IndyFab wrote:
@ 5.15 time mark, he talks about the motor being Loud, maybe he is referring to the IS activating
Anyone else out there have one, and can they confirm its loud?
Pathetic. Does he even know what image stabilization is? He does not even turn it off and on, and claims it is really loud when pressed right against his ear or the microphone.
For me, the key consideration between 100-500, with and without 1.4x, the 800/11 and the 200-800 is close focusing distance. Last summer I was in hot pursuit of some smaller birds and started out using my 100-500 with the 1.4x. Worked great, results were great technically.
But, the 800/11 became available for $800 and I once told myself if it ever gets that low again, I would get it. Got it. Problem is for smaller birds is it does not focus all that close and extension tubes are needed. Got 'em. Worked great much of the time, but some of the time could not focus as far away as needed with the tubes on.
The 200-800 eliminates not close enough to can't get far enough problem. I am weighing whether that is worth the increase in size and weight, which may not be as much a factor since with the 800/11 I always hiked out with my 100-500 on the other body. Maybe not with the 200-800.
We have a not one size fits all situation here. We are being give quite a few answers, from the spectacular 100-500 with and without a 1.4x, the 200-800, the 600/11 and 800/11 both which seem to take the 1.4x quite nicely, and the then the 400/2.8 and 600/4 great whites which seem to take the RF converters very nicely, but at a price.
On the 800 f5.6L FD lens, I always used a short extension tube. I never needed infinity and the short tube improved MFD. I didn't feel I was really giving anything up as beyond a certain distance, atmospherics become a dominant inssue. As a result, I rarely used the 800 at distnaces beyoned say 200 ft.
I've the 800 F11 and now the 200-800 (since 2 week), the minimum focus distance is a problem with the F11 (and extension tube doesn't realy help) but absolutely not with the 200-800, even with very small birds, 10.83 ft at 800mm it's good enough.
Imagemaster wrote:
Pathetic. Does he even know what image stabilization is? He does not even turn it off and on, and claims it is really loud when pressed right against his ear or the microphone.
I have not noticed that I can hear the IS motor in any objectionable way. Its certainly quieter than the EF 70-200F4 L IS 'rock tumbler' IS system.
My question was not about the Sony 200-600 which is 0.6 turn. It was about the Canon 200-800...how many turns does it take to go from 200 to 600 on the Canon 200-800? That is the fairest comparison. The Sony is a very nice lens that has many good attributes...the zoom throw being one of them.
Just chatted with B&H.
Told they were hoping to get another shipment this week but couldn't say how many.
It sounded as if things are hit and miss at this point with Canon possibly underestimating demand.
Now that the Holidays are behind us, hopefully inventory becomes more available.
Critters wrote:
My question was not about the Sony 200-600 which is 0.6 turn. It was about the Canon 200-800...how many turns does it take to go from 200 to 600 on the Canon 200-800? That is the fairest comparison. The Sony is a very nice lens that has many good attributes...the zoom throw being one of them.
Cant accurately answer that question, because I dont have one in hand, but from the video I watched it took 4 full turns to go from 200 to 800, so my guess is somewhere around 3 full turns
Perhaps some one here who has one, can better accurately answer your question.
Another important factor is how smooth does it zoom, The Sony 100-400 is horrible in that regard, vs the Canon 100-400II which is nice and smooth to zoom.
Critters wrote:
My question was not about the Sony 200-600 which is 0.6 turn. It was about the Canon 200-800...how many turns does it take to go from 200 to 600 on the Canon 200-800? That is the fairest comparison. The Sony is a very nice lens that has many good attributes...the zoom throw being one of them.
The 200-800 takes just under half of a full rotation of the barrel to go from 200 to 800mm. The 4 turns in the video was counting how many times the person had to turn to zoom without moving their hand out of position/changing grip. This figure migt vary depending on how your hands and how you hold the lens
a_str8 wroteThe 200-800 takes just under half of a full rotation of the barrel to go from 200 to 800mm. The 4 turns in the video was counting how many times the person had to turn to zoom without moving their hand out of position/changing grip. This figure migt vary depending on how your hands and how you hold the lens
Exactly, it's absolutely not 4 full rotations... On this 200-800, 600mm and 800mm are pretty close but i don't think you need to go from 200 to 800 all the time, from 400 to 800mm it's short and fast.
stanj wrote:
B&H shipped my 200-800, should be here Friday. Of course I won't be, so I need a neighbor to harbor it for me until Monday.
Just have it sent to my house. I'll keep a close eye on it for ya and for no extra charge, I'll even test it out to verify the optical quality is up to snuff for you.
Critters wrote:
My question was not about the Sony 200-600 which is 0.6 turn. It was about the Canon 200-800...how many turns does it take to go from 200 to 600 on the Canon 200-800? That is the fairest comparison. The Sony is a very nice lens that has many good attributes...the zoom throw being one of them.
---------------------------------------------
IndyFab wrote:
Cant accurately answer that question, because I dont have one in hand, but from the video I watched it took 4 full turns to go from 200 to 800, so my guess is somewhere around 3 full turns
Perhaps some one here who has one, can better accurately answer your question.
Another important factor is how smooth does it zoom, The Sony 100-400 is horrible in that regard, vs the Canon 100-400II which is nice and smooth to zoom.
---------------------------------------------
a_str8 wrote:
The 200-800 takes just under half of a full rotation of the barrel to go from 200 to 800mm. The 4 turns in the video was counting how many times the person had to turn to zoom without moving their hand out of position/changing grip. This figure migt vary depending on how your hands and how you hold the lens
---------------------------------------------
Fabd06 wrote:
Exactly, it's absolutely not 4 full rotations... On this 200-800, 600mm and 800mm are pretty close but i don't think you need to go from 200 to 800 all the time, from 400 to 800mm it's short and fast.
It is a long throw for the lens zoom. It takes me around 3 rotations or so to get through the full FL range in a "normal" shooting position. I can do it in one go if I want to, but only using a very unnatural posture.
I can go from 200mm to 300-400mm depending on how aggressively I rotate in "normal" use. From 800mm I can zoom out to 550-400mm or so. This is on a cursory test.
[I added the quote marks on "normal" because I feel it is very hard to be natural about zoom rotations when I'm trying to measure it. I get too self-conscious]
Now that more folks are getting their 200-800, I'm looking forward to someone starting the official RF 200-800 image thread.
I had previously suggested/encouraged @maxhr to start it with his super nice images but I got nuthin.
It is a long throw for the lens zoom. It takes me around 3 rotations or so to get through the full FL range in a "normal" shooting position. I can do it in one go if I want to, but only using a very unnatural posture.
I can go from 200mm to 300-400mm depending on how aggressively I rotate in "normal" use. From 800mm I can zoom out to 550-400mm or so. This is on a cursory test.
[I added the quote marks on "normal" because I feel it is very hard to be natural about zoom rotations when I'm trying to measure it. I get too self-conscious]
I think it was Jan Wagner who mentioned in a video that you can zoom just by pulling and pushing the end of the lens. I briefly tested doing that today, and I think it will become my preferred way to zoom. It's quicker and it's easier to keep the camera steady while zooming so you don't lose your subject.
a_str8 wrote:
I think it was Jan Wagner who mentioned in a video that you can zoom just by pulling and pushing the end of the lens. I briefly tested doing that today, and I think it will become my preferred way to zoom. It's quicker and it's easier to keep the camera steady while zooming so you don't lose your subject.
Interesting point. This is an approach I sometimes use with my RF 70-200/4, and indeed works well. But apparently some don't like doing this.
rscheffler wrote:
Interesting point. This is an approach I sometimes use with my RF 70-200/4, and indeed works well. But apparently some don't like doing this.
It is up to anyone how they use their own lenses. But if the lens isn´t designed to be used in a deviant way (so called idiot proof) you can get malfunctions much earlier than by using the by-the-book-procedure. Without any deeper insight, by pulling when the mechanism would be pushing, you apply forces the wrong way. A lens is of course designed to take forces both ways, but the extending part is not. Neither is the mount or the innards including the screw mechanism designed for specific forces, but not push-pull-forces larger than what the weight of the lens applies.
The only regrettable part at large is that a lens can get bad reviews, unless, of course, the push-pull-user admits to his deviant behavior. Anyones guess on that?
Ok, perhaps somewhat strong language there, but I´m hungry and the potatoes just started boiling, and I´m hungry NOW!
