Jmadhavan wrote:
I have seen a few of his videos but didn't see a comparison. I'll go back and look again. Thank you.
I know he did a detailed review on the 200-800 in the past. Also, check an Jen (spelling??) videos. I know he uses the 200-800 and does equipment reviews, too.
EB-1 wrote:
If Canon had produced that 300-600/5.6 instead of it being yet another vorpware scam, there would not be such a massive gap in Canon tele lens options.
EBH
I'm still waiting for a replacement of the canon FD 150-600 f5.6L. Can't see what the problem is and that would be a step ahead of what they are doing now.
Quick update. I'm now about midway through my Panama trip. Boy, am I glad I brought the 200-800 AND the 600. At the feeders and non-mobile photographic spots the 600 is fine. But when walking, lugging that 600 through mud where your foot sinks to mid leg in the mud would not have been fun or safe. The biggest drawback of the 200-800 is it's Max aperture. Taking pictures of birds amongst dark foliage requires high (insane) ISO settings. The focusing, however, was good mostly. The other thing to remember is that the 200-800 is not an L lens and a train cover is essential.
For most of this trip the 600 has stayed in the bag in the vehicle!
Was shooting birds for the last few days with a guy that had the R5 II ,and the 200-800. I felt sorry for him today. Did not get one shot that was a keeper because of the high ISO's. I almost took my lens off to let him use it. A few days ago was a once in a lifetime shot of toucan baby. Every shot was garbage.
Anyone care to reveal a number or two? ISO? Shutter speed? Obviously at f/8 (at 600mm) or f/9.
The 200-800 appears to have a sweetspot around 600mm. The small jump from f/9 to f/8 together with the smallish jump from 800 to 600mm might be enough to get an ISO jump out of the worst noice and(!) chromatic aberration.
I have to try out this trick. Forcing myself to use anything but 800 when I have it available and feel I need 800, that takes some intelligent thinking that usually is lacking at those moments of excitement...
Edit: This is with the R5 and the R52. The chromatic aberration is nothing major, but it is visible at 100% peeping and adds to a minor weakness at high ISO. This was at long distance, about 400m. It´s likely to vary with distance, also possibly for the better.
Any correction has to decide whether it is CA or noice or the reality. I´m no noice reduktion vizard. Perhaps our glorious AI does well with the corrections?
I am not a bif guy, but I have done it occasionally, but I am usually light challenged (dusk/dawn) and reach challenged, and typically I struggle over size vs capability vs zoom.
I recently went to Churchill for polar bears and brought the 200-400 with 200-800 (and r7 with my r5) as a backup. I never took the 200-800 out because I had room and I needed fast shutter. I used the r7 a lot for reach and switched to the r5 when the light was bad and there was time to switch. https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1920108/1#16933750
I chose 200-400 because it was a zoom, f4 to 400 and f5.6 to 560mm - very versatile and faster than 200-800 or 100-500.
I used the r7 when I needed reach to get near 900mm with lots of mpx on the bear, when cropped. I used efcs to manage the rolling shutter. I could not take my 600f4 because it did not fit the plane, but in retrospect I would not have used it a lot because it was too long for careful shots and too hard to switch in and out of with my zoom. I will take my 600f4 to Yellowstone for wolves but not for a busy (vehicle) environment.
I rediscovered that shutter speed was so great. The f5.6 with r7 and EFCS was great. 1/1000 instead of 1/500 at maximum magnification and significant crop. Consider the r7 vs the 200-800 for reach.
Less defraction made the r7/f5.6 as good or better than 200-800 f9 for maximum reach. I rented and brought a 1.4x for the 200-800 but did not use if because f11/defraction/slow shutter/long glimmer and a good other alternative 200-400/1.4x/7d/zoom was hard to take off.
I also, after really using the 200-800 for 2 years for bears, rediscovered that lens speed was so great (faster shutter), and that when I have the choice (weight, and space constraints) faster was so much better.
So what does this mean for you? It's a tough choice but I would not fixate on lens sharpness as much as size and weight, and shutter modes and fstop capability. If you cannot carry a large $10,000 lens through the mud, take the 200-800. If you are doing lots of blind work, take the faster stop lens. Rent a r7 for extreme shots. The 200-800 is sharp enough in the centre but halving (or more) the shutter speed is a critical factor.
Eg the function matters more than the iq - always - if you are comparing 200-800 vs 600f4 type lens. Car shooting is 200-800, tripod shooting is 600f4, R7 when you need reach. R5 when the light is really challenging. If the 600 does not fit the airplane, bring the 200-800. What can I afford to drop in the ocean if things go wrong.
I also found that Gemini AI (or chatgtp) was invaluable in comparing choices 200-400 with 2x vs 1.4x with cropping. R5 vs R7 in circumstances..... What fit in the bin. It had less bias to whatever the poster here had in his/her kit because we each are contained by time to not have every lens.
