The 800mm F11 was a lens I literally laughed at when I heard the Canon announcement. That was till had the chance to use one in February in Yellowstone on my "Winter in Yellowstone" photo tours. I was taken aback by the image quality even when compared to my EF600mm F4mk3. The lightweight and ease of use makes it a joy to use. When the Canon Store had refurbs for sale I jumped on one for a ridiculously low price especially when compared to other supertelephotos.
I've just spent 2 weeks photographing eagles in Alaska and really put the lens through it's paces and think I have a good feel for its strengths and weaknesses (not many). I used the Canon R5 exclusively
1. Optical Quality Amazingly sharp for the price. As sharp as my 600mm F4? No, of course not, but surprisingly close. Bokeh and background blur is surprisingly good for an F11 lens
2.AF Performance Focus is quite good in bright light. Low light is a bit of a challenge but I was able to capture some great images in very low light conditions and even in heavy snow
3. Ergonomics So easy to handhold and an absolute joy to use handheld
This lens is a keeper for me and I'm sure I will find much use for it.
When I first heard of this lens, like you, I thought it was kinda ridiculous.
But after reading of a few people praising it, I realized that why wouldn't it be a great lens? I think it's missing all the fancy glass elements greatly reducing a lot of the costs of the optics.
AND why shouldn't it be very close to as sharp as a 600mm stopped down to f11? And that fact is what makes it so inexpensive. I'ts a DO and not a big white but plenty of non-L's are plenty sharp enough.
I've read at least a few here say if Canon made a 600mm DO they'd jump ship from wherever they've gone. Well I think this is their boarding pass!!! LoL
John
I bought one as well when the refurbs were on sale. Sadly, the weather has been crap since then (typical for midwest winters/early spring). Really hoping to get outside and try it. Maybe I'll turn in to one of those bird guys.
I plan on picking one of these up sometime in the next month or two. I don't shoot a ton of very long lens stuff, but I do shoot birds from time to time, and 800mm would be nice to have in those situations. Given how impressed I am by the RF 100-400mm as well, I'm sure the 800mm will be great.
If you do not mind , I would be happy to hear your findings/opinion about this lens.
Great lens for the price if you want the greatest reach for the lowest weight and cost. Of course f11 is a big negative unless you have lots of light and/or don't mind shooting at higher ISO's. For a low-cost super-telephoto prime, its best use is on a tripod and shooting still subjects.
For this colour-ringed white tailed seaeagle season I´m trying out mine on the R10 for more reach than with the R5, and it is doing well. The IS is pretty impressing with most images stabilized at 1/200s. As the R10 lacks IBIS I was concerned. No reason at all, especially now with the light returning.
Alberta's provincial flower, Alberta Wild Rose, is a small, deciduous shrub known for its beautiful pink blooms and thick, thorny stems. It is native to Canada and some wildlife enjoys its edible rosehips, which can be used in jams, jellies, and rose hip tea.
Canon EOS R6m2RF800mm F11 IS STM lens800mmf/11.01/90s1000 ISO0.0 EV
Canon EOS R6m2RF800mm F11 IS STM lens800mmf/11.01/90s1000 ISO0.0 EV
Canon 100-500mm + 1.4 extender
vs.
Canon 800mm f/11
I understand that the 100-500+extender cost a LOT more, but I assume many people who would be interested in the 800mm already have 100-500.
I always thought that once I grow up I would buy a supertelephoto (e.g. 600mm f/4) as a retirement gift for myself or something like that. But now that I have the 100-500mm I don't think I will ever need anything longer. Sure, sometimes more reach would be nice but even shooting at 500mm is tricky sometimes.
I am hoping for a high res body (80-100mpix) that would make the need for large lens obvious.
matejphoto wrote:
What is better (sharpness, bokeh, IS)?
Canon 100-500mm + 1.4 extender
vs.
Canon 800mm f/11
I understand that the 100-500+extender cost a LOT more, but I assume many people who would be interested in the 800mm already have 100-500.
I always thought that once I grow up I would buy a supertelephoto (e.g. 600mm f/4) as a retirement gift for myself or something like that. But now that I have the 100-500mm I don't think I will ever need anything longer. Sure, sometimes more reach would be nice but even shooting at 500mm is tricky sometimes.
I am hoping for a high res body (80-100mpix) that would make the need for large lens obvious. ...Show more →
Well, you get 800mm angle of view by using your 100-500 on an cropper, the R7 being the elks roar at this moment in time. The 800/11 is of course cheaper, sharp enough, has very good IS and ok bokeh if you do your part by keeping enough distance between the subject and background.
High res and long focal length gets you into heat shimmer territory all too often.
matejphoto wrote:
What is better (sharpness, bokeh, IS)?
Canon 100-500mm + 1.4 extender
vs.
Canon 800mm f/11
I understand that the 100-500+extender cost a LOT more, but I assume many people who would be interested in the 800mm already have 100-500.
I always thought that once I grow up I would buy a supertelephoto (e.g. 600mm f/4) as a retirement gift for myself or something like that. But now that I have the 100-500mm I don't think I will ever need anything longer. Sure, sometimes more reach would be nice but even shooting at 500mm is tricky sometimes.
I am hoping for a high res body (80-100mpix) that would make the need for large lens obvious. ...Show more →
I own the 800, but not the 100-500. I think the 800 is aimed at people that can't afford the 100-500, actually.
If you do have the 100-500, the 800 is still nice for those times you really want to punch in or get a far away target. And $1000 for occasional use is a lot better than $16000. So really I think it can fit in many kits regardless of funding level.
Maybe buy the 800 f/11 for your retirement gift, and spend the other 15k on a safari!
matejphoto wrote:
What is better (sharpness, bokeh, IS)?
Canon 100-500mm + 1.4 extender
vs.
Canon 800mm f/11
I understand that the 100-500+extender cost a LOT more, but I assume many people who would be interested in the 800mm already have 100-500.
I always thought that once I grow up I would buy a supertelephoto (e.g. 600mm f/4) as a retirement gift for myself or something like that. But now that I have the 100-500mm I don't think I will ever need anything longer. Sure, sometimes more reach would be nice but even shooting at 500mm is tricky sometimes.
I am hoping for a high res body (80-100mpix) that would make the need for large lens obvious. ...Show more →
As the OP for this thread I can try to answer this from my experiences with the lens. I actually find the 100=500mm and the 800mm F11 to make a great lightweight versatile combination for hiking. I carry them both often on a BR double strap and feel covered for most scenarios with birds and wildlife.
I have never used a converter on my 100-500 but I find the bokeh of the 800mm just fine and it never has left me dissapointed. I would say it's better than the 100-500mm and 500mm. Sharpness is quite good on the 800mm, actually amazing at the price point. 100-500mm is excellent. I would imagine with the 1.4x on the 100-500 vs the 800mm it would be close but I can't go from experience. IS seems quite good on the 800mm and is excellent on the 100-500.
I'm not limited to the 800mm because it's my only option. I have an EF600mmF4L mk3. I use the 800 because it's a convenience and a great option when you just want to go light. I keep finding times the the 800mm is the preferred option. You must remember the price point vs performance especially as far as sharpness. Nothing compares
jaredmizanin wrote:
I am also curious on the 100-500 + 1.4 vs 800/11 comparison. I have both lenses but no RF 1.4 as of yet. If I grab one soon I'll report back.
I have the 800f11 and the 100-500 along with the 1.4. I got the 800 1st. I then got the 100-500 and a month later the 1.4. I shoot with an R5 and added a R7 when it was released. The 1.4 plays very well with both lenses. The IQ is excellent with both lenses bare, and the hit using the 1.4 is most times non existent. It is hard to hand hold steady with the 1.4, as you can imagine. If I already had the 100-500 and the 1.4, I don't think I would add the 800 again. BUT, I like it so well, since I already own it I'm keeping it. If you look thru my Flickr photostream, most shots are with these two lenses with the 1.4 sprinkled in as needed.
