NEW Canon RF 200-800 USM lens

At 4.5 pounds it is still on the heavy side but portable and offers a great focal range.  My 500 f4 II weighs 7 pounds so 2 pounds less may make a noticeable difference for handholding or in the backpack.  I had been thinking about getting the RF 100-500 and before that the RF 800 f/11. The Canon RF lens landscape keeps changing  year after year which is exciting but makes settling on a particular lens much more difficult   Seems like you just have to wait a bit and something new or better pops up.

Shop Canon RF200-800mm F6.3-9 IS USM | Canon U.S.A., Inc.

Good to see Canon pushing the envelope - at a very affordable price - this lens will be a hit with bird photographers!

Swissblad wrote: Good to see Canon pushing the envelope - at a very affordable price - this lens will be a hit with bird photographers!

Oh, absolutely.  Imagine the lens on an R7?  I’m waiting for the R7 MK2.  

Seems like a reasonable price lens to fit the nitch for some, priced around $1900.  Here is a review from Pangolin Safaris. This review has it being used in the field and images.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFBGjnviXjY
.
.

Slick move by Canon to one up the competition. Basically matches the Sony and Nikon versions but without needing the TC. The aperture "creep" that we've seen the past few years does bother me as I think the "look" of a fast prime still rules, but I can see this lens being a great multi focal lens. But we await tests! lol

PV Hiker wrote: Seems like a reasonable price lens to fit the nitch for some, priced around $1900.  Here is a review from Pangolin Safaris. This review has it being used in the field and images.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFBGjnviXjY
.
.

The price is good.  Just over $3,000 Canadian.  I have since seen the youtube reviews by both Duade Paton and Jan Wegener and it looks like a winner.  I'm still deciding between the RF 100-500 and RF 200-800.  Go a bit lighter with 1-5 and use a 1.4x or put up with a slightly heavier lens.  

The RF 100-500 is an excellent lens producing good IQ. 
The design flaw of it is that when you put on the 1.4x RF Ext. it becomes a 300-500 lens, 
loosing the 100-300 portion. I have one and love it, but rarely put on the 1.4x Ext.

Karl Egressy wrote: The RF 100-500 is an excellent lens producing good IQ. 
The design flaw of it is that when you put on the 1.4x RF Ext. it becomes a 300-500 lens, 
loosing the 100-300 portion. I have one and love it, but rarely put on the 1.4x Ext.

Could the flaw be corrected with a firmware update? I am considering the lens in the future.

Langsey wrote:

Karl Egressy wrote: The RF 100-500 is an excellent lens producing good IQ. 
The design flaw of it is that when you put on the 1.4x RF Ext. it becomes a 300-500 lens, 
loosing the 100-300 portion. I have one and love it, but rarely put on the 1.4x Ext.

Could the flaw be corrected with a firmware update? I am considering the lens in the future.

Unfortunately it could not.

When I saw this lens announced I wondered if the 100-500 with the 1.4X was that much different.  Yes, 700 mm vs 800 mm, but if you are only shooting distant subjects the 300-700 F10 isn't that much of a compromise.  I shoot this combo a lot and like it. No justification to jump to the new lens IMHO.

Ed Cordes wrote: When I saw this lens announced I wondered if the 100-500 with the 1.4X was that much different.  Yes, 700 mm vs 800 mm, but if you are only shooting distant subjects the 300-700 F10 isn't that much of a compromise.  I shoot this combo a lot and like it. No justification to jump to the new lens IMHO.

I've been going through this same thought process the last while and I'm leaning towards the RF 200-800 but still undecided.  The $2,600 CAD is enticing for a well reviewed lens.  And I am lacking reach on a full-frame camera.  I'd prefer to not carry my Canon 500 f4 II with tripod into the field.  Don't want to leave expensive gear in the trunk of my car either which is why I leave it at home most of the time.  I would mind much less, leaving a $2,600 CAD lens in the trunk.

Something else swaying me toward the 200-800 is the weight, yes and no. I have been going light the last several years.  Backpack, R6 MK2 and 100-400L IS (v.1).  The pro for the 200-800 is that it weighs 4.5 pounds only.   The 500 f4 II with hood weighs 7.5 pounds.  Add the big Gitzo tripod.  I want a portable, hand holdable long zoom and to me, the 200-800 fits the bill. 

Most likely I'll get the 200-800 but that darn 100-500 looks so good weight-wise. But I will need to get a 1.4x if I do go for it. 

I like the focal length range, but a bit too heavy for me these days.