RF 800

[Pat]

looking for them to get back in stock...I am seeing some great images with it

 

[Tim Mayo]

looking for them to get back in stock...I am seeing some great images with it

I have the 100-500 but I'm also tempted by the RF 800 after seeing so many nice shots with it.

 

[Pat]

I see the 600 in stock but want that extra 200

 

[Dave Williams]

I must admit I don't see much reason to get the 600 other than the minimum focus distance. Maybe I'm missing something?

 

[Brian McGovern]

I have reserved a free 48 hour trial for this coming weekend. Interested to see how this lens works out.

 

[Dave Williams]

I'll be very interested on your views and experience with it Brian. What lenses do you own to compare it with?

 

[Brian McGovern]

Nothing to compare with the 600 or 800 Dave. It's a new adventure for me. I have the RF 70-200 f2.8, the 24-105 F4 and the new RF 50 f1.8. The type of photography i do is 90% dogs and the 70-200 is my go to lens with the 24-105 my 2nd choice. So next weekend is breaking new ground and new subject matter for me.

 

[Dave Williams]

Good luck then! I guess the IQ is the most important thing I would be considering.Can it be that sharp? Seems unimportant but without a lens foot I'll be interested on how you carry it around too.

 

[Brian McGovern]

I am looking forward to trying it out. I take my camera out every day when i walk the dogs and thought I would try this lens as I often see wildlife at a distance. I want to try it out to see if it is worthwhile for handheld, unplanned shots during my walks. To be honest, I bought the R6 and RF lenses mainly for their weight. I used to carry the EF 70-200 Mk 2 on a 5D mk4, and found that the weight was getting a bit much when I was carrying it over my shoulder for several hours.

 

[Dave Williams]

Weight loss is getting more important to me by the day!! I still have the 500mm f4 Mk2 but I no longer want to carry it for long distances. I'm torn between having a punt on the 800mm which is fairly inexpensive or plumbing for the L quality of 100-500 which by the time you add a 1.4TC is considerably more expensive. looking at the rumoured RF lens roadmap there is nothing there that is going to entice me purely on my expected price they will be!

 

[Brian McGovern]

I am 72 later this week, so weight is becoming very important when out and about for hours at a time. And not just the camera and lens weight either. LOL I will give you and update after the weekend.

 

[Dave Williams]

Thanks Brian. I'm a couple of years behind you but having had spinal decompression surgery not that long ago I'm probably ahead of you in ageing!

 

[Bill]

I have the RF800 and haven't had much of a chance to use it with lockdown.
But the times I have been able to get out I just love it. You will capture images that you would otherwise miss.
Weight.... you can walk about all day with this lens no problem and for under £1000 an 800mm lens it's a no brainer

 

[Brian McGovern]

Well. the good news is that my "loan and try" lens from Canon arrived a day early. The bad news is that it is the RF600 and not the RF800. (my fault it seems). Anyway, put it straight on the camera, went out into the garden and shot the first bird I saw. This was about 40 meters away. 1/800th @ f11 - ISO 250. Photo is SOOC. No cropping or tweaking what so ever. Going out to play tomorrow, so it will be interesting to see the capabilities in the hands of a wrinkly hobbyist. I have added a few more photos today. All are SOOC, uncropped and not tweaked.

 

[Kevin.sim]

It'll be interesting to know whether DLA will become a factor. With the high megapixel you might sacrifice some sharpness but perhaps still worth it for those hard to capture shots of birds or other wildlife.

 

[Dave Williams]

Excuse my ignorance..what does DLA stand for?

It'll be interesting to know whether DLA will become a factor. With the high megapixel you might sacrifice some sharpness but perhaps still worth it for those hard to capture shots of birds or other wildlife.

 

[Kevin.sim]

Excuse my ignorance..what does DLA stand for?

Sorry. Diffraction Limited Aperture

 

[Brian McGovern]

Well, I had three days of shooting with the RF600mm f11. I took (or tried to take) a few hundred photos. The short answer of whether I would buy or recommend the lens is a big fat no. It was pretty good with birds that were perched but I just couldn't get on with trying to capture birds in flight. Quite simply it was almost impossible to capture anything that was moving. I just couldn't get it to focus. That said, I have to accept that it was perhaps lack of experience/technique on my part as I have never shot with a lens longer that 300mm. I tried various set ups and even tried full automatic. Fv. Av, Tv and manual. But just couldn't find a way to photograph a moving bird. I had several opportunities of Kites and Buzzards which were gliding around in a clear blue sky and should have been easy. (I have lots taken with my 70-200 f2.8 that were keepers). But with the RF600 I failed miserably. There is a horse head photo I posted earlier and some other photos of birds sitting on branch that I posted on this thread over the weekend which were pretty good, but none of them were moving. Possibly if the lens was used in a set position (for example a hide)to take images of wildlife moving into a predictable place I might have had better luck. But as a walkabout for opportunity shots I have to give it a fail. I might try and get a RF100-500 off Canon for a weekend and see if it was me or the lens. LOL

 

[Dave Williams]

Interesting to hear of your experience Brian, and thanks for letting us know. There are two issues that come to mind 1) The longer the lens the narrower the field of view so trying to find the subject is more difficult 2) getting the camera to lock focus on the bird which is going to be quite small in the frame I guess and not a lot of contrast.
All the photographs I have seen using the 800mm have been perched birds from what I recall although some togs must have taken flight shots too anyway I decided that I would go for the 100-500 because of it's versatility, it's "L" class build and the shots I have seen posted which look to be top notch. I haven't ordered a TC yet but will decide in due course.

 

[Brian McGovern]

Hi Dave, You hit the nail on the head. That is exactly the issue i was having. Possibly still a fair bit of operator error as well. But I have read somewhere that the focus point is only 20mm x 20mm.

 

[Lookyloo69]

Weight loss is getting more important to me by the day!! I still have the 500mm f4 Mk2 but I no longer want to carry it for long distances. I'm torn between having a punt on the 800mm which is fairly inexpensive or plumbing for the L quality of 100-500 which by the time you add a 1.4TC is considerably more expensive. looking at the rumoured RF lens roadmap there is nothing there that is going to entice me purely on my expected price they will be!

100-500 rf is 2699.00 and the 1.4 ext ... is 499 the 2.0 is 599. so yeah its pricey

 

[Dave Williams]

100-500 rf is 2699.00 and the 1.4 ext ... is 499 the 2.0 is 599. so yeah its pricey

And you are presumably talking US dollars... those prices are cheap compared to the UK!

PS It's handy to indicate what currency we are mentioning when we have an international forum!

 

[Dave Williams]

I chose the 100-500 and later purchased the 1.4TC so have the capacity to extend the reach from 500mm to 700mm. I'm impressed with the images it takes, very sharp so I wondered how it might perform with a 2x TC. I went along to a local camera shop's open day show where Canon had a rep and hands on opportunity to try some gear. They didn't have any TCs but they did have an RF800mm . 800 over 700 doesn't offer much gain but what if you stick a 1.4TC on it? 1120mm! That's longer than my 100-500 with a 2x although you loose even more light. Anyway I tried it and was so impressed I have ordered the lens. The IS was amazing it will be interesting to see how I get on with the AF in poor light but I have no doubts about the sharpness. it will do for me!

 

[RedCobra]

I put the RF 1.4ex on my RF 100-500 and was amazed at the results. Nets me 700mm @ f/10. Allows a zoom from 420-700 which helps with BIF. I may go for a RF 2ex next.

 

[Dave Williams]

I put the RF 1.4ex on my RF 100-500 and was amazed at the results. Nets me 700mm @ f/10. Allows a zoom from 420-700 which helps with BIF. I may go for a RF 2ex next.

That was my intention but then it was a case of the 1.4 is sharper than the 2x on the EF versions, the Canon rep seemed to think the RF models were similar but didn't have copies to try so I tried my own RF 1.4 on the RF 800 and was impressed. It works out a dearer option than buying the TC but you do get an extra 120mm of reach however f16 vs f14 but at that aperture I don't suppose it makes that much difference. It's an extremely low price so worth a punt I thought.

 

[Dave Williams]

Having previously purchased both the RF 100-500 and the RF1.4 TC I popped along to my local camera shop's open day and had a quick play with the RF 800, both with and without a TC. I was so impressed with this very quick trial I decided to order one online and from a grey importer. At £729 it's a bit of a snip, and despite the UK retail price having come down from £999 to £899 the grey saving was still huge.

I should point out that I have in the past owned a 600mmf4 Mk2 and still have my 500mm f4Mk 2 and when you compare the prices, the RF 800 offers an incredibly good opportunity to buy in to a super telephoto lens at a budget price. Many people will not have experienced this kind of reach and I don't think you'll be disappointed.
I have nothing but praise for the IQ. It's a very capable lens which takes a sharp image that most will be happy with.
When you consider the RF 600 f4 retails at around £13,500 it's an eye watering difference so there has to be a catch?
Yes and no in my opinion.
As long as you realise before you buy this lens that f11 will considerably reduce the light and therefore force you in to higher ISO and slower shutter speeds you are not going to be too disappointed.
There are other considerations too though. Focus point availability is reduced to about 25% of the screen but even that is actually very good when you think back that when you stuck a 2.0X. TC on and f4 lens you only had expanded centre point on a camera like the 7D2. It does make moving subjects more difficult to accurately focus on though.
Where the 800 does score for me though is where the subject is static.

• Join to view EXIF data.

This is the full frame shot of a Black-headed Gull and I'm more than happy with the near 100% crop I can achieve with my R5, in fact I could crop even further if I wanted to although you do start losing a bit of detail in doing so.

• Join to view EXIF data.

This isn't an award winning shot but for the money and for someone who has been limited to 400mm it's ground breaking in my opinion.

The lens is extremely light, again I'm comparing Canon's big whites, and so is very portable but on that note I would also mention the lens comes without a lens foot or any where to attach a strap other than a screw hole similar in size to the one you have on a camera body. I use it to attach my Black Rapid strap which is OK but for me not ideal as it's a bit awkward as the lens is quite long when extended which it has to be to use it.
I was surprised that the lens comes with no instruction on how to use it.Not a big deal but I still found myself wondering what to do. The camera tells you the lens is not ready but the only indication on the lens is a lock>unlock ring. It's actually quite clever when you realise its a push pull operation and the lens collapses down in to a more manageable size for portability.
One other point is that the lens doesn't come with a lens hood which again would reduce available light so perhaps you don't need one but as I like to stand my lenses on the floor on their hoods, I can't do so as there is a risk of scratching the glass. Mind you as the lens is so light and narrow, it's probably a bad idea to even try as the weight of the camera body might make it inclined to easily fall over if brushed against.

The other consideration , particularly if you are not used to long reach and narrow aperture is finding your subject in the frame but that, with a bit of practice, isn't too difficult.

Would I recommend this lens?
Absolutely. It's a bit of a bargain
BUT
I have to say, if you have the budget to push for the 100-500 and a 1.4TC that's the way to go. You have potential for 700mm at f10 but have all the focus points available to use and possibly a tad faster AF speed too.
Should I have bought one?
If I'm honest I'm not sure. I have gained some extra reach even without using a TC but if I'm carrying both lenses I'm losing portability. Maybe an RF 2.0xTC would have been a better option on the 100-500. there again I need to try again with the 1.4TC on the 800mm when I have the chance in good light.That gives an incredible 1140mm reach in a hand holdable lightweight package for not much more than £1k.

 

[TonyB]

I have the 100-500, 1.4x and the 800mm RF lenses and I enjoy the extra reach with the 800. I’ve always wanted to get into the super-tele ranges without having to sell body parts on the black market to do it. While these lenses do have limitations, they are only as limited as the person using it.

Here’s a shot I took with the 800mm from an early morning walk through the Orlando Wetlands Park in Central Florida. It was early and the sun had not yet cooked off the early morning fog and mist.

• Join to view EXIF data.

I took this image to Photoshop, and with some inspiration from a friend, it became something I really like. The copy on my iPad is too large to post but you can see it here https://www.firstlight.photo/Landscapes/i-wRVRG2B

 

[Dave Williams]

While these lenses do have limitations, they are only as limited as the person using it.

Your shot of the tree is very nice but it's big and hasn't moved in a while and the fine detail that so many want in their shots isn't necessary for this image. In my opinion the photographer is limited because of the lens but I agree, it's a great buy for the money and for selected uses but limited use can be said about the most expensive pieces of glass too. Nothing to do with the photographers ability, all to do with horses for courses.

 

[RedCobra]

Interesting to hear of your experience Brian, and thanks for letting us know. There are two issues that come to mind 1) The longer the lens the narrower the field of view so trying to find the subject is more difficult 2) getting the camera to lock focus on the bird which is going to be quite small in the frame I guess and not a lot of contrast.
All the photographs I have seen using the 800mm have been perched birds from what I recall although some togs must have taken flight shots too anyway I decided that I would go for the 100-500 because of it's versatility, it's "L" class build and the shots I have seen posted which look to be top notch. I haven't ordered a TC yet but will decide in due course.

I added the 1.4ex to my 100-500, so 700mm at f/10.0, and it is a stellar performer. Heck I have trouble keeping BIF in the VF at 500mm, at 700 it's even harder. But, at least I can zoom back to 420mm to find the critter, then zoom out to 700mm.

 

[Dave Williams]

I added the 1.4ex to my 100-500, so 700mm at f/10.0, and it is a stellar performer. Heck I have trouble keeping BIF in the VF at 500mm, at 700 it's even harder. But, at least I can zoom back to 420mm to find the critter, then zoom out to 700mm.

I agree with all you are saying but the thread was about the RF 800f11, and the pros and cons.