p.1 #1 · Canon 200-800mm vs the just announced Sony 400-800mm
Jan Wegener just did a nice review on this new Sony lens which is everything I hoped that Canon would have done with the RF200-800mm.
Man it's getting more and more difficult to stay in the Canon ecosystem which I've been in since 1992. I used the Canon 200-800mm and it was OK but I just can't stand the zoom throw and the external zoom of that lens and it has a number other features that put me off. The new Sony is $1000 more expensive but I would say be well worth it.
p.1 #2 · Canon 200-800mm vs the just announced Sony 400-800mm
First, I own both Sony and Canon. I think the 400-800 is a nice addition to the line-up. The biggest advantage that I can see with the Sony is the short throw of the zoom ring (although a much shorter range, so this is easier) and that it is internal zooming (but the Canon takes less space in my bag and doesn't look quite as big when you are using it in public -- except when zoomed out). Optically, there isn't enough of a difference to give an edge one way or another. I am not seeing a great reason that I would give the Sony an advantage over the Canon. In fact, I prefer the longer range rather than the other advantages that Sony has. The slight difference in aperture isn't enough to separate them in any way either.
My choice between the two would still go to the Canon.
p.1 #3 · Canon 200-800mm vs the just announced Sony 400-800mm
I've never been a fan of any external zooming lenses I've owned (Canon EF100-400, EF100-400II, RF100-500, Sigma 150-600C and Sony 100-400GM). I haven't used the RF200-800 but I can't imagine it is an easy process to quickly zoom it in and out.
The internal zoom of lenses like the 400-800G, 200-600G and Nikon 180-600 are a huge improvement as they can move from near to far in 1/4 turn of the ring and the rings are super smooth requiring just a single finger and little force to make the full movement.
But the weight of the Canon and price point make it a strong contender.
I don't know about the AF speed of the 200-800 but one of the big surprises with the 400-800 is Sony gave it dual-linear motors like they use in the expensive primes and some other lenses. This is a big upgrade from the motors they used in the 200-600.
f/8 vs f/9 may or may not be a big deal for people.
p.1 #5 · Canon 200-800mm vs the just announced Sony 400-800mm
BrianP wrote:
First, I own both Sony and Canon. I think the 400-800 is a nice addition to the line-up. The biggest advantage that I can see with the Sony is the short throw of the zoom ring (although a much shorter range, so this is easier) and that it is internal zooming (but the Canon takes less space in my bag and doesn't look quite as big when you are using it in public -- except when zoomed out). Optically, there isn't enough of a difference to give an edge one way or another. I am not seeing a great reason that I would give the Sony an advantage over the Canon. In fact, I prefer the longer range rather than the other advantages that Sony has. The slight difference in aperture isn't enough to separate them in any way either.
My choice between the two would still go to the Canon.
I can see your points but for me the zoom throw is everything. I have the RF100-500 and while I like the optical performance I just hate the zoom... IMHO the zoom mechanism on the external zoom lenses costs you important shots in high action situations and no one could convince me otherwise. The lack of a real MF ring on the Canon is also a big deal for me.
p.1 #6 · Canon 200-800mm vs the just announced Sony 400-800mm
Never owned a zoom lens, but if I did it would not be one of the latest slow zooms from Canon! I went out this morning in the jungle and shot a few shots because I wanted to see if I could possibly use the 400-800. My conclusion is NO. Even with the new AI software. F/8-9 is a deal breaker for me.
p.1 #7 · Canon 200-800mm vs the just announced Sony 400-800mm
If I had the 200-600 I would be tempted to switch to the 400-800 as a majority in my catch is at 800mm. But as I have the 200-800, I would not switch to the 400-800 (hypothetical) because much of the rest of my images with the 200-800 is at 200 some closer to 300. For my often opportunistic freehand shooting the 4x zoom is a great tool. The extra half kg of weight, no thanks! The 200-800 is massive enough during our three months of continuous daylight, long shooting days, very long.
I cant avoid to smile when reading all the ooohs and aawhs around the 400-800 zoom range, compared to the poop the 420-700mm and 600-1000mm gets thrown its way, the 100-500 with 1.4x or 2x. Yes, I do understand it as it is such a great lens by itself, the 100-500. Oh well, its so much far more important that I cant comprehend these days.
p.1 #8 · Canon 200-800mm vs the just announced Sony 400-800mm
Canon made the 200-800 in response to people rather inexplicably complaining about the extra $800 or so of the 100-500, about the same price 400-800. Canon responded making 200-800 $100 less than the 200-600, basically 1.4 built in full time.
The 400-800 also has less zoom range and about a lb heavier.
p.1 #9 · Canon 200-800mm vs the just announced Sony 400-800mm
While I'm solely a Canon shooter...mostly due to not being extremely wealthy, I'm open to other brands doing things better and/or perhaps just differently. Current rig is an R5ii with an array of lenses but specifically for my super telephoto needs I have (and love) the 100-500L. I did rent the RF 200-800 and loved the extra reach, but the AF performance, sharpness, and responsiveness--in addition to how much you have to turn the ring to go from 200-800--were each minor quibbles which added up to a big reason as to why I don't own it.
The just announced 400-800 is super intriguing to me and seems to solve all of those issues. There is also a Nikon 800mm 6.3 prime that is about $6K which is a price range Canon seems unwilling to release products at (all their lenses are either $3K or below, or $9.5K and above).
I do want a second body and the CLog2 of the R5ii has spoiled me. I know Sony has in recent mirrorless history been the king of low light video performance, and Nikon have acquired RED cameras and are starting to implement some of that company's video expertise into current and future mirrorless bodies.
I'm about 12-18 months away from getting a 2nd body to complement my R5ii setup and I had hoped to stay in the Canon ecosystem (maybe if the R6iii had some video focused hand me down tech from the R5ii, like CLog 2). But if Canon doesn't offer a compelling option to either the Sony 400-800 or Nikon 800 prime, I could conceivably get either Nikon or Sony's competitor to the R5ii in 2026 + a nice wide prime video lens at 24mm or 35mm + the 400-800 (if I go Sony) or 800 6.3 (if I go Nikon) to do both video and super telephoto for distant wildlife and action shots.
p.1 #10 · Canon 200-800mm vs the just announced Sony 400-800mm
Use both Canon & Sony, agree with you drobertfranz. Canons zoom Tele lenses are less than desireable when you see what the Nikon & Sony Systems has to offer.
If Canon would come out with internal zooms that are not hindered when you add a TC, or problematic with such a long throw/twist to get from 200-800 I might reach in my pocket.
Arbitrages brings out a good point about the new Sony 400-800, it gives it a dual-linear motors like they use in the expensive primes, that the 200 - 600 doesn't have.
The only issue with the 400-800 is you would want a second camera with a 100-400 when the action becomes to close for 400. Sony needs to update there 100-400 beause its an external zoom, thats not smooth at all to zoom. The 200-600 on a second body thats a heavy lens to go along with the 400-800 would not be ideal because of weight, thats where a new Sony 100-400 or 500 internal zoom would be ideal, if also using the 400-800.
Feb 27, 2025 at 01:25 PM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.1 #11 · Canon 200-800mm vs the just announced Sony 400-800mm
Can't say going sony for their superteles resonates with me. Pretty limited line, unless you are buying expensive new 600/4 or 400/2.8 anyway.
But if you like a 5 1/2 lb lens that sounds about like 200-500 nikkor. Not that much lighter than latest 600/4
p.1 #12 · Canon 200-800mm vs the just announced Sony 400-800mm
For those who are concerned about the long throw of the 200-800, note one reviewer said going from 400-800 on the 200-800 is roughly the same throw as going from 400-800 on the Sony.
p.1 #13 · Canon 200-800mm vs the just announced Sony 400-800mm
It seems like a nice lens for Sony shooters but doesn't make me jealous. I'm happy with the 100-500 and 200-800. It's not like 400-800 is appreciably faster.
p.1 #14 · Canon 200-800mm vs the just announced Sony 400-800mm
BrianP wrote:
For those who are concerned about the long throw of the 200-800, note one reviewer said going from 400-800 on the 200-800 is roughly the same throw as going from 400-800 on the Sony.
Interesting I'd like to check that out myself... Now if Canon wouldn't have gone with that awful MF ring on the 200-800
p.1 #15 · Canon 200-800mm vs the just announced Sony 400-800mm
I need to see MTF data. I'm not expecting miracles from inexpensive super tele zooms, but the 400-800 must be better than the 200-800 or there is no value for me. I wonder how long to get a replacement lens foot from Wimberley, Kirk etc.
p.1 #16 · Canon 200-800mm vs the just announced Sony 400-800mm
For the vast majority of 200-800 owners the Sony 400-800 is not a buy. For them in addition to the purchase price of the lens comes the cost of buying a well speced camera as well. Just not worth any perceived improvements.
For those with a foot in both camps, well, they'd already have the Canon 200-800. So they would be selling that and buying the Sony lens. Changeover cost probably $1,000+. Some might baulk at that but the better heeled perfectonists will go for it.
For me I'll stick with my 200-800, the hobby just gets too expensive chopping and changing brands, bodies and lenses for incremental gains.
p.1 #17 · Canon 200-800mm vs the just announced Sony 400-800mm
BrianP wrote:
For those who are concerned about the long throw of the 200-800, note one reviewer said going from 400-800 on the 200-800 is roughly the same throw as going from 400-800 on the Sony.
I think the difference here will be the zoom resistance. If as stated by others the 400-800 is a one-finger low resistance zoom, it could be a significant point of differentiation between the two in the field.
My point of reference for this is based on comparing the RF 100-500 against the EF 200-400 shooting field sports. I found I needed a lot more torque to quickly zoom the 100-500, which made it more difficult to keep the action framed properly. While the 200-400's internal zoom is not very low-friction, it was noticeably lower friction than the 100-500 and I have had no trouble zooming it while keeping the action framed as desired.
This is something that has me contemplating the 70-200/2.8 Z after using the 24-105/2.8 Z and enjoying how light and smooth its internal zoom action was compared to my RF 70-200 external zoom.
p.1 #18 · Canon 200-800mm vs the just announced Sony 400-800mm
Well I am in both the Sony and Canon camp but for Canon my longest is the RF 100-500mm with a R5 Mk II. For Sony i currently have a FE 200-600mm + 1.4X TC and A1. Had a second A1 but sold it for the R5 Mk II. So very been going back and forth on what to do to get out to 800mm. The wild card is the great price I got on the R5 Mk II so I could try out pre-capture which will cost me about $6400 in a Sony A1 II body.
By the way my use case is primarily BIF. So I’m still not sure which to go with. I like both systems and really not into lower megapixels bodies. Just not sure if Sony is really affordable any more with the A1 II costing $2500 more than the R5 Mk II and the FE 400-800 costing another $1000 more unless I abandon Canon and sell that gear off or come up with another plan. Any suggestions?
p.1 #19 · Canon 200-800mm vs the just announced Sony 400-800mm
bigger, heavier, less polyvalent lens, more expensive, for small avantages for me (i don't care IZ, negligible aperture and sharpness difference), i find the canon a clearly better value, and i don't be jealous at all.
p.1 #20 · Canon 200-800mm vs the just announced Sony 400-800mm
The 400-800 seems noticeably sharper than the 200-800 at 800mm, if the view at 15:20 in Jan's review is a reasonable indicator.
That, plus the internal zoom, short zoom throw and fast AF motors, would give it the nod over the advantages of the 200-800 (zoom range, portability) if they were both on the same system and I were deciding between the two.
(I've not seen a direct comparison, but based on Jan's sharpness tests at 800mm, one might predict the 400-800 might do better than the 200-800 with the respective 1.4x extenders as well.)
