mslino wrote:
I agree that 200-800mm is aimed at customers who can't afford big white prime lenses, so I think Canon will sell it like water in the desert.
Oh, I have no doubt they will sell a lot though as I said, it has zero appeal for me. Toyota sells a lot of corollas though I don’t want one of those either.
Zenon Char wrote:
Yes. They don’t care if it is f9 and most don’t spend early or late times deep in marches where you need faster lenses. They want 800mm.
I potenally would have been much better off using one in the marsh right before sundown recently vs 180 Tamron. Checked my settings and given good IS f/9 isn't a problem even on a low iso. Much better bg blur too, vs the lens I used although pretty far distance so it might not have mattered so much.
armd wrote:
The videographers might like this lens, though it's not something that this still shooter would buy. My preference would be for some lightweight, fast DO primes like Nikon makes. Sure, I hear that a 400 DO is on the horizon, but it is too little, too late.
Many many still shooters will buy it.
Let see if you want to get 800mm on Nikon what options you have:
600 6.3 + 1.4, 4800 USD + 550 USD TC, and guess what you get a 800mm F9 lens
or
180-600 6.3 1700 USD + 550 USD TC, and guess what you get again 800mm at F9
or
800 6.3 at 6500 USD more than 3x the price for 1 stop faster and no zoom I'm sure Canon will sell many more 200-800 to still photographer than Nikon will sell 800 6.3.
I get that it will not fit your needs, although 1stop difference come on.... but it fits the need of so many people that did not have this option before.
And what is the aperture of the 200-800 at 400, 500 and 600mm?
I’m sure it will be a popular lens but let’s keep things in perspective, for stills a faster lens gives you the ability to crop when the light is low or to add a tc when there’s enough light.
I think if reach is the most important thing then 800f9 is a good trade-off but in that case wouldn’t a prime be cheaper and lighter?
action99 wrote:
Many many still shooters will buy it.
Let see if you want to get 800mm on Nikon what options you have:
600 6.3 + 1.4, 4800 USD + 550 USD TC, and guess what you get a 800mm F9 lens
or
180-600 6.3 1700 USD + 550 USD TC, and guess what you get again 800mm at F9
or
800 6.3 at 6500 USD more than 3x the price for 1 stop faster and no zoom I'm sure Canon will sell many more 200-800 to still photographer than Nikon will sell 800 6.3.
I get that it will not fit your needs, although 1stop difference come on.... but it fits the need of so many people that did not have this option before. ...Show more →
crisdesign wrote:
And what is the aperture of the 200-800 at 400, 500 and 600mm?
I’m sure it will be a popular lens but let’s keep things in perspective, for stills a faster lens gives you the ability to crop when the light is low or to add a tc when there’s enough light.
I think if reach is the most important thing then 800f9 is a good trade-off but in that case wouldn’t a prime be cheaper and lighter?
400 - f7.1
500 and 600 - f8
I'm not sure I understand your point though. The only RF primes in the 200-800mm range that are lighter and less expensive are the 600 and 800 f11. They are less versatile than the 200-800 being fixed range and slower, the cost of owning both the 600 and 800 is very close to the 200-800 and combined weight would greater. Not to mention the AF motor on both the 600 and 800 is STM.
crisdesign wrote:
And what is the aperture of the 200-800 at 400, 500 and 600mm?
I’m sure it will be a popular lens but let’s keep things in perspective, for stills a faster lens gives you the ability to crop when the light is low or to add a tc when there’s enough light.
I think if reach is the most important thing then 800f9 is a good trade-off but in that case wouldn’t a prime be cheaper and lighter?
The slow apertures at shorter focal lengths is admittedly a drawback of a zoom lens that goes to 800 mm, compared to most other shorter lenses.
It has been claimed that this lens has a particularly poor aperture range, but relative to the maximum focal length that is not true. If we compare to other -600 mm zoom lenses with a 1.4 TC attached, the 200-800 is actually slightly faster at most focal lengths, or else equal.
There are quite a few Sony shooters that use the 200-600 with a 1.4x TC permanently attached, successfully.
There is no point in arguing that this lens should suit all though, as the limitations are kind of obvious and there are alternatives with other benefits.
action99 wrote:
Many many still shooters will buy it.
Let see if you want to get 800mm on Nikon what options you have:
600 6.3 + 1.4, 4800 USD + 550 USD TC, and guess what you get a 800mm F9 lens
or
180-600 6.3 1700 USD + 550 USD TC, and guess what you get again 800mm at F9
or
800 6.3 at 6500 USD more than 3x the price for 1 stop faster and no zoom I'm sure Canon will sell many more 200-800 to still photographer than Nikon will sell 800 6.3.
I get that it will not fit your needs, although 1stop difference come on.... but it fits the need of so many people that did not have this option before. ...Show more →
Who said that still shooters won't buy it? I'm sure many will and especially those who don't want the weight or expense of a big white. That being said the rest of your calculus is sorely off target. The 200-800 is a zoom (bayonetting) and will likely carry the associated issues in terms of IQ, CA, etc. I wonder if you've held or used the Nikon mid-range offerings? They are spectacular in terms of size, IQ, performance, and weight. The 800 f/6.3 is phenomenal and the IQ is as good as a 600 f/4 + a TC. Likewise the 600 f/6.3 is an unbelievably small, lightweight, and high IQ performer. If my intent were to shoot long, I'd buy the 800 f/6.3 though for those in FL or where WL is closer, the 600 would be a fantastic choice. Yes, they cost more than the Canon spyglass but they deliver more and it is up to the individual to determine relative value.
With all due candor, I don't really understand why Canon has a plethora of camera bodies and hasn't provided a similar expansive range with its lenses. Canon has tremendous entry level telephotos as well as high end offerings, though apart from the 100-500, there isn't a whole lot in-between. When they release some mid-priced, high quality, lightweight, DO (or equiv) optics, come see me. Thanks!
Shooting at a stationary hot spot of targets for a few hours hand held with any of the long fairly heavy zooms like, Canon 200-800, Nikon 180-600, & Sony..200-600 you will think twice of repeating it. Especially back to back days. There are definite times these lenses will be a good fit, just know how you propose to use it.
On a mono/tripod it will work, but you will miss a lot of opportunities, if your target's are very erratic, overhead, coming from the front, side & back of you, etc. Hand held will yield you more keepers. If your subjects are more of a general repeat, then the mono or tripod will be greatly appreciated, and work well.
Everyone's shooting needs are different, just be aware how you will use your tools.
armd wrote:
Who said that still shooters won't buy it? I'm sure many will and especially those who don't want the weight or expense of a big white. That being said the rest of your calculus is sorely off target. The 200-800 is a zoom (bayonetting) and will likely carry the associated issues in terms of IQ, CA, etc. I wonder if you've held or used the Nikon mid-range offerings? They are spectacular in terms of size, IQ, performance, and weight. The 800 f/6.3 is phenomenal and the IQ is as good as a 600 f/4 + a TC. Likewise the 600 f/6.3 is an unbelievably small, lightweight, and high IQ performer. If my intent were to shoot long, I'd buy the 800 f/6.3 though for those in FL or where WL is closer, the 600 would be a fantastic choice. Yes, they cost more than the Canon spyglass but they deliver more and it is up to the individual to determine relative value.
With all due candor, I don't really understand why Canon has a plethora of camera bodies and hasn't provided a similar expansive range with its lenses. Canon has tremendous entry level telephotos as well as high end offerings, though apart from the 100-500, there isn't a whole lot in-between. When they release some mid-priced, high quality, lightweight, DO (or equiv) optics, come see me. Thanks!
I, too, thought the 800/6.3 looked great, "only" $6500 and 5.5 lbs! But it's not much lighter than the 600/4, and then you realize it's odd that $6500 is considered inexpensive.
A guy had a 500pf + Z9 this weekend, the Z9 is heavy and he had it on a tripod, pretty much erasing any weight savings if you use tripod. Besides, the 100-500 is virtually the same. 600/6.3 + 1.4 = f/9
It's hard to take complaints seriously about a lack of lenses. The adapter doesn't affect 150 600 size much, even, several of those out there. There's decades of 300/2.8's, 600/4's, & a 400/4 DO, etc no lack of lenses using the Canon adapter. Nikon apparently has a lot of the compatibility issues like they've had throughout the years on theirs
Nikon apparently has a lot of the compatibility issues like they've had throughout the years on theirs
Could you elaborate what kind of "compatibility issues" you've experienced? I've found the Z8 works well with all my F-mount lenses, though there is no AF on a few of the types that are more than 20 years old and don't have a focus motor in the lens (there are plenty of manual focus aids though, including subject detection on the latest Zf). Overall I find the performance of F-mount lenses a bit better on Z than F-mount cameras. In particular, vibration reduction is superior on the new bodies due to the combined body and lens stabilization, I've found this to be great on the 300/2.8, giving it an enhanced hand-held stabilty over DSLRs. The 200/2 is particularly fabulous on the Z8 for indoor sports. Nikon doesn't have a spotless compatibility record but overall as long as sticking to higher-end camera bodies, the lenses tend to work well on those.
To do a reality check on the use of an f/9 lens, I checked today the light levels outdoors, on a cloudy day (60 degrees latitude) at 1 pm, by no means the darkest conditions, but basically mid-day. I was getting readings of f/9, 1/800s, ISO 130000 (yes, one hundred and thirty thousand), and that was in an open area, inside a pine forest I would expect a couple of stops less light. Due to light levels that I experience in a lot of my photography, I struggle with f/5.6 lenses, and find faster lenses much more confident to use.
ilkka_nissila wrote:
Could you elaborate what kind of "compatibility issues" you've experienced? I've found the Z8 works well with all my F-mount lenses, though there is no AF on a few of the types that are more than 20 years old and don't have a focus motor in the lens (there are plenty of manual focus aids though, including subject detection on the latest Zf). Overall I find the performance of F-mount lenses a bit better on Z than F-mount cameras. In particular, vibration reduction is superior on the new bodies due to the combined body and lens stabilization, I've found this to be great on the 300/2.8, giving it an enhanced hand-held stabilty over DSLRs. The 200/2 is particularly fabulous on the Z8 for indoor sports. Nikon doesn't have a spotless compatibility record but overall as long as sticking to higher-end camera bodies, the lenses tend to work well on those.
To do a reality check on the use of an f/9 lens, I checked today the light levels outdoors, on a cloudy day (60 degrees latitude) at 1 pm, by no means the darkest conditions, but basically mid-day. I was getting readings of f/9, 1/800s, ISO 130000 (yes, one hundred and thirty thousand), and that was in an open area, inside a pine forest I would expect a couple of stops less light. Due to light levels that I experience in a lot of my photography, I struggle with f/5.6 lenses, and find faster lenses much more confident to use. ...Show more →
Its that dark at 1pm at 60degrees North! Wow...no wonder S.A.D. is a thing. That's about ISO 800 conditions here at 42 north.
alundeb wrote:
It has been claimed that this lens has a particularly poor aperture range, but relative to the maximum focal length that is not true. If we compare to other -600 mm zoom lenses with a 1.4 TC attached, the 200-800 is actually slightly faster at most focal lengths, or else equal.
Actually, the new Canon is the slowest lens on the market at all levels under 600mm. Tale of two lenses as far as speed goes, fastest thing south of $6,000 for 800mm but EVERYTHING under is class worst (with the exception of the RF 100-400). Does it matter to you that it is 1/3 or 2/3's slower than everything else? That's for you to decide. At first, I thought I'd be ok with it, so I ordered it. But then I changed my mind when I ran through some normal lighting condition scenarios. But it's not going to be a deal breaker for everyone. And I fully understand how this lens will still be a great option for some.
Here's a breakdown of the focal length and speed range of the main competitors, The Digital Picture chart.
Model / mm Range f/4.5 f/5.0 f/5.6 f/6.3 f/7.1 f/8.0 f/9.0
Canon RF 200-800mm F6.3-9 IS USM Lens 200-268 269-455 456-637 638-800
Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM Lens 100-134 135-311 312-400
Canon RF 100-400 F5.6-8 IS USM Lens 100-122 123-155 156-258 259-400
Canon RF 100-500 F4.5-7.1 L IS USM Lens 100-150 151-253 254-362 363-471 472-500
Sigma 60-600 f/4.5-6.3 DG OS HSM Sports 60-75 76-138 139-347 348-600
Sigma 100-400 f/5-6.3 DG DN OS C Lens 100-112 113-234 235-400
Sigma 100-400 f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM C Lens 100-111 112-233 134-400
Sigma 150-600 f/5-6.3 DG DN OS Sports Lens 150-173 174-365 366-600
Sigma 150-600 f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Sports 150-184 185-320 321-600
Sigma 150-600 f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM C 150-179 180-387 388-600
Sony FE 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 GM OSS Lens 100-115 116-161 162-400
Sony FE 200-600 f/5.6-6.3 G OSS Lens 200-299 300-600
Tamron 100-400 f/4.5-6.3 Di VC USD Lens 100-136 137-180 181-280 281-400
Tamron 150-500 f/5-6.7 Di III VC VXD Lens 150-241 242-387 383-499
Tamron 150-600 f/5-6.3 Di VC USD G2 Lens 150-212 213-427 428-600
Tamron 150-600 f/5-6.3 Di VC USD Lens 150-225 226-427 428-600
Sorry for the mess of a chart. Easier to read on the link above. But note, this lens starts at an aperture where almost all the others end.
Seems like some ‘prime’ fanboys don’t get the concept that zooms are more versatile. There are many times when photographers can’t move closer to or further from their subjects. So how many primes would one have to use to get just a few of the focal-lengths of the few hundred focal-lengths the 200-800 can give you?
Mike Jacks0n wrote:
But note, this lens starts at an aperture where almost all the others end.
Yes, but the only real competitors, S200-600 and N180-600, on the other hand start out almost as slow as they end.
Thanks for getting the data. It is obvious that the 200-800 is slower, but the point I am making, is that it is a nature of being a zoom that goes to 800. Nobody is making a zoom lens that is much faster in the mid and short range than it is at the max range. That is an answer to earlier "great idea but terrible execution" comments. If someone wants a 2 kg zoom that goes to 800 mm, this lens is about as good as it is going to get, aperture wise, throughout the range.
Example of what I mean:
The Sony 100-400 is faster than the Sony 200-600 at 300-400 mm, even though the 100-400 is a smaller lens with smaller front diameter! If you want a longer zoom, being slower in the midrange is the name of the game.
Imagemaster wrote:
Seems like some ‘prime’ fanboys don’t get the concept that zooms are more versatile. There are many times when photographers can’t move closer to or further from their subjects. So how many primes would one have to use to get just a few of the focal-lengths of the few hundred focal-lengths the 200-800 can give you?
Yes, it´s hilarious! Thinking of the 50kg pile of Nikons Big "Cheap" "Fantastics", completely incompatible with my R5, I would look far worse a fool than I am, a bankrupt fool at that.
What is it with this lens that makes it so annoying to the ‘prime’ fanboys? They come poring in from every direction to every 200-800 thread and start blabbing about Nikon and/or Sony lenses. Who f cares?
A lens is a lens. It is designed as it is designed. It either works for you or does not. You either have it or (much more likely) don´t. If you don´t like it, don´t buy it. If you bought it and don´t like, sell it to some stupid fool. Worst case scenario is that the buyer would make good use of it!
Mike Jacks0n wrote:
Actually, the new Canon is the slowest lens on the market at all levels under 600mm. Tale of two lenses as far as speed goes, fastest thing south of $6,000 for 800mm but EVERYTHING under is class worst (with the exception of the RF 100-400). Does it matter to you that it is 1/3 or 2/3's slower than everything else? That's for you to decide. At first, I thought I'd be ok with it, so I ordered it. But then I changed my mind when I ran through some normal lighting condition scenarios. But it's not going to be a deal breaker for everyone. And I fully understand how this lens will still be a great option for some.
Here's a breakdown of the focal length and speed range of the main competitors, The Digital Picture chart.
Model / mm Range f/4.5 f/5.0 f/5.6 f/6.3 f/7.1 f/8.0 f/9.0
Canon RF 200-800mm F6.3-9 IS USM Lens 200-268 269-455 456-637 638-800
Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM Lens 100-134 135-311 312-400
Canon RF 100-400 F5.6-8 IS USM Lens 100-122 123-155 156-258 259-400
Canon RF 100-500 F4.5-7.1 L IS USM Lens 100-150 151-253 254-362 363-471 472-500
Sigma 60-600 f/4.5-6.3 DG OS HSM Sports 60-75 76-138 139-347 348-600
Sigma 100-400 f/5-6.3 DG DN OS C Lens 100-112 113-234 235-400
Sigma 100-400 f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM C Lens 100-111 112-233 134-400
Sigma 150-600 f/5-6.3 DG DN OS Sports Lens 150-173 174-365 366-600
Sigma 150-600 f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Sports 150-184 185-320 321-600
Sigma 150-600 f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM C 150-179 180-387 388-600
Sony FE 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 GM OSS Lens 100-115 116-161 162-400
Sony FE 200-600 f/5.6-6.3 G OSS Lens 200-299 300-600
Tamron 100-400 f/4.5-6.3 Di VC USD Lens 100-136 137-180 181-280 281-400
Tamron 150-500 f/5-6.7 Di III VC VXD Lens 150-241 242-387 383-499
Tamron 150-600 f/5-6.3 Di VC USD G2 Lens 150-212 213-427 428-600
Tamron 150-600 f/5-6.3 Di VC USD Lens 150-225 226-427 428-600
Sorry for the mess of a chart. Easier to read on the link above. But note, this lens starts at an aperture where almost all the others end.
Chart makes it clear that giving up 1/3-2/3 of a stop to get to 800mm is a pretty good trade. At least for those who want 800. If you employ a TC to get to 800 on the other lenses, you give up a full stop on both ends. Rather than a 'me too' lens, Canon made a good trade to get the lens in a place where it stands apart from the competition.
Z250SA wrote:
What is it with this lens that makes it so annoying to the ‘prime’ fanboys? They come poring in from every direction to every 200-800 thread and start blabbing about Nikon and/or Sony lenses. Who f cares?
Because they are not ultimately happy with their primes, and are looking for a zoom to replace them
Yes, it´s hilarious! Thinking of the 50kg pile of Nikons Big "Cheap" "Fantastics", completely incompatible with my R5, I would look far worse a fool than I am, a bankrupt fool at that.