Has anyone tried the Canon RF 800?

I have seen the reviews on The-Digital-Picture and on Youtube. Has anyone tried the Canon RF 800? How did you find it? I am very interested in getting this lens for the reach on the R6 MK2. Yes, I have the 500 f4 II + 1.4x but would rather carry the RF 800 due to its more compact factor.

--
I know you mean well but please do not embed my images into the forum. Thanks for respecting that.
http://www.pbase.com/golfpic/some_recent_shots
http://www.pbase.com/golfpic/a_red_fox_family
http://www.pbase.com/golfpic/image/55043863/small.jpg

If you search here, you'll find a number of users. "Fishchris" in particular.

I have one, but haven't used it a great deal. It's fairly light, compact when collapsed, and it can produce sharp images.

Its most serious limitation (IMHO) is its 20' (6m) minimum focus distance. (as for trying to photograph small birds.) People have shortened that through the use of extension tubes. There's no infinity focus with an extension tube in place, of course.

The fixed f/11 isn't a big issue for me. (I'm not skilled enough to worry much about bokeh.) Its STM focus appears fast enough. On my R5, it gives an autofocus box which is a small fraction of the full field of view, but that doesn't bother me much.

Unlike some RF lenses, it can be used with either Canon RF teleconverter. Going to f/22 may not be very useful for most purposes, though.

Justme said:

I have seen the reviews on The-Digital-Picture and on Youtube. Has anyone tried the Canon RF 800? How did you find it? I am very interested in getting this lens for the reach on the R6 MK2. Yes, I have the 500 f4 II + 1.4x but would rather carry the RF 800 due to its more compact factor.

Click to expand...

Assuming you are referring to the 800mm f/11 - yes! Using it on the R5, and just recently tried it some on my new R50. Works well on both. Feels surprisingly good on the R50, while most other big lenses don't.

I don't find the f/11 to be a downside. The fixed focal length sometimes is...

One of my earlier shots with it, handheld:

BobKnDP said:

If you search here, you'll find a number of users. "Fishchris" in particular.

I have one, but haven't used it a great deal. It's fairly light, compact when collapsed, and it can produce sharp images.

Its most serious limitation (IMHO) is its 20' (6m) minimum focus distance. (as for trying to photograph small birds.) People have shortened that through the use of extension tubes. There's no infinity focus with an extension tube in place, of course.

The fixed f/11 isn't a big issue for me. (I'm not skilled enough to worry much about bokeh.) Its STM focus appears fast enough. On my R5, it gives an autofocus box which is a small fraction of the full field of view, but that doesn't bother me much.

Unlike some RF lenses, it can be used with either Canon RF teleconverter. Going to f/22 may not be very useful for most purposes, though.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the feedback. The 20 foot MFD won't be an issue for me because the only time I will use it is for subjects way farther than that. I just like the RF 800 for its compactness for an 800mm lens and the relatively lighter weight.

Ali said:

Justme said:

I have seen the reviews on The-Digital-Picture and on Youtube. Has anyone tried the Canon RF 800? How did you find it? I am very interested in getting this lens for the reach on the R6 MK2. Yes, I have the 500 f4 II + 1.4x but would rather carry the RF 800 due to its more compact factor.

Click to expand...

Assuming you are referring to the 800mm f/11 - yes! Using it on the R5, and just recently tried it some on my new R50. Works well on both. Feels surprisingly good on the R50, while most other big lenses don't.

I don't find the f/11 to be a downside. The fixed focal length sometimes is...

One of my earlier shots with it, handheld:

Click to expand...

Nice shot. That is one use with the RF 800 I will try. I don't mind f/11 either. I'm getting it for the reach. I don't know of any other 800mm focal length lenses selling for $1,200 Canadian.

--
I know you mean well but please do not embed my images into the forum. Thanks for respecting that.

Justme said:

Ali said:

Justme said:

I have seen the reviews on The-Digital-Picture and on Youtube. Has anyone tried the Canon RF 800? How did you find it? I am very interested in getting this lens for the reach on the R6 MK2. Yes, I have the 500 f4 II + 1.4x but would rather carry the RF 800 due to its more compact factor.

Click to expand...

Assuming you are referring to the 800mm f/11 - yes! Using it on the R5, and just recently tried it some on my new R50. Works well on both. Feels surprisingly good on the R50, while most other big lenses don't.

I don't find the f/11 to be a downside. The fixed focal length sometimes is...

One of my earlier shots with it, handheld:

(snip)

Click to expand...

Nice shot. That is one use with the RF 800 I will try. I don't mind f/11 either. I'm getting it for the reach. I don't know of any other 800mm focal length lenses selling for $1,200 Canadian.

Click to expand...

There are cheaper options, but you'd probably have to go used, with a T mount to RF adapter. No autofocus, and no image stabilization.

There was a Vivitar Series 1 800 mm f/8 "mirror lens". Quite inexpensive on eBay .

There was also an 800mm f/11 Vivitar solid cat (catadoptric). Very compact, but heavy, because the barrel was mostly filled with a variety of glasses. I was told by a professor many years ago that prototypes of the lens (probably the 600mm version) were diffraction limited on axis.

One caveat: apparently the lens required a filter in the rear. I know someone who bought one of the solid cats, but the filter was lost. (I don't know whether he managed to find one.) You wouldn't be able to focus to infinity without the filter.

BobKnDP said:

Justme said:

Ali said:

Justme said:

I have seen the reviews on The-Digital-Picture and on Youtube. Has anyone tried the Canon RF 800? How did you find it? I am very interested in getting this lens for the reach on the R6 MK2. Yes, I have the 500 f4 II + 1.4x but would rather carry the RF 800 due to its more compact factor.

Click to expand...

Assuming you are referring to the 800mm f/11 - yes! Using it on the R5, and just recently tried it some on my new R50. Works well on both. Feels surprisingly good on the R50, while most other big lenses don't.

I don't find the f/11 to be a downside. The fixed focal length sometimes is...

One of my earlier shots with it, handheld:

(snip)

Click to expand...

Nice shot. That is one use with the RF 800 I will try. I don't mind f/11 either. I'm getting it for the reach. I don't know of any other 800mm focal length lenses selling for $1,200 Canadian.

Click to expand...

There are cheaper options, but you'd probably have to go used, with a T mount to RF adapter. No autofocus, and no image stabilization.

There was a Vivitar Series 1 800 mm f/8 "mirror lens". Quite inexpensive on eBay .

There was also an 800mm f/11 Vivitar solid cat (catadoptric). Very compact, but heavy, because the barrel was mostly filled with a variety of glasses. I was told by a professor many years ago that prototypes of the lens (probably the 600mm version) were diffraction limited on axis.

One caveat: apparently the lens required a filter in the rear. I know someone who bought one of the solid cats, but the filter was lost. (I don't know whether he managed to find one.) You wouldn't be able to focus to infinity without the filter.

Click to expand...

The two other options you mentioned, is why I like the RF 800, lighter, has image stabilization and afforable.

I enjoy the RF 800mm f11. Fin lens to use. A little different being a fixed f11 lens. I have been happy with the results using my RF 1.4x tc. Good light is required but works well with my R5.

Kokopelli_Rocks said:

I enjoy the RF 800mm f11. Fin lens to use. A little different being a fixed f11 lens. I have been happy with the results using my RF 1.4x tc. Good light is required but works well with my R5.

Click to expand...

Good to know. I only have my EF teleconverters for the EF lenses. If I get the RF 800 I will just use the bare lens. I hate to dispense more money to get the RF teleconverters Changing camera system can get expensive. I'm glad Canon came out with the RF converter ring so all my EF and EF-S lensse can be used.

BobKnDP said:

Justme said:

Ali said:

Justme said:

I have seen the reviews on The-Digital-Picture and on Youtube. Has anyone tried the Canon RF 800? How did you find it? I am very interested in getting this lens for the reach on the R6 MK2. Yes, I have the 500 f4 II + 1.4x but would rather carry the RF 800 due to its more compact factor.

Click to expand...

Assuming you are referring to the 800mm f/11 - yes! Using it on the R5, and just recently tried it some on my new R50. Works well on both. Feels surprisingly good on the R50, while most other big lenses don't.

I don't find the f/11 to be a downside. The fixed focal length sometimes is...

One of my earlier shots with it, handheld:

(snip)

Click to expand...

Nice shot. That is one use with the RF 800 I will try. I don't mind f/11 either. I'm getting it for the reach. I don't know of any other 800mm focal length lenses selling for $1,200 Canadian.

Click to expand...

There are cheaper options, but you'd probably have to go used, with a T mount to RF adapter. No autofocus, and no image stabilization.

There was a Vivitar Series 1 800 mm f/8 "mirror lens". Quite inexpensive on eBay .

There was also an 800mm f/11 Vivitar solid cat (catadoptric). Very compact, but heavy, because the barrel was mostly filled with a variety of glasses. I was told by a professor many years ago that prototypes of the lens (probably the 600mm version) were diffraction limited on axis.

One caveat: apparently the lens required a filter in the rear. I know someone who bought one of the solid cats, but the filter was lost. (I don't know whether he managed to find one.) You wouldn't be able to focus to infinity without the filter.

Click to expand...

I've got the 600mm Solid Cat, and it's terrific in many ways - but no AF or IS means the RF 600mm f11 and especially 800mm f11 get a lot more use these days. Fast and reliable AF, IS, decent IQ, absurdly cheap for an 800, light enough to carry around all day - you can even use it on a camera one handed at a pinch. I was shooting with it the other day at the beach, and a Sony user said "Nice lens, is it a 600?" He was green with wnvy when I told him it was an 800 because he could neither afford nor carry a Sony 800.

Downsides - f11, but that's not really that much of a big deal these days, with AF perfectly possible and sensors with excellent high ISO performance. And the minimum focus distance - get yourself a set of cheap extension tubes if you need to work closer. Oh, and the tripod mountl isn't great for portrait orientation, and of course it doesn't come with a lens hood.

There's nothing like it.

nice to follow this thread,

very nice lens on r5 r7 , even with 1.4 and 2x tc

for distant wildlife it's even better than 100-500 ( lighter too)

the trouble is how long it become when extended...

the 600 was much better in that way



I may bring it along to Iceland next summer...







a little struggling heron as my contribution here...(800 r5 + 2x extender)

skeudenn said:

nice to follow this thread,

very nice lens on r5 r7 , even with 1.4 and 2x tc

for distant wildlife it's even better than 100-500 ( lighter too)

the trouble is how long it become when extended...

the 600 was much better in that way

I may bring it along to Iceland next summer...

Click to expand...

Thanks. I will look further into the weight and the extended length of the RF 800. Any exmples of the 800 with 1.4x and 2x?

The RF 100-500L is a nice walk-around lens. I may sell my 500 f4 II to get it. I will carry the 100-500 a lot more often that the seldom used 500 f4 II.

Nice photo of the great blue heron.

skeudenn said:

a little struggling heron as my contribution here...(800 r5 + 2x extender)

Click to expand...

--
I know you mean well but please do not embed my images into the forum. Thanks for respecting that.

BobKnDP said:

There was a Vivitar Series 1 800 mm f/8 "mirror lens". Quite inexpensive on eBay .

Click to expand...

Nikon at one point offered 2 cats: 500mm f/11 and 1000mm (f/11 I think, but not sure). I bought the 500 f/11.

The problem with cats is that their bokeh tends to produce donuts. Water drops and similar things come out looking like a lot of donuts sprinkled around the frame. Imagine a duck taking off or landing and kicking up a lot of odd water donuts and you'll have the picture.

I sold the lens immediately after bringing it on an exotic (for me at the time) international trip and got their 400 Nikkor as a replacement. I wouldn't touch a catadioptric lens again.

Justme said:

The RF 100-500L is a nice walk-around lens. I may sell my 500 f4 II to get it. I will carry the 100-500 a lot more often that the seldom used 500 f4 II.

Click to expand...

While I haven't used my EF 500 f/4 (II) since buying the RF 100-500, I'm really glad I could afford to keep it. I use it mostly for birds and have had a number of situations that made me glad to have both lenses. For example...

The 500 + 2X yields a 1000 f/8 optic, vs 1000 f/14 for the 100-500 + 2X. I sometimes shoot in relatively low light (think forest, heavy overcast, etc.), and f/14 drives my ISO up higher than I want.

I've had a number of times when I wanted to use both lenses at once (I have 2 R5's). I'll set the 500 up on a gimbal and hand-hold the 100-500. For example, I might train the 500 on one scene and need to shoot the 100-500 on another scene. One specific case last year: a Great-Horned Owlet was perched in a nearby tree while a lovely covey of quail with chicks was scrambling around on the ground. The owlet was exhibiting interesting behavior, so I trained the 500 on it and just locked things down. I followed the scampering quail with the 100-500.

Another example. Thanks to the way Canon limits the 100-500 with Extenders, I can't zoom from 500-1000 with that lens. I've had several times when I set the 500 up with a 2X and used the 100-500 bare so as to get the full 100-1000mm range. That was also with birds, and especially a very lovely Cooper's Hawk juvenile.

Lastly, I find the 500 + 2X noticeably sharper than the 100-500 w/ 2X.

Just some things to think about that may or may not apply to what you shoot.

One solution for switching from landscape to portrait is an L bracket, like this one from Kirk . (Requires an Arca mount on the tripod.)

Abbott Schindler said:

Justme said:

The RF 100-500L is a nice walk-around lens. I may sell my 500 f4 II to get it. I will carry the 100-500 a lot more often that the seldom used 500 f4 II.

Click to expand...

While I haven't used my EF 500 f/4 (II) since buying the RF 100-500, I'm really glad I could afford to keep it. I use it mostly for birds and have had a number of situations that made me glad to have both lenses. For example...

The 500 + 2X yields a 1000 f/8 optic, vs 1000 f/14 for the 100-500 + 2X. I sometimes shoot in relatively low light (think forest, heavy overcast, etc.), and f/14 drives my ISO up higher than I want.

I've had a number of times when I wanted to use both lenses at once (I have 2 R5's). I'll set the 500 up on a gimbal and hand-hold the 100-500. For example, I might train the 500 on one scene and need to shoot the 100-500 on another scene. One specific case last year: a Great-Horned Owlet was perched in a nearby tree while a lovely covey of quail with chicks was scrambling around on the ground. The owlet was exhibiting interesting behavior, so I trained the 500 on it and just locked things down. I followed the scampering quail with the 100-500.

Another example. Thanks to the way Canon limits the 100-500 with Extenders, I can't zoom from 500-1000 with that lens. I've had several times when I set the 500 up with a 2X and used the 100-500 bare so as to get the full 100-1000mm range. That was also with birds, and especially a very lovely Cooper's Hawk juvenile.

Click to expand...

Maybe I'm missing something. You mean it is pointless to use a 1.4x or 2x on the 100-500? Or is the limitation only on using the RF 2x on the 100-500? What happens when you use the 1.4x on the 1-5? And the 2x on the 1-5? Maybe you mean the 2x will get you to 1000mm on the 1-5 but you just can't use the zoom?

Member said:

Lastly, I find the 500 + 2X noticeably sharper than the 100-500 w/ 2X.

Just some things to think about that may or may not apply to what you shoot.

Click to expand...

Abbott Schindler said:

Justme said:

The RF 100-500L is a nice walk-around lens. I may sell my 500 f4 II to get it. I will carry the 100-500 a lot more often that the seldom used 500 f4 II.

Click to expand...

While I haven't used my EF 500 f/4 (II) since buying the RF 100-500, I'm really glad I could afford to keep it. I use it mostly for birds and have had a number of situations that made me glad to have both lenses. For example...

The 500 + 2X yields a 1000 f/8 optic, vs 1000 f/14 for the 100-500 + 2X. I sometimes shoot in relatively low light (think forest, heavy overcast, etc.), and f/14 drives my ISO up higher than I want.

I've had a number of times when I wanted to use both lenses at once (I have 2 R5's). I'll set the 500 up on a gimbal and hand-hold the 100-500. For example, I might train the 500 on one scene and need to shoot the 100-500 on another scene. One specific case last year: a Great-Horned Owlet was perched in a nearby tree while a lovely covey of quail with chicks was scrambling around on the ground. The owlet was exhibiting interesting behavior, so I trained the 500 on it and just locked things down. I followed the scampering quail with the 100-500.

Another example. Thanks to the way Canon limits the 100-500 with Extenders, I can't zoom from 500-1000 with that lens. I've had several times when I set the 500 up with a 2X and used the 100-500 bare so as to get the full 100-1000mm range. That was also with birds, and especially a very lovely Cooper's Hawk juvenile.

Lastly, I find the 500 + 2X noticeably sharper than the 100-500 w/ 2X.

Click to expand...

At more than $6000 more expensive, more than twice the weight, and a prime lens to boot, it would be rather disappointing if it weren't.

Member said:

Just some things to think about that may or may not apply to what you shoot.

Click to expand...

Justme said:

Abbott Schindler said:

Justme said:

The RF 100-500L is a nice walk-around lens. I may sell my 500 f4 II to get it. I will carry the 100-500 a lot more often that the seldom used 500 f4 II.

Click to expand...

While I haven't used my EF 500 f/4 (II) since buying the RF 100-500, I'm really glad I could afford to keep it. I use it mostly for birds and have had a number of situations that made me glad to have both lenses. For example...

The 500 + 2X yields a 1000 f/8 optic, vs 1000 f/14 for the 100-500 + 2X. I sometimes shoot in relatively low light (think forest, heavy overcast, etc.), and f/14 drives my ISO up higher than I want.

I've had a number of times when I wanted to use both lenses at once (I have 2 R5's). I'll set the 500 up on a gimbal and hand-hold the 100-500. For example, I might train the 500 on one scene and need to shoot the 100-500 on another scene. One specific case last year: a Great-Horned Owlet was perched in a nearby tree while a lovely covey of quail with chicks was scrambling around on the ground. The owlet was exhibiting interesting behavior, so I trained the 500 on it and just locked things down. I followed the scampering quail with the 100-500.

Another example. Thanks to the way Canon limits the 100-500 with Extenders, I can't zoom from 500-1000 with that lens. I've had several times when I set the 500 up with a 2X and used the 100-500 bare so as to get the full 100-1000mm range. That was also with birds, and especially a very lovely Cooper's Hawk juvenile.

Click to expand...

Maybe I'm missing something. You mean it is pointless to use a 1.4x or 2x on the 100-500? Or is the limitation only on using the RF 2x on the 100-500? What happens when you use the 1.4x on the 1-5? And the 2x on the 1-5? Maybe you mean the 2x will get you to 1000mm on the 1-5 but you just can't use the zoom?

Click to expand...

The 100-500 with extenders can only zoom from 300 to 500. It's a physical limitation. So, with the 1.4X, you can zoom from 420 to 700, and with the 2X, you can zoom from 600 to 1000.

Justme said:

Justme said:

Lastly, I find the 500 + 2X noticeably sharper than the 100-500 w/ 2X.

Just some things to think about that may or may not apply to what you shoot.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Alastair Norcross said:

Abbott Schindler said:

Lastly, I find the 500 + 2X noticeably sharper than the 100-500 w/ 2X.

Click to expand...

At more than $6000 more expensive, more than twice the weight, and a prime lens to boot, it would be rather disappointing if it weren't.

Click to expand...

Hopefully you figured out that I was responding to the OP's comment about selling his 500 to pay for the 100-500. He already has the prime and I'm suggesting that he keep it.

It would be a different story if he didn't already have the prime, or even if he had the original 500 f/4L...

Alastair Norcross said:

Justme said:

Abbott Schindler said:

Justme said:

The RF 100-500L is a nice walk-around lens. I may sell my 500 f4 II to get it. I will carry the 100-500 a lot more often that the seldom used 500 f4 II.

Click to expand...

While I haven't used my EF 500 f/4 (II) since buying the RF 100-500, I'm really glad I could afford to keep it. I use it mostly for birds and have had a number of situations that made me glad to have both lenses. For example...

The 500 + 2X yields a 1000 f/8 optic, vs 1000 f/14 for the 100-500 + 2X. I sometimes shoot in relatively low light (think forest, heavy overcast, etc.), and f/14 drives my ISO up higher than I want.

I've had a number of times when I wanted to use both lenses at once (I have 2 R5's). I'll set the 500 up on a gimbal and hand-hold the 100-500. For example, I might train the 500 on one scene and need to shoot the 100-500 on another scene. One specific case last year: a Great-Horned Owlet was perched in a nearby tree while a lovely covey of quail with chicks was scrambling around on the ground. The owlet was exhibiting interesting behavior, so I trained the 500 on it and just locked things down. I followed the scampering quail with the 100-500.

Another example. Thanks to the way Canon limits the 100-500 with Extenders, I can't zoom from 500-1000 with that lens. I've had several times when I set the 500 up with a 2X and used the 100-500 bare so as to get the full 100-1000mm range. That was also with birds, and especially a very lovely Cooper's Hawk juvenile.

Click to expand...

Maybe I'm missing something. You mean it is pointless to use a 1.4x or 2x on the 100-500? Or is the limitation only on using the RF 2x on the 100-500? What happens when you use the 1.4x on the 1-5? And the 2x on the 1-5? Maybe you mean the 2x will get you to 1000mm on the 1-5 but you just can't use the zoom?

Click to expand...

The 100-500 with extenders can only zoom from 300 to 500. It's a physical limitation. So, with the 1.4X, you can zoom from 420 to 700, and with the 2X, you can zoom from 600 to 1000.

Alastair Norcross said:

Alastair Norcross said:

Lastly, I find the 500 + 2X noticeably sharper than the 100-500 w/ 2X.

Just some things to think about that may or may not apply to what you shoot.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

That makes more sense. Thanks.