I don't know, pretty favorable in the center and midrange, even compared to the 100-500 at 100 vs. the 200-800 at 200. Drops way off in the corners, but eventually DXO will have a profile for that. I'd like to see a more in-depth comparison between the 100-500 and the 200-800. The 100=500 is down to $2500 or so it would still be preferable to me if one didn't need the extra reach.
Canon 200-800 preview
- Thread starter Winston Churchill (Sir)
- Start date
If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).
I don't know, pretty favorable in the center and midrange, even compared to the 100-500 at 100 vs. the 200-800 at 200. Drops way off in the corners, but eventually DXO will have a profile for that. I'd like to see a more in-depth comparison between the 100-500 and the 200-800. The 100=500 is down to $2500 or so it would still be preferable to me if one didn't need the extra reach.
fcotterill
Well-known member
Optical engineers must struggle with daunting challenges with a zoom in this realm of focal lengths. In two words, dimensions and weight.
The chassis has to be rigid and robust, and the lens speed(s) push up window diameter and costs of the big glass elements. This besides minimizing flare and chromatic aberrations.
As we know, a Phase-fresnel element is the keystone in Nikon's design of their 2.3kg 800 f6.3 prime; but the older, and excellent, 800 f5.6E weighs 4.5kg even using fluorite elements. There's no escape from its 143mm window to gain 1/3 stop of lens speed.
So this Canon is obviously a compromise favouring a lighter zoom design staying with 800 f9.
Sigma produced a high quality 300-800 f5.6 and it's aptly known as the Sigmonster, 5.9kg and 521mm long
bcgforums.com
Some reviews etc
bcgforums.com
The chassis has to be rigid and robust, and the lens speed(s) push up window diameter and costs of the big glass elements. This besides minimizing flare and chromatic aberrations.
As we know, a Phase-fresnel element is the keystone in Nikon's design of their 2.3kg 800 f6.3 prime; but the older, and excellent, 800 f5.6E weighs 4.5kg even using fluorite elements. There's no escape from its 143mm window to gain 1/3 stop of lens speed.
So this Canon is obviously a compromise favouring a lighter zoom design staying with 800 f9.
Sigma produced a high quality 300-800 f5.6 and it's aptly known as the Sigmonster, 5.9kg and 521mm long
300-800 mm f5.6 Sigmonster
Well I finally found a like new copy of the dog version of the Sigmonster. I was nervous about 800mm on a D5oo. My worries were unfounded most likely due to my perfectionist attitude. Lol. I'm in love!!!! Yes it's heavy yes it's heavy but omg the flexibility on my gitzo series 5 with a gimbal...
bcgforums.com
Some reviews etc
Sigma 300-800
I’m in Darwin. Most of the time I’m using a Sigma 150-600 on a tripod or monopod. It would be better if I had a 300-800. Has anyone got experience with this lens?
bcgforums.com
Last edited:
Optical engineers must struggle with daunting challenges with a zoom in this realm of focal lengths. In two words, dimensions and weight.
The chassis has to be rigid and robust, and the lens speed(s) push up window diameter and costs of the big glass elements. This besides minimizing flare and chromatic aberrations.
As we know, a Phase-fresnel element is the keystone in Nikon's design of their 2.3kg 800 f6.3 prime; but the older, and excellent, 800 f5.6E weighs 4.5kg even using fluorite elements. There's no escape from its 143mm window to gain 1/3 stop of lens speed.
So this Canon is obviously a compromise favouring a lighter zoom design staying with 800 f9.
Sigma produced a high quality 300-800 f5.6 and it's aptly known as the Sigmonster, 5.9kg and 521mm long
300-800 mm f5.6 Sigmonster
Well I finally found a like new copy of the dog version of the Sigmonster. I was nervous about 800mm on a D5oo. My worries were unfounded most likely due to my perfectionist attitude. Lol. I'm in love!!!! Yes it's heavy yes it's heavy but omg the flexibility on my gitzo series 5 with a gimbal...
Some reviews etc
Sigma 300-800
I’m in Darwin. Most of the time I’m using a Sigma 150-600 on a tripod or monopod. It would be better if I had a 300-800. Has anyone got experience with this lens?
This is for use on Canon?
Canon hasn't opened the RF mount to 3rd party lens makers.
Mr. Meows
Member
F7.1 isn't much different than 6.3.
F8 isn't much different to F7.1.
If you're already at F8, F9 isn't a big deal.
Before you know it you're at F11 wondering if you've accidentally mounted a Canon lens.
Oh wait....
F8 isn't much different to F7.1.
If you're already at F8, F9 isn't a big deal.
Before you know it you're at F11 wondering if you've accidentally mounted a Canon lens.
Oh wait....
Last edited:
I don't understand the comment?
The 800/11 was a home-run for Canon and produced a bunch of very happy photographers. And they will all line-up to get this one. Good for them, good for Canon, good for photography.
Cameron T
Well-known member
I feel like that's a bit of an exaggeration, based on what people local to me shoot, but that could very well be the case. The 800 f/11 around here is basically a "good light only" lens, and even then, only if you can't afford anything better. I think the 200-800 will be in a much better spot.
ajrmd
Well-known member
Again, great for videographers, entry level users, and those shooting in plush light. It essentially useless for the light around here where early mornings at f/4 one is hooting at 12,800 at TV’s of 1/1200-1/2000.
fcotterill
Well-known member
Majority of the primary Sigma lenses are for EF or F mount. This Sigmonster can also be adapted to MILC.
Sigma discontinued their super telephoto 300-800 f5.6
APO 300-800mm F5.6 EX DG HSM | View Discontinued Lenses | Lenses | SIGMA Corporation
Information about the SIGMA’s out-of-production lens APO 300-800mm F5.6 EX DG HSM
Its release stands out as a triumph in optical engineering. CaNikon have still not ventured into this zoom design space : out to 800mm and a 2.7x at f5.6 aperture.
As Thom Hogan often reminds his readers: "... zooms have many more elements in them—and the extra glass/air surfaces that this implies—and because zooms have much more complexity in how the optical path changes as you twist the rings on the lens, they almost always test worse than primes. The zoom designers are just fighting too many variables the prime designers don’t have to."
Last edited:
The Cameralabs preview video showed all the contenders lined up and discussed size and weight. This 200-800 is a monster compared to the 100-500, but of course you get the extra 300. Still for someone wanting to keep the kit small and light, there might be better options.
O
Well-known member
If i look through the majority of my photos and then check with some of the birders in the club, the most commonly used F Stop is F8 - F10 on lenses like a 150-600, 200-500 180-600 even older 150-500 lenses.
If you look at the most popular large zoom lenses its in that 150-600 range based on price affordability and general consumer popularity, so that's where the business volume is.
Nikon has gone from the 200-500 to 180-600, the most popular lenses based on unit sales i am told are 150-600 Tamron and Sigma units which are F5.6 to F6.3 usually.
So a 200-800 is well for Canon shooters a good option to buy or stay with Canon.
I feel as long as the 800 mm is sharp and very usable its a winner.
As to haze in distant shoots, i wouldn't go there anyway, even 600 sometimes can be an issue in cases.
Where 800 really would shine for my taste is shooting 800 mm in closer than trying to shoot a mammal on the distant horizon.
I prefer to shoot my 200-500 in closer to really fill the frame tightly, 800mm adds to that benefit of a nice compressed shot especially if the subject is small and 800mm is sharp which i would expect at F9.
Using my 300 2.8 vr II or rented/borrowed 600 F4 FL is to gather more light in challenging situations, yes it helps with bokah and lets me shoot more around F4 F5.6 as well.
But for what the 200-800 is designed for and who, its certainly a competitor for the huge 150-600 market for main stream users.
I mean i use the Z9 on a 600 F4, A D4 0n a Sigma 150-500, D850 Z9 on a 200-500, D3X on a 200-500, and get very usable results, I just use the tools accordingly as many of us would, again they are just tools.
I think the 200-800 is a good prospect by the sounds of it, unless you shoot in very low light conditions, i mean add a TC to a F5.6 F6.3 your in F8/89 territory anyway. I think Canon has done a good thing here.
Only an opinion
If you look at the most popular large zoom lenses its in that 150-600 range based on price affordability and general consumer popularity, so that's where the business volume is.
Nikon has gone from the 200-500 to 180-600, the most popular lenses based on unit sales i am told are 150-600 Tamron and Sigma units which are F5.6 to F6.3 usually.
So a 200-800 is well for Canon shooters a good option to buy or stay with Canon.
I feel as long as the 800 mm is sharp and very usable its a winner.
As to haze in distant shoots, i wouldn't go there anyway, even 600 sometimes can be an issue in cases.
Where 800 really would shine for my taste is shooting 800 mm in closer than trying to shoot a mammal on the distant horizon.
I prefer to shoot my 200-500 in closer to really fill the frame tightly, 800mm adds to that benefit of a nice compressed shot especially if the subject is small and 800mm is sharp which i would expect at F9.
Using my 300 2.8 vr II or rented/borrowed 600 F4 FL is to gather more light in challenging situations, yes it helps with bokah and lets me shoot more around F4 F5.6 as well.
But for what the 200-800 is designed for and who, its certainly a competitor for the huge 150-600 market for main stream users.
I mean i use the Z9 on a 600 F4, A D4 0n a Sigma 150-500, D850 Z9 on a 200-500, D3X on a 200-500, and get very usable results, I just use the tools accordingly as many of us would, again they are just tools.
I think the 200-800 is a good prospect by the sounds of it, unless you shoot in very low light conditions, i mean add a TC to a F5.6 F6.3 your in F8/89 territory anyway. I think Canon has done a good thing here.
Only an opinion
Last edited:
ajrmd
Well-known member
Since you have a lot of random thoughts, I thought I would randomly address a few of them:
1) When I look at the majority of my WL photos they are shot wide open (or stopped down 1/3rd or so) with few exceptions. That means f/4, f/5.6, f/6.3, f/7.1 (100-500), etc.
2) The 200-800 f/9 may or may not be a good option for Canon shooters and I've explained why in other posts. Videographers will probably like it. Still shooters in favorable light and those who tolerate a bayonetting lens.
3) Atmospherics? Definitely a problem for many shooters and it depends largely on location. One would expect that it is more susceptible than an equivalent prime.
4) Shooting closer? As I said, in my experience mega zoom images do better when the subject fills the frame (that's true of all lenses but more so of these zooms). The images don't stand up well when large crops are required.
5) A good prospect? Again, it depends on the case use and it is not a lens for me. Most of my WL photography is shot in early morning, late evening, or poor light. I don't disagree that Canon has done a "good thing", though I would have liked to see them release some high quality, mid-priced, mid-aperture primes like Nikon.
Canon already has a best quality 600 f4 and 800 5.6 and a 1200. This lens is not going to compete there, but for the budget shooter it might be another choice with the compromises needed in producing a low cost lens. Canon shooters on a budget might compare the smaller 100-500 possibly with an extender, or the 800 or 600 f11 at an even lower cost, or the EF 100-400 with an extender, or the budget minded rf 100-400. They don't make anything in the $4000-$5000 price range the way Nikon does, so one can't compare this $1800 lens to the $5000 600 PF. One could compare to the similar priced 180-600 and we'll have to see how it stacks up IQ wise considering the extra 200 mm reach.
Calson
Well-known member
Canon did a great job to produce a 800mm zoom that weighs 4.5 lbs which is 0.7 lb lighter than the Nikon 800mm PF lens and so it can be used without a tripod in many situations. The question is whether the lens is usable out to 800mm focal length. Most 150-600mm lenses were mediocre at 600mm in terms of image sharpness. Canon has more experience than any other company with high performance zoom telephoto lenses so their 200-800mm may be fine. At only $1900 it will have lots of buyers.
lwan
Well-known member
Sadly my opinion would infringe with the forums rules on this lens 
O
Well-known member
You make some good points and thank you.