fredmiranda.com
Login

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell
1       2       3       …       23      
24
       25       …       32       33       end
   

Archive 2023 · Canon 200-800?
  
 
Critters
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.24 #1 · Canon 200-800?


I (in my mid 80's) would not have a big prime even if it were economical feasible...too heavy and as imagemaster pointed out...not able to frame a shot.
I have pushed my luck with $4,000 cameras and $2,000 lenses. Using gigapixel for more reach is much better than a divorce !
Want a better f-stop, don't zoom as far and do some post processing using the great tools now available.
I agree that if you are in a blind with a tripod you "should" get better pics with the big primes, but then I have to ask what do you do with the pics...is it worth the price?
Dec 12, 2023 at 09:40 AM
AmbientMike
Offline
• • • • • •
[X]
p.24 #2 · Canon 200-800?


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...Show more →

As far as my experience with Nikon's seemingly endless compatibility issues, even on the 80's film bodies you couldn't use non-AI lenses. You might see a good deal, but it couldn't mount, even, probably 99%+ of the time, unless you had it converted. Other than the Df, I don't think they mount on any DSLR bodies, either.

The D70 and others didn't have metering using my Nikon glass, but Canon did, using the relatively inexpensive fotodiox adaper!! One reason I got the Rebel XT, due to older nikon glass, most of which I still have, and have added to. I've read on the Nikon board that a lot of the lenses don't work, you've mentioned no af on the D and pre-D, basically, vs Canon that can apparently use everything back to 1987 on the R and have af

I was at 1/800, f/4.5, ISO 400 right before sundown at a marsh/wetlands the other day. So if the IS could do 1/200, I'd be fine in that scenario, and that should be pretty easy.



Dec 12, 2023 at 11:22 AM
coppertop
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.24 #3 · Canon 200-800?


Curious.
Does anyone who preordered the 200-800mm through B&H have anything other that "backordered" for the status of that order?



Dec 12, 2023 at 12:30 PM
Mike_5D
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.24 #4 · Canon 200-800?


AmbientMike wrote:
As far as my experience with Nikon's seemingly endless compatibility issues, even on the 80's film bodies you couldn't use non-AI lenses. You might see a good deal, but it couldn't mount, even, probably 99%+ of the time, unless you had it converted. Other than the Df, I don't think they mount on any DSLR bodies, either.

The D70 and others didn't have metering using my Nikon glass, but Canon did, using the relatively inexpensive fotodiox adaper!! One reason I got the Rebel XT, due to older nikon glass, most of which I still have, and have added to. I've read...Show more →

When I was first looking to buy a DSLR, it was either Canon or Nikon. One thing that turned me off of Nikon was how confusing the compatibility appeared to be. What lens will do what on what camera? With Canon, I just had to buy any EF lens and know it would be 100% compatible with whatever camera I bought.


Dec 12, 2023 at 12:42 PM
Bacalhau
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.24 #5 · Canon 200-800?


coppertop wrote:
Curious.
Does anyone who preordered the 200-800mm through B&H have anything other that "backordered" for the status of that order?


Still saying December 14th - hope so
Dec 12, 2023 at 12:47 PM
rscheffler
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.24 #6 · Canon 200-800?


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?


As seems to always be the case, Canon has failed miserably and grossly lacks innovation. This is yet another example of a product no one wants and will be clearly inferior to options available from the competition.

I'm guessing a 'prime' annoyance is that Canon lacks middle ground offerings between entry level 'cheap' primes and zooms and elite-level super-teles. Canon's apparent preference for larger, heavier, costlier zooms to replace certain primes (100-300 vs 300/2.8, 200-500 vs. 500/4) might be another factor. In this regard I think these new expensive zooms actually open up more of a gap to justify Canon developing smaller, mid-speed, mid-price telephoto primes. Anyway, I do think the missing middle ground is a valid complaint. It's possible Canon is first pursuing greater returns from broader market products that overlap some of the narrower niches that might eventually be addressed by higher performance primes.


Dec 12, 2023 at 01:08 PM
jedibrain
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.24 #7 · Canon 200-800?


rscheffler wrote:
As seems to always be the case, Canon has failed miserably and grossly lacks innovation. This is yet another example of a product no one wants and will be clearly inferior to options available from the competition.

I'm guessing a 'prime' annoyance is that Canon lacks middle ground offerings between entry level 'cheap' primes and zooms and elite-level super-teles. Canon's apparent preference for larger, heavier, costlier zooms to replace certain primes (100-300 vs 300/2.8, 200-500 vs. 500/4) might be another factor. In this regard I think these new expensive zooms actually open up more of a gap to justify Canon...Show more →

For that last point, you have to remember that the biggest markets are entry level, and agency/pro. The most vocal market here on the forums is the mid-range, leaning higher. So there is a lot of confirmation bias here. Canon definitely know's who butters their bread so to speak, and their introduction schedule matches it very well.

Brian
Dec 12, 2023 at 01:29 PM
Z250SA
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.24 #8 · Canon 200-800?


rscheffler wrote:
As seems to always be the case, Canon has failed miserably and grossly lacks innovation. This is yet another example of a product no one wants and will be clearly inferior to options available from the competition.

I'm guessing a 'prime' annoyance is that Canon lacks middle ground offerings between entry level 'cheap' primes and zooms and elite-level super-teles. Canon's apparent preference for larger, heavier, costlier zooms to replace certain primes (100-300 vs 300/2.8, 200-500 vs. 500/4) might be another factor. In this regard I think these new expensive zooms actually open up more of a gap to justify Canon...Show more →

Yes, the missing middle ground is a fact. But, is there any volume market left on the middle ground? Yes, of course there is to a degree. But the main question is if the Middle Grounders are prepared to pay around 3x the price of admittedly well performing "cheap line" STM lenses and up to the 200-800 lens just to gain a stop, almost two stops at best compared to the f/11. Is that comparably small(?) gain worth the price if you get a 500 or 600 f/6.3 but loose the flexibility of a zoom or gain two stops but have to carry 3x the weight compared to the 600/11? Is there a large enough middle ground market outside the few photo fora?

And any Canon 600 f/6.3 it will be "shot to pieces" by the f/4 primers along the usual lines.




Dec 12, 2023 at 01:32 PM
crisdesign
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.24 #9 · Canon 200-800?


Or maybe they already have a zoom to cover 100-400/500 and don’t see the point of replacing it to get 561-800 f8-9 for 2kg. And incredibly they would rather have a faster prime in addition to their kit for when they need the extra reach as a faster and lighter 100-400/500 covers 80% of their shooting.

It’s hard to imagine… maybe they even have 2 bodies to shoot with.





alundeb wrote:
Because they are not ultimately happy with their primes, and are looking for a zoom to replace them



Dec 12, 2023 at 01:48 PM
alundeb
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.24 #10 · Canon 200-800?




crisdesign wrote:
Or maybe they already have a zoom to cover 100-400/500 and don’t see the point of replacing it to get 561-800 f8-9 for 2kg. And incredibly they would rather have a faster prime in addition to their kit for when they need the extra reach as a faster and lighter 100-400/500 covers 80% of their shooting.

It’s hard to imagine… maybe they even have 2 bodies to shoot with.




Yes, but that is their conclusion after seeing what the 200-800 could do, or? The question is why did they come in here in the first place? Maybe it is just me, but I don't visit every thread about lenses I am not interested in, just to say that.
Dec 12, 2023 at 02:04 PM
alundeb
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.24 #11 · Canon 200-800?




crisdesign wrote:
Or maybe they already have a zoom to cover 100-400/500 and don’t see the point of replacing it to get 561-800 f8-9 for 2kg. And incredibly they would rather have a faster prime in addition to their kit for when they need the extra reach as a faster and lighter 100-400/500 covers 80% of their shooting.

It’s hard to imagine… maybe they even have 2 bodies to shoot with.




I am also curious, what prime lens is both faster and with longer reach than the 400/500 zooms, that the competition offers but not Canon?
Dec 12, 2023 at 02:19 PM
Mike Jacks0n
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.24 #12 · Canon 200-800?


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?

Yep... I can't get past the idea of using ISO 25,600 if there are any light issues. As far as needing to zoom in and out... I don't have that issue. Honestly, I can count the number of times on one hand when I said to myself, "dang... I wish I had a 200 or 300mm". It just isn't in my workflow. The only draw for me is the light weight, but then the light gathering loss is too great. Trading quality for ease just isn't the way I shoot. I'll carry the weight if the output is worth it.

Also note, the post was just to stop the spread of misinfo. Not to say people shouldn't buy it. As I said before, I was in the pre-order bunch, before deciding to back out. It's not a bad option, just doesn't tick all the boxes for me.




Dec 12, 2023 at 04:50 PM
Mike Jacks0n
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.24 #13 · Canon 200-800?


rscheffler wrote:
As seems to always be the case, Canon has failed miserably and grossly lacks innovation. This is yet another example of a product no one wants and will be clearly inferior to options available from the competition.

I'm guessing a 'prime' annoyance is that Canon lacks middle ground offerings between entry level 'cheap' primes and zooms and elite-level super-teles. Canon's apparent preference for larger, heavier, costlier zooms to replace certain primes (100-300 vs 300/2.8, 200-500 vs. 500/4) might be another factor. In this regard I think these new expensive zooms actually open up more of a gap to justify Canon...Show more →

I'm not feeling as critical as you, but I am annoyed at Canon's lens offerings. They seem to be stuck on delivering more expensive slow lenses. There are some great exceptions, like the RF 100-400 and the two f/11's, but those aren't for me.

Personally, I was hoping for some integrated TCs, but Canon looks to have abandoned the idea and helped Nikon find some good lens offerings, just as the introduction of DO helped Nikon's current PF line. They literally come up with great ideas, and then drop them before fully realizing the value.




Dec 12, 2023 at 05:16 PM
Kathy White
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.24 #14 · Canon 200-800?


coppertop wrote:
Curious.
Does anyone who preordered the 200-800mm through B&H have anything other that "backordered" for the status of that order?


no,mine still says backordered with will begin shipping 12-13.


Dec 12, 2023 at 07:16 PM
rscheffler
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.24 #15 · Canon 200-800?


Z250SA wrote:
Yes, the missing middle ground is a fact. But, is there any volume market left on the middle ground? Yes, of course there is to a degree. But the main question is if the Middle Grounders are prepared to pay around 3x the price of admittedly well performing "cheap line" STM lenses and up to the 200-800 lens just to gain a stop, almost two stops at best compared to the f/11. Is that comparably small(?) gain worth the price if you get a 500 or 600 f/6.3 but loose the flexibility of a zoom or gain two stops but...Show more →

The flexibility of the zoom seems to be an undesired feature for a significant number who apparently are perpetually reach limited and therefore would only ever use the long end of the zoom range. Never mind that many other photographers value the flexibility of having a zoom, even if it's slower than a prime at the wide end and mid-range.

I didn't mention it in my previous post but I suspect Canon is currently leaving the middle ground to be filled by secondhand EF lenses. No, those are physically not the same as the current lightweight, more compact offerings from Nikon. But price points should be similar and they work very well adapted to the R system. Of course it's a compromise solution that some won't like for various reasons.


alundeb wrote:
I am also curious, what prime lens is both faster and with longer reach than the 400/500 zooms, that the competition offers but not Canon?


Wouldn't that be the Nikon 600/6.3 and 800/6.3?

As I suggested, price-wise, the Canon equivalent would probably be a used 500/4 with 1.4x TC, but larger and heavier.
Dec 12, 2023 at 10:35 PM
armd
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.24 #16 · Canon 200-800?


Z250SA wrote:
Yes, the missing middle ground is a fact. But, is there any volume market left on the middle ground? Yes, of course there is to a degree. But the main question is if the Middle Grounders are prepared to pay around 3x the price of admittedly well performing "cheap line" STM lenses and up to the 200-800 lens just to gain a stop, almost two stops at best compared to the f/11. Is that comparably small(?) gain worth the price if you get a 500 or 600 f/6.3 but loose the flexibility of a zoom or gain two stops but...Show more →

That’s a good question and I suspect that Canon has done some market research exploring the magic middle. Interestingly, CR claims that Canon is considering an RF 400 do. I would have preferred that Canon pursue the lighter weight, mid-range, mid-priced lenses. I’ve used the entry level 800 f/11 and it didn’t work for a number of reasons for me including AF limitations, edge sharpness and aperture. Having owned an ef 400 do in the past, I would have welcomed such an RF version lens.

In terms of sharpness and performance, I was ecstatic with my 100-500. Unfortunately, I detested the mandatory extension with the tc and IQ took a hit. The ef 400 thrived with tc’s. For most of my WL, I need the 800+ FL. My 600 f/4 lived with the 1.4x tc. For all of you who dismiss the Nikon offerings, the 800 PF is wickedly sharp, lightweight enough to handhold for short periods, and is the size of my old 500 is ii. It fits easily in a carry on backpack unlike my old 600 f/4. For those who don’t shoot at an Uber long distance, the 600 PF is a super alternative, with outstanding optics in a package which weighs a bit more than the 100-500 and is only 3” longer (it’s actually shorter than the fully extended 100-500).

So, yes, I want the messy, smaller, high performing middle and as one of the primers wouldn’t shoot them down.


Edited on Dec 13, 2023 at 08:03 AM · View previous versions
Dec 12, 2023 at 11:10 PM
AmbientMike
Offline
• • • • • •
[X]
p.24 #17 · Canon 200-800?




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...Show more →

None of those get to 800mm, either

I don't consider 6.3 blazing fast, especially 400mm
Dec 12, 2023 at 11:53 PM
alundeb
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.24 #18 · Canon 200-800?


rscheffler wrote:
Wouldn't that be the Nikon 600/6.3 and 800/6.3?



Ok, f/6.3 is faster than f/7.1, but that only applies to one lens at one focal length, and not to any lens with the same mount. My point is, these lenses don't fill the space for a fast prime to supplement a slow zoom. They fill the space for long and light. but still expensive. A fast prime as 300 f/2.8 or 400 f/4 or f/4.5 would be great, or if you want long and fast you have to resort to 500 or 600 f/4 anyway, which you can always get.
Dec 13, 2023 at 03:53 AM
melcat
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.24 #19 · Canon 200-800?


Z250SA wrote:
Yes, the missing middle ground is a fact. But, is there any volume market left on the middle ground?

There does seem to be enough to support 2 brands, namely Nikon and Sony+3rd party.

Is there enough for Canon to enter that market? This lens suggests they think there is, but they’ve left their run very late.
Dec 13, 2023 at 05:30 AM
alundeb
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.24 #20 · Canon 200-800?




armd wrote:
That’s a good question and I suspect that Canon has done some market research exploring the magic middle. Interestingly, CR claims that Canon is considering an RF 400 do. I would have preferred that Canon pursue the lighter weight, mid-range, mid-priced lenses. I’ve used the entry level 800 f/11 and it didn’t work for a number of reasons for me including AF limitations, edge sharpness and aperture. Having owned a ef 400 do in the past, I would have welcomed such an RF version lens.

In terms of sharpness and performance, I was ecstatic with my 100-500. Unfortunately, I detested...Show more →
Don't get us wrong, the Nikon offerings are fantastic! Yet, they don't remove the fact that we still have to choose which lens(es) will work best for us, and having many options to choose from doesn't remove the tendency to always want something that is different from what we already have.
Dec 13, 2023 at 06:20 AM
1       2       3       …       23      
24
       25       …       32       33       end
FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3       …       23      
24
       25       …       32       33       end
    
 

Welcome back
Log in to your account
Reset passwordNo account? Register