Geoff D F wrote:
The purpose is kind off the same - to reduce AF hunting and speed focus acquisition. Whether in practice it is useful or not depends on the specific lens/camera combination, how prone the AF is to hunting and the subject. I sometimes use the focus limiter to avoid going to 1:1 when using my macro lens as a short telephoto for moving subjects.
Let me rephrase my comment. Most photographers that I know of prefer a focus-limiter more on a telephoto lens where their moving subject may be gone before a telephoto lens can rack all the way in and out before that subject is gone. Not quite the same scenario for most macro subjects.
I guess we have to solve the problem with the missing focus limiter by using the lens function buttons as focus presets. If the camera supports it.
Edit: It looks like the two function buttons will have to share the same function, and the cameras cannot be used to assist in setting focus presets anyway.
Imagemaster wrote:
Let me rephrase my comment. Most photographers that I know of prefer a focus-limiter more on a telephoto lens where their moving subject may be gone before a telephoto lens can rack all the way in and out before that subject is gone. Not quite the same scenario for most macro subjects.
Insects can be very fast relative to their body length.
A good option for those who don't own the excellent Canon RF 100-500mm. I had the chance to use the 100-500mm for one weekend, and it's a fantastic lens.
I also had a Sony 200-600mm in the past, but I sold it due to the lack of sharpness and moved back again to Canon RF.
This RF200-800mm seems to be very interesting for guys who take aviation photos like myself.
melcat wrote:
I don’t see how it could autodetect near or far, since the problem to start with is that it gets stuck near where it should be far or (more commonly) far when it should be near. I too have found the focus limiter switch essential on my RF 100–500, when it wasn’t so much on my 1D Mk III DSLR + EF 100–400mm f/4.5–5.6 II.
Of course, a lot, and that’s why this new lens has no dedicated manual focus ring – another thing I find essential on the RF 100–500 that wasn’t so much with my old DSLR+EF lens. It should be big and easy to find and turn, and preferably not click-stopped.
There was an interview a while ago with the development team of one of the lenses; I forget, but it might actually have been the RF 100–500. There were no “coders” as such. The lens firmware was written by the same person who designed the lens electronics....Show more →
Thanks for the info about same person who designed the lens vs coders. I didn't know if that got handed off but what you learned in that interview makes sense.
mslino wrote:
A good option for those who don't own the excellent Canon RF 100-500mm. I had the chance to use the 100-500mm for one weekend, and it's a fantastic lens.
I also had a Sony 200-600mm in the past, but I sold it due to the lack of sharpness and moved back again to Canon RF.
This RF200-800mm seems to be very interesting for guys who take aviation photos like myself.
When I decided to sell all my EF gear I took a long hard look at Sony and particularly that lens. One day my wife said do you really want to learn a new system now. It's the learning part. I enjoy that. Sometimes I don't shoot for months and Canon is like riding a bike. I don't want to re-familiarize after the lulls. I just want to go out and shoot and have fun.
I use the focus limiter on the 100-500 R5 combination a lot.
An interesting thing I noticed is that when the camera is turned off, the lens automatically sets to the nearest focus. Missed some shots until I figured out what was happening. Now I just give the manual focus ring a flip after I turn the camera on. This is a camera function since it happens with the EF 70-300 L lens. On that lens with its focus distance window, it was very clear what was happening. Possibly it was designed to make the lens more stable when carrying with the camera off.
If this lens does the same and you don't have the control ring activated for focus, it would be very frustrating!
Critters wrote:
I use the focus limiter on the 100-500 R5 combination a lot.
An interesting thing I noticed is that when the camera is turned off, the lens automatically sets to the nearest focus. Missed some shots until I figured out what was happening. Now I just give the manual focus ring a flip after I turn the camera on. This is a camera function since it happens with the EF 70-300 L lens. On that lens with its focus distance window, it was very clear what was happening. Possibly it was designed to make the lens more stable when carrying with the camera off.
If this lens does the same and you don't have the control ring activated for focus, it would be very frustrating!...Show more →
Jan is a respected reviewer and educator but he made this claim. I set mine that way because I can't see it doing any harm. I thought this was for lenses that actually retract so I don't know. Haven't field tested it yet.
mslino wrote:
A good option for those who don't own the excellent Canon RF 100-500mm. I had the chance to use the 100-500mm for one weekend, and it's a fantastic lens.
This RF200-800mm seems to be very interesting for guys who take aviation photos like myself.
You're describing my situation almost perfectly. Just last week I was one mouse click away from purchasing the 100-500, but the $2600 couldn't be justified for my hobby. The 200-800 looks to be an easier sell to my brain. I have been getting by with my original 100-400L adapted to my R6. Might finally be time to sell it, my first true love in lenses
Now I need to see if there is a side-load backpack that can fit this thing when mounted! The other hidden costs of upgrading.
Well, I can either enjoy the fact that Canon has cool new lenses, or I can get on here and argue about a button
I'm at MFD so much of the time, a focus limiter doesn't work for me. And if they put it around 20-30 ft, seems like that's in the middle of a lot of bird photography.
I just checked my camera. Interesting that it doesn't change the focus anymore regardless of that setting. Perhaps the latest firmware 1.9 solved that problem. Computers...gotta love them!
dwweiche wrote:
You're describing my situation almost perfectly. Just last week I was one mouse click away from purchasing the 100-500, but the $2600 couldn't be justified for my hobby. The 200-800 looks to be an easier sell to my brain. I have been getting by with my original 100-400L adapted to my R6. Might finally be time to sell it, my first true love in lenses
Now I need to see if there is a side-load backpack that can fit this thing when mounted! The other hidden costs of upgrading.
This lens is tempting for sure. I have an R6 with an EF 100-400 II and 1.4x TC. I'd like to upgrade to the 100-500 but it's still too expensive. My main use for the lens is soccer, but occasionally birds and planes. The 200-800 sounds perfect for the birds, planes, and soccer to an extent, especially when trying to shoot the defensive half of the field. But I'm not sure I'd want to give up the 100-200 range, plus the 200-800 is slower in the 200-400 range. So, I don't think I could give up my 100-400 for this lens, which means it would be an additional lens. But adding it to the collection costs even more than trading the 100-400 for the 100-500.
I recently rented an 800/11. While it is a very good lens, the 100-400 II is a tough act to follow and I feel I got similar results just cropping. I'm hoping the 200-800 is a bit sharper than the 800/11.
Mike_5D wrote:
I recently rented an 800/11. While it is a very good lens, the 100-400 II is a tough act to follow and I feel I got similar results just cropping.
Cropping from 400 to 800 field of view? That's a bold statement. Glass aside you'll need some Mp to get the same results.
Mike_5D wrote:
I'm hoping the 200-800 is a bit sharper than the 800/11.
At least there's less diffraction at f/9.0.
steamtrain wrote:
Cropping from 400 to 800 field of view? That's a bold statement. Glass aside you'll need some Mp to get the same results.
At least there's less diffraction at f/9.0.
I'm not printing for galleries, mainly screens and smaller prints. I took a few test shots, cropped the 400mm shot to match the FOV of the 800mm shot, exported both from LR at full res (so the 400mm shot got enlarged), and viewed them side by side on my dual 27" 1440p displays. The 800mm shot was a touch softer with lower contrast. Maybe I had a bad 800 or an exceptional 100-400, but if the 800/11 doesn't soundly beat just cropping the lens I already own, I'd rather save my money.
Mike_5D wrote:
This lens is tempting for sure. I have an R6 with an EF 100-400 II and 1.4x TC. I'd like to upgrade to the 100-500 but it's still too expensive.
I think if I had the Mk. II 100-400L paired with a newer 1.4X (I have the first Gen 1.4X), I would be in your situation. I never would have seriously considered the 100-500, as awesome as it appears to be. I still doubted in my mind if the 100-500 would really make a difference in my shooting, or if it was just another case of G.A.S.
I've pretty much convinced myself that the 200-800 will be different enough that I will be happy with the decision to sell my 100-400 and 1.4X to slightly subsidize the purchase.
I'm very happy with the flexibility of my RF 24-240 to handle any situation under 200mm.
It seems like my bag of choice is going to be the Lowepro ProTactic BP 350. Looks like it will securely fit the 200-800 while mounted on the R6, and give me easy top load access.
That's my story anyway, and I'm sticking to it.
Side note, I joined this thread after 10 pages of posts so I started from the first post and read all the way through. Some of the early posts sure didn't age well.
dwweiche wrote:
I think if I had the Mk. II 100-400L paired with a newer 1.4X (I have the first Gen 1.4X), I would be in your situation. I never would have seriously considered the 100-500, as awesome as it appears to be. I still doubted in my mind if the 100-500 would really make a difference in my shooting, or if it was just another case of G.A.S.
I've pretty much convinced myself that the 200-800 will be different enough that I will be happy with the decision to sell my 100-400 and 1.4X to slightly subsidize the purchase.
I'm very happy with the flexibility of my RF 24-240 to handle any situation under 200mm.
It seems like my bag of choice is going to be the Lowepro ProTactic BP 350. Looks like it will securely fit the 200-800 while mounted on the R6, and give me easy top load access.
That's my story anyway, and I'm sticking to it.
Side note, I joined this thread after 10 pages of posts so I started from the first post and read all the way through. Some of the early posts sure didn't age well....Show more →
I'm interested in the 100-500 to save a bit of weight, eliminate the adapter, and lose the TC AF penalty. It's a lot of money for some marginal improvements though.
I also have the 24-240. It's a very capable one-lens solution and keeps me from having to lug around the EF 70-200 2.8 to get past 100mm. It is also very good for video.
Wish it was an internal zoom, going from 200 to 800 will be a lot of twisting, not just one twist and your there. However, grateful there is now an alternative to the 100-500 zoom
