crisdesign wrote:
I think for a company that charges a premium over their competitors we should expect a bit better.
Are details like having to add an arca swiss plate a deal breaker? No, but If I spend 2+ grands on a telephoto lens I would expect not have to add one or at least be able to replace the foot.
Is the asymmetric design of the lens mount a deal breaker? No, but it’s super annoying fiddling with lens caps in the field
Is the lack of a lightweight 600mm 6.3 and 800 6.3 a deal breaker? No I can do with a 100-400, 500 f4 and teleconverter but I have to cope with a really heavy backpack.
Is it a deal breaker that the 400 and 600, 800 and 1200 primes are a recycled ef design? No but i would have preferred that they prioritised new designs, the 800 and 1200 are almost a joke and just released for marketing purposes.
Is the lack of an affordable stacked sensor camera like the z8 a deal breaker? No my r5 is good enough but if I had to switch to mirrorless now instead of 2 years ago I would choose nikon over canon and I have been with canon since the first 300d.
Now is great that we have a zoom that as some people here say can shoot at 800mm f9 1/30 of a sec, but honestly I don’t think I would be able to say that that would be the 80% of the situations I want to be in.
If you are canon wildlife shooter you either spend 2k for a slow zoom, 5k for a second hand, heavy and soon unserviceable prime or 10k+ plus for a prime without integrated converter.
I think canon did a great job with the 100-300 but then just a few months later sony shows that you can shave a kg from a 300 2.8, and you can get it for 6k instead of 10k.
So I hope canon catches up and starts filling the gaps in the 2-10k range or if you want in the 1.3-3kg or f4-f7.1 ranges ...Show more →
The 200-800 is $1900 here. $100 less than the Sony, so price complaints don't make much sense. Neither dies expecting every little thing.
The Rf 400 and 600 are not recycled lens designs. They are the 1st lightweight out there. People don't seem to comprehend that putting a lens in both mounts is a great idea, even Leica did it.
If you don't like having to add tc's, you don't have to, to get to 800mm on this lens. The 200-600, you do, leaving you at f/9. If you want light, get the 100-500, it is much lighter than the 200-600, the 800pf is still 5.5lbs and $6500, anyway just not much to agree with in your post
No worries we don’t have to agree But the reality in the Uk is that you can get a sony 200-600 for £1600 (£1400 if you consider the £200 cashback) or the rf 200-800 for £2300!!!
Just checking the price on wex photo video so yes a pretty hefty premium. Generally canon is more expensive than nikon or sony, is some instances it’s justified in others not really.
Personally i’m in the market for a canon equivalent to the z 600 6.3 or 800 6.3 so i can trim weight from my 500 f4 ii but it might never happen as canon has demonstrated over the last 3 years they are committed to milk the 400mm and 600mm 2018 designs till the very last drop. Can you imagine selling an 800 5.6 at 19k when you can buy a lighter f6.3 version for 6k? No way.
The rumoured 200-500 will likely be 15k and weight like the current prime so again you might disagree but the gap between slow zoom at 2k and a fast super tele at 10-15k still exists.
AmbientMike wrote:
The 200-800 is $1900 here. $100 less than the Sony, so price complaints don't make much sense. Neither dies expecting every little thing.
The Rf 400 and 600 are not recycled lens designs. They are the 1st lightweight out there. People don't seem to comprehend that putting a lens in both mounts is a great idea, even Leica did it.
If you don't like having to add tc's, you don't have to, to get to 800mm on this lens. The 200-600, you do, leaving you at f/9. If you want light, get the 100-500, it is much lighter than the 200-600, the 800pf is still 5.5lbs and $6500, anyway just not much to agree with in your post ...Show more →
I’m happy with my job thanks. I make an obscene amount of money and have a totally flexible schedule to wonder off into nature preserves whenever I want to. I’m very very lucky. Thanks for your totally positive attitude!
jedibrain wrote:
I don't have a 100-500 to compare to my 100-400. So I can't answer that question. The only one that remains then is why you are not chief of R&D at Canon or another brand? They are so obviously clueless you could walk right in to the job.
That’s not true. All of the feet on big whites are removable with an allen key. Hence why most wildlife shooters replace them with Kirk or similar.
action99 wrote:
Nobody cares to look at the RAWs that show how good the lens is at 800mm F9. But everybody seems to care that this lens does not have a removable tripod collar that btw no other Canon big withe tele has a removable one neither (100-300, 400, 500, 600, 800, 1200). Strange what people priorities are.
This lens is probably the sharpest 800mm below 6k USD (and even handholdable) across the market and people complain about the collar.
action99 wrote:
Nobody cares to look at the RAWs that show how good the lens is at 800mm F9. But everybody seems to care that this lens does not have a removable tripod collar that btw no other Canon big withe tele has a removable one neither (100-300, 400, 500, 600, 800, 1200). Strange what people priorities are.
This lens is probably the sharpest 800mm below 6k USD (and even handholdable) across the market and people complain about the collar.
You may not agree with someone else's priorities, but that doesn't make them strange.
And all of my L series telephoto lenses had a removeable tripod collar or the foot could be removed.
It's not a deal breaker but would be nice. I will use a monopod when waiting for an eagle, osprey or the likes to leave a perch, but otherwise things are hand held. Sure, I can rotate the collar to the top to get it out of the way, but to be able to remove it is the better option.
No lens is perfect and if all we can complain about is the collar, then the 200-800mm may be a pretty good lens. Based on the pre-production reviews, it seems to perform nicely. Just gotta see how that translates to production units once they land in the hands of photographers.
melcat wrote:
1 AUD = 96.59 YEN, historical average around 80¥ to 90¥
1 USD = 151.52 YEN, historically around 100¥
Lenses from Japan should have got cheaper in Australia because the yen is weak.
Problem for Japanese manufacturers is they're probably buying input materials in USD and the weak JPY is killing them. Or if not in USD, are still affected by the weak JPY because those commodities can be sold for more to USD paying customers.
IIRC there have been recent announcements regarding Japan domestic market price increases.
AUD's appreciation against the JPY compared to the USD is considerably less, and if Japanese manufacturers are increasing JPY prices to account for higher input costs relative to the USD, AUD customers will see increases in price while USD customers may not.
In the past two years the USD has gained about 35% vs. the JPY whereas the AUD had only gained about 20%. US market is also considerably larger than Australia's and there may be differences in markups to account for various factors.
This may affect some of Canon's competitors less because IIRC they manufacture some or all of their products outside Japan, such as in China, Thailand, etc. Most of Canon's production is in Japan but I believe some of their lower end products are made in Taiwan (where manufacturing costs may not be as low as other Asian countries).
I'm looking forward to the "Yeah, well my dad could beat up your dad!" arguments next. 😐
This lens checks a lot of the boxes for me. The minor quibbles are just that. My only real concern is if I got my pre-order in early enough to get in on the first shipment.
This. I shoot handheld in the car or next to it. When I’m out of the car for extended period I shoot on a monopod with a Wimberley head. It’s Arca Swiss and I can mount or dismount a lens in five seconds. Plus it tilts so if your bird is up at the top of a tree (eagles nest) you can get a perfect angle. So a lens without a removable foot is useless to me. I think the Nikon / Sony designs are really really user friendly and adaptable. Plus they have external switches. As someone who uses this stuff out in the field, often in freezing temps details like these matter.
coppertop wrote:
You may not agree with someone else's priorities, but that doesn't make them strange.
And all of my L series telephoto lenses had a removeable tripod collar or the foot could be removed.
It's not a deal breaker but would be nice. I will use a monopod when waiting for an eagle, osprey or the likes to leave a perch, but otherwise things are hand held. Sure, I can rotate the collar to the top to get it out of the way, but to be able to remove it is the better option.
No lens is perfect and if all we can complain about is the collar, then the 200-800mm may be a pretty good lens. Based on the pre-production reviews, it seems to perform nicely. Just gotta see how that translates to production units once they land in the hands of photographers.
jwolfe wrote:
This. I shoot handheld in the car or next to it. When I’m out of the car for extended period I shoot on a monopod with a Wimberley head. It’s Arca Swiss and I can mount or dismount a lens in five seconds. Plus it tilts so if your bird is up at the top of a tree (eagles nest) you can get a perfect angle. So a lens without a removable foot is useless to me.
Sorry, what was wrong with fitting an Arca-Swiss plate to the existing foot? I actually find my new lens with the stock foot and Acratech plate easier than the old one with the Kirk Arca-Swiss compatible foot. And yes, I did use them side-by-side when testing the new lens against the old.
jwolfe wrote:
That’s not true. All of the feet on big whites are removable with an allen key. Hence why most wildlife shooters replace them with Kirk or similar.
We are talking about removable collar… not feet big difference.
I do own a 100-300 and I replaced the foot with an arca swiss.
You want to remove the collar to save weight and be less on the way when handholding and it should be quick and tool-less.
The feet would be better that would be arca swiss to start with then non need to be removable and this is an issue of all big white.
coppertop wrote:
You may not agree with someone else's priorities, but that doesn't make them strange.
And all of my L series telephoto lenses had a removeable tripod collar or the foot could be removed.
It's not a deal breaker but would be nice. I will use a monopod when waiting for an eagle, osprey or the likes to leave a perch, but otherwise things are hand held. Sure, I can rotate the collar to the top to get it out of the way, but to be able to remove it is the better option.
No lens is perfect and if all we can complain about is the collar, then the 200-800mm may be a pretty good lens. Based on the pre-production reviews, it seems to perform nicely. Just gotta see how that translates to production units once they land in the hands of photographers.
QR plates are more generic than custom feet with the dovetail built in, and they can be used with different lenses so if you sell a particular lens, the plate doesn't become useless.
Custom feet exist with arca-swiss dovetails and these can reduce one part from the mount, potentially reducing weight and risk of plate rotating unintendedly. However, custom feet fit a particular lens and may not necessarily fit another lens by the same maker, and the cost of the custom foot is typically higher than the cost of a plate. Further, and this is the reason the major lens manufacturers do not build the arca-swiss compatible dovetail right into the original lens foot: there are different quick-release mounting systems on the market and many are incompatible with each other. Most video heads (fluid heads) do not use arca-swiss compatible systems and these are some of the best heads for long-lens photography.
Plate rotation can be avoided by using a plate with two screws, provided that the lens foot has two screwholes.
Having the collar itself removable is a more clumsy solution than having the foot removable, and I find most removeable collars do not provide as stable support or smooth rotation as most non-removeable collars. Some users report 100-500 collars coming off unintendedly, although this can happen even with fixed collar & removable foot (some reports on Nikon forums) or the strap can come off the foot itself if the lens and camera are carried by a black rapid style strap from the lens foot. The tripod mount of the lens is inteded for tripod and monopod use, and not a carrying handle. But if you must carry the lens from the tripod mount, a non-removable foot and non-removable collar are probably the safest for that (leaving only the strap and screw as points of failure). On Nikon's lenses which have removable feet, there is an option to screw the foot on the lens collar itself, but the original foot has to be replaced with a custom one for this to be possible (the lens and collar have a screwhole for this purpose). Hejnar makes screw-on feet for at least some or these lenses.
So, removeable feet can be good and give users more options. But they add to the cost of the setup and that is probably why the less expensive lenses do not have removable feet and those are mostly present on mid and high-end lenses.
melcat wrote:
Sorry, what was wrong with fitting an Arca-Swiss plate to the existing foot? I actually find my new lens with the stock foot and Acratech plate easier than the old one with the Kirk Arca-Swiss compatible foot. And yes, I did use them side-by-side when testing the new lens against the old.
alundeb wrote:
Totally agree, the collar is just a minor detail. Since people disagree about what is good collar and foot design, it might be worth clarifying exactly that through discussion.
IMO the 200-800 is a better option than the 200-600 varietes from the competition if you are after an 800 mm lens. Lots of people using the 200-600 are exactly that without admitting it, you see it on how many shots that are taken at 600 mm or with a TC attached.
I don´t think there is one great for everyone collar or foot design. Well, if you could choose a foot with arca or picatinny or Canon when you order the lens, that would perhaps be the best possible, but expensive. At least in that world it would be removable. Check! And I am satisfied if it would have both standard thread sizes. And yes, make it round and nice on the upper side to be used as a handle for walk around.
The hood should be the smallest possible that still does its job. Not as the halfbarrel size ridiculous one that comes with the 100-500. If possible I would love the EF 300/4 LIS and 400/5.6L design. Those I really miss. On the 200-800 such a design is possible as it has the cylindrical front part. Yes, some creative 3D-printing might actually work!
Z250SA wrote:
I don´t think there is one great for everyone collar or foot design. Well, if you could choose a foot with arca or picatinny or Canon when you order the lens, that would perhaps be the best possible, but expensive. At least in that world it would be removable. Check! And I am satisfied if it would have both standard thread sizes. And yes, make it round and nice on the upper side to be used as a handle for walk around.
The hood should be the smallest possible that still does its job. Not as the halfbarrel size ridiculous one that comes with the 100-500. If possible I would love the EF 300/4 LIS and 400/5.6L design. Those I really miss. On the 200-800 such a design is possible as it has the cylindrical front part. Yes, some creative 3D-printing might actually work! ...Show more →
I see that my post could be ambiguous. The discussion will clarify that there is no universally good collar and foot design, not which one that would be
I like personal customizations, either that would be using small tools, Metabo or Milwaukee grinders, or white paint
ilkka_nissila wrote:
However, custom feet fit a particular lens and may not necessarily fit another lens by the same maker, and the cost of the custom foot is typically higher than the cost of a plate. Further, and this is the reason the major lens manufacturers do not build the arca-swiss compatible dovetail right into the original lens foot: there are different quick-release mounting systems on the market and many are incompatible with each other. Most video heads (fluid heads) do not use arca-swiss compatible systems and these are some of the best heads for long-lens photography.
I don’t think it’s a valid reason. The minority of users working with other mounts could still add their plate so for them it wouldn’t make a difference but for the majority arca swiss users it would make a difference, it’s a simple usability improvement.
Z250SA wrote:
The hood should be the smallest possible that still does its job. Not as the halfbarrel size ridiculous one that comes with the 100-500. If possible I would love the EF 300/4 LIS and 400/5.6L design. Those I really miss. On the 200-800 such a design is possible as it has the cylindrical front part. Yes, some creative 3D-printing might actually work!
A built-in hood would definitely be an option with this lens, but I'm guessing it was a cost factor. I agree about the dislike for the massive hoods Canon designed for some lenses. Another example is the repurposing of the 600/11's hood for the 135/1.8. Simply massive and for an L lens, feels a bit like an afterthought.
It would have been nice for Canon to at least include Arca grooves in the tripod foot, but they never have previously, AFAIK. The Sony 200-600 and Nikon 180-600 also don't, though those are removable. I kind of wonder if the Arca design is an intellectual property consideration that Canon doesn't want to infringe on, even if it's out of protection. The Japanese brands tend to be very conservative about these things. That said, Fuji and OM have the groove on some of their larger lenses with tripod collars/feet.
action99 wrote:
Look at the RAW I linked above yourself no need for “pseudo honest” early YT review.
Watched the video and while I had to use Closed Captioning (Cheese Omelet is as far as my French goes) it's on par with all the other pre-production reviews of the lens. The key is whether the pre-production quality carries over to the production models.
I really don't think Canon blindly slapped together review samples to send out. These lenses were likely checked over multiple times to make sure it operated correctly. If the production quality matches what we are seeing, the 200-800mm is going to be a nice lens.
Still waffling between what's the better option when the need for 1000mm arises; the 100-500mm with a 2x teleconverter or a 200-800mm with a 1.4x TC? I have the 100-500mm and picking a 2x would be more cost effective if there's no difference in performance and image quality.
Still keeping the pre-order in place, but looking at the 200-800mm side by side with the 100-500mm, my main concern shifts from the tripod collar to whether or not the 200-800mm will fit in my dry cabinet.
I mean, people clamor for a budget tele, then it comes out and people complain about it not having a more premium feature. I never got into the Arca Swiss stuff anyway
I didn't find monopods too effective at lowering ss. Lost mine, never got another. IS more effective at slow ss, monopod might help IS not sure about that though, not something I use, anyway
coppertop wrote:
Watched the video and while I had to use Closed Captioning (Cheese Omelet is as far as my French goes) it's on par with all the other pre-production reviews of the lens. The key is whether the pre-production quality carries over to the production models.
I really don't think Canon blindly slapped together review samples to send out. These lenses were likely checked over multiple times to make sure it operated correctly. If the production quality matches what we are seeing, the 200-800mm is going to be a nice lens.
Still waffling between what's the better option when the need for 1000mm arises; the 100-500mm with a 2x teleconverter or a 200-800mm with a 1.4x TC? I have the 100-500mm and picking a 2x would be more cost effective if there's no difference in performance and image quality.
Still keeping the pre-order in place, but looking at the 200-800mm side by side with the 100-500mm, my main concern shifts from the tripod collar to whether or not the 200-800mm will fit in my dry cabinet.
But the reality in the Uk is that you can get a sony 200-600 for £1600 (£1400 if you consider the £200 cashback) or the rf 200-800 for £2300!!! 
