-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
RF 800mm f11 sharpest against RF 200-800 & 100-500 w/TC ?
- Thread starter Kumsa
- Start date
John Sheehy
Veteran Member
Well, the ideal thing would be to have a 1.6x TC (500/7.1 x 1.6 = 800/11), but such is not available. If you put a 2x on the zoom, then if you zoom to 400x2=800mm, your open f-number will be 13 I believe, and you would have to back down a little from "400" on the barrel to get f/11.
In practice, if you put a 2x on the zoom, and the subject was not too tight in the frame, then you'd be better off shooting at 1000mm for the larger pupil at the long end of the zoom, especially when the zoom is sharp wide open at max zoom. You'd only shoot at 800mm if you needed to be that wide, or you were doing an academic comparison at 800mm.
Yes, TCs bring some of their own issues; slight global contrast loss, loss of AF speed in poor light, but when working with a zoom and TCs, the biggest optical problem with TCs is that they force zooms out wider when one is NOT focal-length-limited, which always results in a higher minimum f-number. I leave a TC on often when I might be zooming out, but I am fully aware of the compromise, and sometimes, I just need that extra DOF, anyway.
John Sheehy
Veteran Member
It is also rendered the brightest, so some of that may be the fact that fine, dark lines are more milky due to higher brightness. This also suggests that the transmission factor of the 800/11 may be higher, if the ISO is the same. I assume that the same camera and picture style are used for all images, but some converters may have different recipes with the same picture style but different lenses.
--
Beware of correct answers to wrong questions.
John
BirdShooter7
Veteran Member
Yes these were shot at iso 200 and the f/11 shots were both 1/125s.
Chris Wolfgram
Veteran Member
This could explain why I felt that the 200-800 vs the 800 F11, were both just very sharp, and almost identical in IQ, as I always shoot in RAW and always use DXO Pure RAW to convert my cRAW's to DNG's.
JMPO, but the 100-500 is just WAY too short without a TC, and its versatility with a TC (zoom range) is greatly hindered. I know its a very sharp lens, but IMPO, for not being any faster, or longer than it is, its way overpriced. But if money is not a problem, and you shoot larger, or closer stuff (where you don't often need a teleconverter) sure. Why not.
In real world shooting, I think the main differences are, the 800 F11 is a lot lighter, and half the price, but at a cost of versatility.... and MFD.
The 200-800 is the best, most versatile, affordable birding lens on the market. I expect to buy it (after having rented it, and loved it) at some point in the future, when its actually in stock, as a refurb, for $400 or $500 off
If I hit the lottery today, I would NOT waste my time with Big White lenses..... But instead, I'd be like, "Birdshooter7" ! Sign me up for Costa Rica for a month !
Next Cuba... and then... and then... lol Oh, what species do I want ? ALL of them lol
Chris Wolfgram
Veteran Member
....just as a reminder, you can always rent the 200-800 like I did, and see for yourself. Well anyplace in the US anyway. Other places maybe, or maybe not ?
Or really cheaply and easily, the 800 F11. Speaking of which, I have my second one coming today Whoo hooo ! I think a person would be crazy to plan a 5500 mile, 30 day cross country birding trip with only 1 long birding lens. Have to have backup. I have two R7's too So I'm good to go !
Or really cheaply and easily, the 800 F11. Speaking of which, I have my second one coming today
Whoo hooo ! I think a person would be crazy to plan a 5500 mile, 30 day cross country birding trip with only 1 long birding lens. Have to have backup. I have two R7's too So I'm good to go !
Kumsa
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 1,129
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 908
OP here. Thanks so much for all the dialog. My curiosity is satisfied.
- The zooms are clearly more flexible for birding than the 800mm f11 prime.
- The 200-800 is the preferred choice.
- Different RF bodies produce better/worse focusing with the 800mm.
- The 800mm f11 punches above its weight and its real world IQ is likely indistinguishable from the zooms, all things being equal. By "likely" I'm just stating that standing side-by-side, in a field, with sufficient daylight, the IQ differences are not going to be readily visible in the final print image.
Chris Wolfgram
Veteran Member
Everything you said is very accurate
seems logicalEverything you said is very accurate
Fabus Photos
Active member
Hello, I have the RF 200-800mm with my R8, and I don't like it. At 800 F9 it's smooth, I'm pretty sure the RF800 F11 is better.
I'm thinking of switching to 100-500 L with TC 1.4, from what we can see, it's the best combo in this price range.
Or I take an R5, which we find works well, with an RF 800 F11, I'm almost sure that it will do a better job than the R8 + 200-800 combo.
Fabus Photos
Active member
Hello, your photos on Flickr are magnificent.I performed this test not too long after I got the 200-800 but must have deleted the files afterwards as I can’t locate them. For that reason I decided to do the test again and thankfully the results are consistent with my first run-through. These were performed on my R8 at a distance of about 30m. They are jpegs right out of the camera with no post processing other than cropping. They are actual pixels crops. Each crop is the best of 20 shots, lens mounted on a solid tripod from the same distance.
I have the same combo as you but I'm disappointed.
At what distance do you usually find small birds?
Even at a reasonable distance of 20m or 30m, if the light isn't perfect, it's a disaster, I lose too much detail.
I live in Switzerland, and I am close to forests where the light is not always great, and for this reason I hesitate to take the 100-500.
BirdShooter7
Veteran Member
Either way you’re spending a lot more money. What issues are you having with your 200-800 and R8? I’ve been very pleased with the exact same setup. I actually find the AF of the R6 noticeably better than the R5 though you do get more MPs. The RF 800mm f/11 has very similar detail levels but with lower contrast so I’m not sure you’d be any happier with that other than it being less expensive.
BirdShooter7
Veteran Member
I do try my best to get as close as reasonably possible, 20-30m is typical. Nothing beats having good quality light and I do always try hard to get the best lighting I can. There are plenty of times I don’t bother to even take a shot because the subject is just too far away or it’s bright overhead sunlight where I know the pictures will look bad. A big problem I deal with is heat shimmer so sunny days are not my favorite unless it’s early morning or late evening. I have found that I can get good results in the jungle where there’s not much light as long as the subject is still. I was able to get plenty of nice Antpitta photos in Ecuador and Colombia in very low light though there are obviously limits. I typically take short bursts instead of a single shot. Say 6-9 photos in a quick burst when the light is low and usually get a couple of nice sharp ones. However, if I’m having an off day/not well rested it can be a real challenge to get sharp shots, I can definitely tell when my technique isn’t at its best.Hello, your photos on Flickr are magnificent.I performed this test not too long after I got the 200-800 but must have deleted the files afterwards as I can’t locate them. For that reason I decided to do the test again and thankfully the results are consistent with my first run-through. These were performed on my R8 at a distance of about 30m. They are jpegs right out of the camera with no post processing other than cropping. They are actual pixels crops. Each crop is the best of 20 shots, lens mounted on a solid tripod from the same distance.
I have the same combo as you but I'm disappointed.
At what distance do you usually find small birds?
Even at a reasonable distance of 20m or 30m, if the light isn't perfect, it's a disaster, I lose too much detail.
I live in Switzerland, and I am close to forests where the light is not always great, and for this reason I hesitate to take the 100-500.
--
Some of my bird photos can be viewed here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/gregsbirds/
Absolutic
Veteran Member
In my experience 800F11 is a good lens, and it looks the best on 24MP sensor (like on my R8). With 45MP sensor it does not look as crispy to my eyes (R5 before and R5M2) but it is still very good. My biggest problem with 800F11 is that busy backgrounds look like .... busy backgrounds. Here is my shot from yesterday with the new R5 Mark 2 with 800F11
--
my youtube: https://www.youtube.com/user/absolutic?sub_confirmation=1[/url
Fabus Photos
Active member
I think the 200-800 is very good for optimal light conditions. As soon as it gets darker, it becomes difficult to compensate even with a more sensitive sensor like the 24.6 Mp of the R6 or R8.
In any case I found an R5 reconditioned by Canon, with a brand new sensor and mechanical shutter.
As for the lens, I'm thinking of going with either the 100-500 L or possibly a third-party brand like the Sigma 60-600 sport which is an excellent lens.
BirdShooter7
Veteran Member
In all reality the 100-500L is an even slower lens once you get the TC involved and is only slightly faster at the shorter focal lengths so unless you’re able to really get close you might well still be frustrated.
I’d also be careful with the Sigma 60-600 on the R5 as the R5 doesn’t always do so well with adapted third party lenses. I had issues with my 150-600C on the R5 that eventually caused me to replace it. I first went for the 100-500C but was struggling because I so frequently wanted more focal length. I would have been using the 1.4x all the time and honestly at that point I just decided that the money was better spent on a 500mm f/4 which does much better in the low-lighting. I used the 800mm f/11 for a while as my lightweight telephoto lens and really like it but when the RF 200-800 finally appeared it turned out to be the replacement for my Sigma 150-600 that I always wanted.
Here’s a shot I took from a recent trip to Brazil using the 200-800 on the R7 in fairly low light:
this was in very dim lighting under the canopy
As was this
Obviously you need to have fairly good technique to get results like this but they certainly are possible.
Fabus Photos
Active member
Your incredible photos are magnificent, I will follow on flickr, I also have an account.
Yes, third-party lenses sometimes have problems with autofocus pumping, but no more than EF lenses. I already had a 60-600 on an R7 at the time, but with the R7 we had even more problems, as Duade Paton noted with the 150-600.
I just had the opportunity to buy an R5 with 100 shots for 2000, so I have to make some concessions. The advantage of the 60-600 is its incredible aperture of F4.5/6.3, which makes it very competitive, moreover it is a lens that always sells expensively compared to the new RFs.
How far were you from your subjects in these superb photos?
Chris Wolfgram
Veteran Member
That's freaking gorgeous ?
Of course anyone who knows your photography, wouldn't expect anything else
One thing comes to mind though, I often "cheat" with low light shots, by warming up the color balance, to the point that nobody knows they were taken in low light. Not saying this is right or wrong, it's just something I've had a hard time breaking away from....
BirdShooter7
Veteran Member
For sure the Sigma 60-600 is an excellent lens and if you’re not experiencing the AF issues then it’s absolutely a great option. I will say while I have experienced the AF pulsing with a couple of EF mount Sigma lenses on my R bodies, I haven’t experienced it with my Canon EF lenses (both versions of the EF 500mm f/4, all three of the IS versions of the 600mm f/4, both versions of the EF 400mm f/4 and both versions of the EF 100-400).
Distance varies but anything from about 10-30m is pretty typical.
Gary Barnett
Veteran Member
Great picture! Sometimes the background shows the surrounding of the nature and it worked in your favour.In my experience 800F11 is a good lens, and it looks the best on 24MP sensor (like on my R8). With 45MP sensor it does not look as crispy to my eyes (R5 before and R5M2) but it is still very good. My biggest problem with 800F11 is that busy backgrounds look like .... busy backgrounds. Here is my shot from yesterday with the new R5 Mark 2 with 800F11
--
my youtube: https://www.youtube.com/user/absolutic?sub_confirmation=1[/url
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum