People were under the impression that it was a dust vacuum. Not that there is any difference between the distance traveled with the V2 versus the V1, but once an internet rumor gets started it tends to become fact to some, regardless of actual proof.
I'm sure that many people prefer the rotating collar. Canon sells to the majority of users.
OwlsEyes wrote:
From a Nikon shooter's perspective, I see this lens in the following way:
1. It is a competitive move to capture nature and sports photographers. Canon now has the least expensive pathway into serious "birder" photography. I always felt that the Nikon gear was a bargain, but it is still significantly more expensive than Canon's offering into ultra-telephoto lenses with high quality AF and build. Somebody wanting to get into wildlife photography using mirrorless gear now can: a. Go with Fuji w/ XH2s + 150-600 at a moderate price and moderate AF performance : B. Go with Nikon with a 180-600 + Z8 at a moderate to high price (bc the AF in other bodies are limited) : C. Go with Sony with a 200-600 w/ A1/A9ii/A?r (at a moderated to very high price) : D. Go with Canon with a 200-800 + R7 for around $3500.
For people who enjoy travel for wildlife photography... safaris, tropics, Yellowstone, etc... this is a small price to pay relative to the other systems. Pair this with a kit lens or 24-105 f/4 and you are done.
2: It is a gateway drug for Canon shooters. The 200-800 may be enough to pull a chunk of EF / DSLR shooters into the R-system and give photographers a taste of working with RF glass.
While the lens is not for me, I can already see that this will be a high-volume sale lens for Canon.
Agree with a lot of your observations though I would offer the following:
1) Those who think they will be able to shoot tiny subjects in the frame and crop significantly will likely be disappointed. My 100-500 was a great lens when the subject filled the frame, though the IQ broke down quickly when cropping significantly or for subjects near the margins compared to my 500/600 primes.
2) Canon designed the 100-500 very well with respect to minimizing the zoom sucking in dust. Hopefully, they applied that knowledge to this lens.
3) The long zoom throw will likely intimidate some users. I know I hated that on the 100-500 compared to the Sony 200-600 or Nikon 180-600.
4) Lens balance remains to be determined. The 100-500 was fantastic even when fully zoomed will this lens perform as well when paired to an R7 or R5? For those using a gimbal, they are likely to be frustrated.
Anyhow, I think it’s a very interesting gateway lens and kudos to Canon for producing it at such a price point even though I would pass.
IndyFab wrote:
If any one used the 100-400 V1, the best thing about that lens was the way it zooms with the push/pull vs twist. As I mentioned in a earlier post, it will be a lot of twisting with the new 200-800 that will cost you missed shots.
Canon, bring back the smooth push/pull zoom !!
Agree with you 100%.... Used the version 1 100-400mm for years. Not many photographers these days have used that type of zoom. They don't realize how fast and intuitive it was to zoom. A subject coming towards you all you had to do was pull in and the opposite for subject moving away. Easy Peasy! NO twist zoom made could come close to staying on subject as consistently while zooming. Neither an IF zoom or EF zoom is as effective of staying on subject. Now I'd take a internal twist zoom any time over an external twist zoom and was very hopeful that the 200-800mm may go back to a push/pull but no luck. The only advantage of an external zoom is size for traveling. IMO That's a big price to pay for for missing shots a critical times. Of course the Dust Pump crowd will start squawking about that myth without any real evidence.
armd wrote:
Agree with a lot of your observations though I would offer the following:
1) Those who think they will be able to shoot tiny subjects in the frame and crop significantly will likely be disappointed. My 100-500 was a great lens when the subject filled the frame, though the IQ broke down quickly when cropping significantly or for subjects near the margins compared to my 500/600 primes.
2) Canon designed the 100-500 very well with respect to minimizing the zoom sucking in dust. Hopefully, they applied that knowledge to this lens.
3) The long zoom throw will likely intimidate some users. I know I hated that on the 100-500 compared to the Sony 200-600 or Nikon 180-600.
4) Lens balance remains to be determined. The 100-500 was fantastic even when fully zoomed will this lens perform as well when paired to an R7 or R5? For those using a gimbal, they are likely to be frustrated.
Anyhow, I think it’s a very interesting gateway lens and kudos to Canon for producing it at such a price point even though I would pass. ...Show more →
I guess the point of the 200-800 is to prevent excessive cropping. Ones not aware of those limitations will learn quickly. I would expect any lens that cost me an additional 10 to 15K would crop better. My 400 DO II was a delight.
People who can't afford the big primes will gobble up the 200-800 and learn to will work around it. I'm sure we will see a few posts asking about poor IQ with a pushed crop.
drobertfranz wrote:
Agree with you 100%.... Used the version 1 100-400mm for years. Not many photographers these days have used that type of zoom. They don't realize how fast and intuitive it was to zoom. A subject coming towards you all you had to do was pull in and the opposite for subject moving away. Easy Peasy! NO twist zoom made could come close to staying on subject as consistently while zooming. Neither an IF zoom or EF zoom is as effective of staying on subject. Now I'd take a internal twist zoom any time over an external twist zoom and was very hopeful that the 200-800mm may go back to a push/pull but no luck. The only advantage of an external zoom is size for traveling. IMO That's a big price to pay for for missing shots a critical times. Of course the Dust Pump crowd will start squawking about that myth without any real evidence. ...Show more →
Agree 110%, could of not said it any better, and the icing on the cake would be an internal zoom with a better f stop range..
Franz, I wonder if it was and internal zoom, if that would negate the internet dust zoom factor.
We could wish for this, but the reality is from the video demonstrating the lens its a twist zoom.
So the question is, could Canon have made it a push/pull with internal zoom, and keep it at its price point they are marketing it at. Changing the Fstop range would defiantly increase the price point.& weight.
IndyFab wrote:
Agree 110%, could of not said it any better, and the icing on the cake would be an internal zoom with a better f stop range..
Franz, I wonder if it was and internal zoom, if that would negate the internet dust zoom factor.
So the question is, could Canon have made it a push/pull with internal zoom, and keep it at its price point they are marketing it at. Changing the Fstop range would defiantly increase the price point.& weight.
There is precedence for an internal push pull zoom The really old Canon 150-600mm F5.6L had a version of it. You had a focus dial that you pushed forward and backward to zoom. It worked really well and kept the lens better sealed. Only problem was you really couldn't zoom while handholding. If the RF200-800 would have been a push pull I would get one.. As it is, probably not. After the 100-500 I swore I'd never buy another external twist zoom
drobertfranz wrote:
There is precedence for an internal push pull zoom The really old Canon 150-600mm F5.6L had a version of it. You had a focus dial that you pushed forward and backward to zoom. It worked really well and kept the lens better sealed. Only problem was you really couldn't zoom while handholding. If the RF200-800 would have been a push pull I would get one.. As it is, probably not. After the 100-500 I swore I'd never buy another external twist zoom
That would be before my time into photography, but had to see what it looked like, the positive 5.6, the negative, it was a monstrosity, and like you mentioned imposible to zoom hand holding. Did it have a foot you could use on a Tripod?
IndyFab wrote:
That would be before my time into photography, but had to see what it looked like, the positive 5.6, the negative, it was a monstrosity, and like you mentioned imposible to zoom hand holding. Did it have a foot you could use on a Tripod?
THAT foot makes the one on the 200-800 look nice and small. Thanks! Now I could pre order the 200-800 without any hesitation. Almost. There is always that "never buy a new one before the first adopter idiots have found it good" thing... Well, must leave something to finally learn when/if I live to 60...
IndyFab wrote:
That would be before my time into photography, but had to see what it looked like, the positive 5.6, the negative, it was a monstrosity, and like you mentioned imposible to zoom hand holding. Did it have a foot you could use on a Tripod?
drobertfranz wrote:
Agree with you 100%.... Used the version 1 100-400mm for years. Not many photographers these days have used that type of zoom. They don't realize how fast and intuitive it was to zoom. A subject coming towards you all you had to do was pull in and the opposite for subject moving away. Easy Peasy! NO twist zoom made could come close to staying on subject as consistently while zooming. Neither an IF zoom or EF zoom is as effective of staying on subject. Now I'd take a internal twist zoom any time over an external twist zoom and was very hopeful that the 200-800mm may go back to a push/pull but no luck. The only advantage of an external zoom is size for traveling. IMO That's a big price to pay for for missing shots a critical times. Of course the Dust Pump crowd will start squawking about that myth without any real evidence. ...Show more →
Canon got absolutely murdered on these and other forums for the push/pull zoom. I had it, and liked it. But if this 200-800 was push pull it would be DOA according to the internet.
And I'm not sue I followed your comment about internal vs. external zoom. I would think if this was fixed at its full 800mm length most of the target audience would be put off by the size.
IndyFab wrote:
That would be before my time into photography, but had to see what it looked like, the positive 5.6, the negative, it was a monstrosity, and like you mentioned imposible to zoom hand holding. Did it have a foot you could use on a Tripod?
Oh yeah you could attach it to a tripod.. Never used one but had some friends that loved it. Very good optically back in the day. I'm sure with todays manufacturing and materials it could be actually be a great lens and not overly huge
I owned several versions of the EF 100-400 and preferred the push/pull, but also had no problem with the twist model. Of course either zoom method will be more awkward with a larger and heavier lens such as the 200-800.
I know nothing much about the internal working of lenses, so this is just my theory.
Whether it is a zoom or prime, are not glass elements moving closer and further apart when zooming or focusing? If so, does that not mean there are pressure differences taking place between the glass elements? Since none of these lenses are vacuum-sealed as far as I know, does that not mean all of them are prone to trying to suck dust into the low-pressure areas, and the amount would depend on how well sealed the lens would be?
jedibrain wrote:
Canon got absolutely murdered on these and other forums for the push/pull zoom. I had it, and liked it. But if this 200-800 was push pull it would be DOA according to the internet.
And I'm not sue I followed your comment about internal vs. external zoom. I would think if this was fixed at its full 800mm length most of the target audience would be put off by the size.
Brian
Don't think I agree with that.. The EF100-400mm mk1 was a huge seller and very popular.. A lot of noise from people who never used it and got indoctrinated by the dust pump crowd. . Don't believe what you hear on the internet Sony 200-600mm and Nikon's 180-600mm are 2 examples of modern IF zooms. They don;t retract like the external zoom so in a sense are larger than a retracted external zoom but extended zooms are zoomed out the difference disappears. Give me me the IF zoom every time...
Imagemaster wrote:
I owned several versions of the EF 100-400 and preferred the push/pull, but also had no problem with the twist model. Of course either zoom method will be more awkward with a larger and heavier lens such as the 200-800.
I know nothing much about the internal working of lenses, so this is just my theory.
Whether it is a zoom or prime, are not glass elements moving closer and further apart when zooming or focusing? If so, does that not mean there are pressure differences taking place between the glass elements? Since none of these lenses are vacuum-sealed as far as I know, does that not mean all of them are prone to trying to suck dust into the low-pressure areas, and the amount would depend on how well sealed the lens would be?...Show more →
This is my reason from experience for preferring a push pull external zoom over a twist external like the 100-400mm mk2 and the 100-500mm and both RF70-200's.. I've been leading bald eagle photo workshops for many years. Back when I had the 100-400mm mk1 I would take that and a EF500mmF4. When the 100-400mmmk2 came out I didn't get one right away and a friend let me borrow his for the tour since I was getting ready to buy one. When photographing the eagles they come from quite a distance. to very close in an instant. I had no problem at all keeping them framed perfectly with my push pull 100-400mm but found in to be very difficult with the twist zoom. Really liked the optics and IS in the new 100-400mm but nothing else. I never purchased one even though I moved on from the push pull. I went to using the EF70-200mm F2.8 with converters. At least you had a reasonable zoom throw that was manageable. Also when I shot sports with Reuters some events (hockey) you are in a fixed position twist external zooms were quite difficult to use compared to a IF zoom.
So in my experience as far as fast and accurate zoom and staying on intended subject Push/Pull zoom > Internal zoom > external twist zoom. But overall I think I'd take the internal zoom as implemented by Nikon and Sony with the 70 degree zoom throw.
I love (loved?) the push-pull 100-400, but I surmise that the 200-800 is a little too long when extended to be comfortable holding it out near the end of the barrel.
I guess I'll find out soon enough, my B&H Pre-order just went in
Now I could pre order the 200-800 without any hesitation. Almost. There is always that "never buy a new one before the first adopter idiots have found it good" thing... Well, must leave something to finally learn when/if I live to 60... 
