Fabus Photos
Active member
Yes, 200-800 is sown better with the R6 or R6ii, R8 and R3 sensor than on high density pixels sensor like the R7 or R5.I've only had it for 2 weeks but coming from the 800 f11 which I've taken some very *lucky* flight shots, I'm actually having a bbit of trouble with the 200-800 with something like a fast-flying raptor or. Part of it is the extra weight and being used to the not zooming on the 800 prime, which sometimes leads me to forget to zoom in or out when I could.I disagree. At least in this shot, that bird is so far away, yet so close to shore that you can’t get background blur no matter what… unless you use AI in post processing.Hello, HERE you show exactly what not to do in photography, have a super expensive camera with a low-end lens.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
Besides, we can see the result, it's soft.
I'm not criticizing you, but we know that the quality of the photo is 90% the lens.
The same photos with a RF 100-500L would certainly have been better, and with 45Mp you have enough to crop.
For information, a 4K image is 9Mp...
I bought the 600mm f/11 for $400, which was a great deal. But I think even the shorter 600 is quite a difficult lens to use, because how often is your subject so far away that it fills the frame at 600, yet so close that it’s not minuscule? This is why I prefer a telephoto zoom, but they’re more than 4x the cost of my 600mm
As for image quality, the 800 f11 seems sharper in some scenarios, especially with the 1.4 extender on both lenses. It's one reason I am still reluctant to sell it (aside from having a lighter lens to carry when I also need my heavy spotting scope).
Regarding AF focus and accuracy: The faster AF motor is great under ideal conditions but like the RF 100-400 has a tendency to inexplicably jump out of focus and sometimes pulse subtly. I'm wondering if the 100-500mm fares much better ands more "confident" due to having 2 USM motors. On the other hand the 800 f11's STM motor which moves leisurely enough you can often "rescue" it by letting go and re-focusing. In low light looking up some trees to find bird, I did notice the AF became quite sluggish for a USM motor, exhibiting a slow drag similar (but still much faster) than what the 800 f11 does.
One topic not often discussed is image stabilization panning. The 800 f11 panning detection is quite poor - with a swimming duck or slower-flying bird the horizontal axis doesn't get disabled and sometimes ruins my shots The 200-800 is much improved and seems more "loose" and reliable for birds in flight so I don't have to worry about flicking the switch off and on again..
However, for birds with more jerky walking motions, neither does very well , wondering if the "mode 3" of the 100-500mm would fare better. I took this Baird's Sandpiper a few days ago with the 1.4 extender and was a bit disappointed I was getting many soft shots despite having 1/1600s shutter speed. I know I could have gone higher, and this softness is not as visible after applying default DeepPRIME XD + sharpen settigns in DxO, but I'd prefer not to do that for every shot.
I sold it, I find it far too expensive for what it can offer.
I prefer to put my money in a 100-500L or a Sigma 60-600 which are both much sharper. Especially since the cheaper sigma works well on the R5 and offers 100mm more and a more interesting opening.
