Hairy Heron wrote:
That's true for a long walk where you at "always ready" for a bird sighting. But there are other situations. For example one of my favorite spots is a nearby pond that is .5 miles from the trailhead. There are rarely any birds between the trailhead and pond except for maybe an occasional robin or sparrow. So I keep my 100-500, collar removed, in my sling bag until I reach the pond.
So the flexibility of being able to remove the collar is a benefit. On the 100-500 it saves me .3 lb and more importantly allows the 100-500 on the R5 to fit well in my Peak sling. With the 200-800 being able to remove the collar would save, I imagine, .5 lbs and also allow easier fit in a larger sling I have. Also makes the carryon close more easily without the foot sticking up.
...Show more →
I remove the collars from both the RF 100-500 and the RF 70-200 (both with ARCA plates) and put them in my luggage when traveling to help keep the weight down on African Bush Planes where they weigh the carryon but generally not the luggage as long as it's soft sided.
That's true for a long walk where you at "always ready" for a bird sighting. But there are other situations. For example one of my favorite spots is a nearby pond that is .5 miles from the trailhead. There are rarely any birds between the trailhead and pond except for maybe an occasional robin or sparrow. So I keep my 100-500, collar removed, in my sling bag until I reach the pond.
So the flexibility of being able to remove the collar is a benefit. On the 100-500 it saves me .3 lb and more importantly allows the 100-500 on the R5 to fit well in my Peak sling. With the 200-800 being able to remove the collar would save, I imagine, .5 lbs and also allow easier fit in a larger sling I have.
Thank HH
Have never considered a sling bag. Sigh, another $250C for the hobby.
On the collar there are two small circles with a tiny hole on the edge. They must be there for removal. I'm sure someone will figure out how this works and what tool is required. I think I'll wait for the warranty to expire.
I haven't had a chance to watch it yet but this looks like what many of us were waiting to see!
Jan does such a great job with his reviews and this direct comparison between the 100-500+1.4 and 200-800 is no exception.
If I didn't already have the 100-500 I'm pretty sure the 200-800 would be the one I'd chose. All reports have been suggesting the IQ is nearly identical to the 100-500 which for the price and extra reach of the 200-800 is almost hard to believe.
Expect prices on the 100-500 to start dropping in the next year. This new beast, at such an attractive price, is going to kill the 600 and 800 f/11 sales. Unless one is on a very small beginner budget, there really isn't any reason to buy either of those slow primes now.
lighthound wrote:
This new beast, at such an attractive price, is going to kill the 600 and 800 f/11 sales. Unless one is on a very small beginner budget, there really isn't any reason to buy either of those slow primes now.
I agree. The only advantage to the 800mm f11 over the new 200-800 I can see are weight (2.75 lbs VS: 4.5 LBS) and the 800 f11 has both a focus ring and a control ring, not combined. Since I use both those, that is something I have thought about. I own the 100-500 , the 800 f11 and a RF 1.4 extender. At this point in time I am not seeing a super advantage to also having the 200-800, but results in the field by early adopters might sway my opinion. My SO already said go for it, you are not getting any younger. Great to have hard decisions to make.
I agree. The only advantage to the 800mm f11 over the new 200-800 I can see are weight (2.75 lbs VS: 4.5 LBS) and the 800 f11 has both a focus ring and a control ring, not combined. Since I use both those, that is something I have thought about. I own the 100-500 , the 800 f11 and a RF 1.4 extender. At this point in time I am not seeing a super advantage to also having the 200-800, but results in the field by early adopters might sway my opinion. My SO already said go for it, you are not getting any younger. Great to have hard decisions to make....Show more →
Here is the advantage, when your shooting a target, and it moves further away, and want/need to continue shooting the image you will not have the time to dismount the lens your using to put on the 800. Now if you are using two bodies there is no handicap.
On the other hand same scenario using the 200-800, all it takes is to zoom out.
One of the videos on Utube showed it took 4 turns of the zoom to reach 800 from 200, but justified it by saying you wont normally be at 200 .. So thats a negative, 4 turns to zoom all the way out. or zoom in when target becomes closer.
The design would of been much better if it was an internal zoom, much less turns to zoom.
I agree. The only advantage to the 800mm f11 over the new 200-800 I can see are weight (2.75 lbs VS: 4.5 LBS) and the 800 f11 has both a focus ring and a control ring, not combined. Since I use both those, that is something I have thought about. I own the 100-500 , the 800 f11 and a RF 1.4 extender. At this point in time I am not seeing a super advantage to also having the 200-800, but results in the field by early adopters might sway my opinion. My SO already said go for it, you are not getting any younger. Great to have hard decisions to make....Show more →
I would say that the 600/11 is a unik lens that would be found in far more bags were it not for the "I decided to get the 800 as longer is better, right?". The 600/11 is so much smaller and lighter than the 800/11 and has a 960mm FoV on crop, a true winner IF it was the only and alone f/11 super tele.
But overall, I still think there is amplish room for both f/11īs. The price jump to the 200-800 is huge and both the size as well as the weight advantage of the 600/11 is considerable. The 600/11 you carry all day and night with ease. If you got one.
Interesting video. Through all the comparisons, the 200-800 showed CA away from the center of the image, whereas there was none on the 100-500L. (Courtesy of L lens optics, presumably). While sharpness of the bare lenses was close, the 200-800 seemed to show a bit more contrast in many comparisons, a surprise to me. That said, either of these things is rather easily handled in post, I think.
All in all, it looks like the 200-800 is a very good performer, if you can live with the aperture range.
Oh, and the non-removable, easily rotating tripod collar is big step up. ...Show more →
If you look at the right places, you can see that the 100-500 with 1.4 TC at 700 mm also shows chromatic aberrations. Especially where we have a black to white transition from left to right, you can see green CA. The red CA at the opposite transition is a bit less visible.
Even though there is some CA, it is quite low, and it is very nice to see how well the 200-800 performs across the frame, and how well it performs wide open. It is not necessary to stop down to shape up the image quality. This definitely helps for the usefulness for a lens of this kind.
Still here on the wait list. I guess I'm not sure what I personally would be using it for in the dead of winter. I'm more of a fair weather shooter. I guess it will have to be high ISO shots of my black cats under indoor LED flood lights when the time comes.
IndyFab wrote:
Here is the advantage, when your shooting a target, and it moves further away, and want/need to continue shooting the image you will not have the time to dismount the lens your using to put on the 800. Now if you are using two bodies there is no handicap.
On the other hand same scenario using the 200-800, all it takes is to zoom out.
One of the videos on Utube showed it took 4 turns of the zoom to reach 800 from 200, but justified it by saying you wont normally be at 200 .. So thats a negative, 4 turns to zoom all the way out. or zoom in when target becomes closer.
The design would of been much better if it was an internal zoom, much less turns to zoom. ...Show more →
Internal zoom lenses vs. external don't really have an effect on turns-to-zoom. Its a gearing thing.
The 200-800 is huge at 800...very long. Too long for my large backpack. You'd need something like the guys with big whites use. I think an internal zoom on this one would kill a lot of the utility of the lens. (it certainly would have been a 'pass' for me) As it is, I can fit in the same bag that my EF 100-400II+tc fits in (A manfrotto brand backpack).
jedibrain wrote:
Internal zoom lenses vs. external don't really have an effect on turns-to-zoom. Its a gearing thing.
The 200-800 is huge at 800...very long. Too long for my large backpack. You'd need something like the guys with big whites use. I think an internal zoom on this one would kill a lot of the utility of the lens. (it certainly would have been a 'pass' for me) As it is, I can fit in the same bag that my EF 100-400II+tc fits in (A manfrotto brand backpack).
Brian
Brian
I dont know the mechanics/gearing behind internal vs external zoom, but from my first hand experience using two zooms that zoom out to 600 the internal zoom is far better, because it is faster to get to 600, and with less throw unlike the external zoom.
The 200-800 is very similar in size/length & weigh when zoomed all the way in, to the Nikon & Sony that zoom internally to 600
It becomes much longer than both when zoomed out to 800, because of the external zoom
Imagen the 200-800 fully zoomed in, and just turning internal zoom ring to get to 800. an staying the same length as being zoomed in.
Its a far better design in my opinion, a whole heck of a lot less throw to get to 800 internally, because perhaps gearing/mechanics as you say.
Perhaps to keep it at its target market price point, it was the best way to go for Canon vs Internal, cheaper to manufacture (Just an assumption)
Regardless of what I said, I think its going to be well received by many in the Canon system.
Personally I would of much preferred a internal zoom, just like I would of preferred the 100-500 to fully utilize a TC, and not be limited.
An internal zoom with 200-800 mm focal range would basically be as long as the present external zoom is at the 800 mm setting, at all focal lengths. By making the zoom external, it requires less space in the bag than an internal zoom of similar focal range would have required. It is a compromise as an internal zoom would have been easier to use if we ignore the bag size issues, but probably they made the right compromise for most users.
ilkka_nissila wrote:
An internal zoom with 200-800 mm focal range would basically be as long as the present external zoom is at the 800 mm setting, at all focal lengths. By making the zoom external, it requires less space in the bag than an internal zoom of similar focal range would have required. It is a compromise as an internal zoom would have been easier to use if we ignore the bag size issues, but probably they made the right compromise for most users.
I just eye measured the Sigma 150-600 external zoom vs the Sony 200-600 internal zoom, and the Sigma is about 1 1/2 to 2 inches longer @ 600. However I see what you are are referring to completely zoomed in, as it is shorter for transportation, as jedibrain was referring to.
