500 is almost $3k and the 100-400 is

[@s0d4c4n]

Your comment is what makes zero sense. The Sony TC is neither free nor magically increases the aperture.

[@jeroenvdw]

It's €2500, the Sony 200-600 was €1700 last week + €650 1.4x tc is €2350. Now back to €1900 + €650 1.4x tc to make it €2550. The tc is still €100 more expensive than normal so the price is about the same I'd say.

[@cy9nvs]

@@s0d4c4n My comment does make sense. You seem to have forgotten, that the competitors I am talking about are f/6.3 at 600mm. That's 2/3 of a stop at the same focal length, and a full stop at 800mm, meaning double the ISO at the same settings. That's a trade-off I wouldn't even make if this lens was cheaper, honestly.

[@s0d4c4n]

​@@cy9nvsI don't think I've forgotten anything. It seems you've "forgotten", or perhaps don't understand in the first place, that TCs reduce your effective aperture at the same multiplier they increase your effective focal length?

[@Brando90198]

I DONT HAVE THAT KIND OF MONEY. I felt that part

[@MrBrockley3]

But he has expensive cameras, just another way of saying I won't be buying one.

[@CrisURace]

Kinda want this to put it on my r7 or r6 2. Already have the brilliant 100 500. Maybe is better to get a tc for that instead, tho.

[@jimscarff4634]

Note that if you add a 1.4X or 2X teleconverter to your 100-500mm lens you are blocked from using the 100-300 portion of that zoom. You can use only the 300-500mm portion. The design of the 100-400 and 200-800mm lenses do not exhibit this limitation. This is one clear advantage of the 200-800mm lens.

[@CrisURace]

@@jimscarff4634 yeah that quality is not as good and never seen it on stock. If I put my TC it's gonna be for birding, watching the moon and plane spotting, won't care about zooming out too much tbh, so I'm fine with that. 😆

[@giklab]

I have to admit, this was the first lens I'd bought (almost) on day one. Though, of course, I did wait for some reviews and user experiences, so it was not entirely a leap of faith, but still. Though I agree the zoom ring could be better, I'm otherwise entirely satisfied with this lens and do not regret my purchase. Now, if only someone could buy my 100-500!

[@Beaver-be8vk]

Something makes me think you have neither of the lenses you speak of 🤔

[@giklab]

@@Beaver-be8vk You should get that checked out, might be unhealthy!

[@IanHobday]

The IQ of this lens is pretty disappointing. Perhaps you could review the Sony 200-600 and Nikon 180-600 with 1.4x TCs to see how well they perform at ~800mm?