200-800 lens with R7 camera

[ilan porat]

I am a nature photographer who takes pictures of birds. Thinking of purchasing the 200-800 lens on the R7 camera mount
I currently have 2 Canon 100-400 lenses and an 800 RE lens
I would love to hear advantageand of the 200-800 lens from your experience
thanks
ILAN

 

[gossamer88]

If you're in the US good luck finding one LOL

I finally got mine about a month ago (took almost a year to get it). But I returned it. Did not feel it was a sharp as my RF100-500L. YMMV...

 

[BirdShooter7]

I mostly take pictures of birds and have used the 200-800 extensively over the past year on the R7, R8 and R5 and have been very happy with it on all of those bodies. I’ve found the ability to zoom to be very useful and the ability to go all the way to 800mm to be excellent. You can see quite a few of my results on my Flickr page. Here are a few photos from this weekend with the lens on the R8 of some metal birds.

































--
Some of my bird photos can be viewed here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/gregsbirds/

 

[CompleteUtterNonsense]

I shoot mostly birds many of which are small and difficult to get close to.

I started with the RF 100-400 and with small birds this lens just didn't get enough pixels on the bird to give me the detail I was looking for.

I've been using the 200-800 for about 8 months now and have never gone back to the 100-400 for birds.

I don't own any L lenses, so can't speak to the quality of images compared to something like the RF 100-500, but find I'm able to get good enough quality for my purposes as a hobbyist.

The ability to zoom vs the RF 800 is of great value to me. I probably shoot greater than 50% at 800mm, but being able to zoom back is extremely useful. This is particularly true for birds in flight, even slow ones. I struggle to find anything in the sky at 800mm.

 

[spec68]

I've had mine since Feb. Love it at post-dawn to mid-morning shoots with small and far away birds because I get the full lens range vs using the 1.4x TC on the 100-500. Obviously very different handling from the 100-400 which I also have. The 100-400 is a casual"walk around" for me because it's so light and small. I can walk "forever" with that lens. The other lenses my back is calling after a few miles. I think it's a great companion to either lens rather than an alternative.

Biggest negative of the 100-800/R7 combo for me is, because I only shoot handheld, 1/1000 is my min. shutter to get sharp pics. (That's for a perched bird, BIF are 3-4x higher). Combine that with the R7's ISO and dynamic range limitations and I limit its use to more open areas because light in deep woods is too inconsistent.

IIt's not light but not heavy either. It took me a few outings to get a feel of the best way to handle it. I know a lot of people love that the tripod collar is permanent, but it's dead weight for me.

 

[CompleteUtterNonsense]

Biggest negative of the 100-800/R7 combo for me is, because I only shoot handheld, 1/1000 is my min. shutter to get sharp pics. (That's for a perched bird, BIF are 3-4x higher). Combine that with the R7's ISO and dynamic range limitations and I limit its use to more open areas because light in deep woods is too inconsistent.

Odd. I'm getting sharp images well below 1/1000. The shot below was taken on an overcast morning, so not particularly high light.

I agree about the dynamic range for low light like early mornings.





It's not light but not heavy either. It took me a few outings to get a feel of the best way to handle it. I know a lot of people love that the tripod collar is permanent, but it's dead weight for me.

 

[souvikdgp]

The reach is unbeatable. You can't complain much about that. I'm very happy with the performance.







--
See my work @ https://www.flickr.com/photos/souvikchatterjee/

 

[BobKnDP]

If you're in the US good luck finding one LOL

I finally got mine about a month ago (took almost a year to get it). But I returned it. Did not feel it was a sharp as my RF100-500L. YMMV...

I would have sold it (eBay?), if I had got it at the MSRP. Made a small profit, probably. ;-)

 

[gossamer88]

If you're in the US good luck finding one LOL

I finally got mine about a month ago (took almost a year to get it). But I returned it. Did not feel it was a sharp as my RF100-500L. YMMV...

I would have sold it (eBay?), if I had got it at the MSRP. Made a small profit, probably. ;-)

I did think about it but it was already two weeks and I did not want to miss the return window. Pretty sure I made someone waiting for it very happy LOL

Here are a few shots I took with the R5. Didn't get to use it on the R7 though.

 

[ilan porat]

Thank you, I would be happy to explain what is meant

dynamic range limitations

 

[Duckman21]

Biggest negative of the 100-800/R7 combo for me is, because I only shoot handheld, 1/1000 is my min. shutter to get sharp pics. (That's for a perched bird, BIF are 3-4x higher). Combine that with the R7's ISO and dynamic range limitations and I limit its use to more open areas because light in deep woods is too inconsistent.

Odd. I'm getting sharp images well below 1/1000. The shot below was taken on an overcast morning, so not particularly high light.

I agree about the dynamic range for low light like early mornings.



It's not light but not heavy either. It took me a few outings to get a feel of the best way to handle it. I know a lot of people love that the tripod collar is permanent, but it's dead weight for me.

I would say this is soft and have noticed the same thing with the R6. It's not that the image is not focused, but for some reason that's as sharp as you can focus when the lens is wide open. Im guessing the lens is actually softer in the centre than corners in some scenarios and sometimes it seems to me like the bird's eye fails to look sharp compared to the bill in the same focal plane.

I've been considering getting the R7 for more reach and resolution but the reported "lens softness" issue is one reason I'm holding back . The other issue I'm wondering is if the autofocus is better or worse on the R7. I find that with the R6 sometimes the focus does inexplicably wander off from my subject or grabs some random part of a flying bird instead of its face. While the RF 800 f11 is slower, I felt like it was more reliable and steady in some scenarios.



--
Instagram @FYLegend21
500px @frankyboy5