Cameron T
Well-known member
Jan also got one, but doesn't have a video specifically about it yet. I'm glad Canon has an option in this range now.
For Canon shooters, the 200-800 is out and looks good
- Thread starter Cameron T
- 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).
Jan also got one, but doesn't have a video specifically about it yet. I'm glad Canon has an option in this range now.
What is unique for Canon is that it is a white non-L lens. (Up until now all their white R mount lenses are L series). However, modern mirrorless lenses are so sharp that I wonder if the pro designations such as L for Canon or S for Nikon or GM for Sony are that meaningful? For example I owned the Sony 200-600 which is a G but not a GM. It is I think the sharpest lens I have ever owned. The new Nikon 180-600 (which I have on order) is reportedly equal to the Sony and yet it is not an S series. Maybe the pro designations relate to other features (besides sharpness) such as aperture, internal vs external zoom, build quality and weather sealing. Perhaps Canon didn't feel justified in making an f9 lens an L series (though they made their f7.1 100-500 an L). In any case, given the range and price point and relatively compact size/weight, I foresee this lens being hugely popular. If I shot Canon I might get one myself.
Cameron T
Well-known member
Only speaking for nikon, the s lenses have more physical controls on lens, and are often sharper (but there's also no nikon branded 24-70 non s 2.8 to compare to, so...) than the other lenses in the focal ranges.
I think we've hit the point where even less expensive lenses are sharp enough for most people.
I think we've hit the point where even less expensive lenses are sharp enough for most people.
This looks like a fantastic lens, good job Canon! Looking forward to seeing some more samples/impressions with it. It’s lighter than my 180-600, even!
jcollins
Member
F-stop v.s. T-stop, overall light transmission, impact of lens coatings on contrast of the resulting image, # of aperture blades and general optical design impacting bokeh. Sharpness is an easy one to harp on because it's much easier to tell when an image isn't sharp via pixel peeping, while those others are more difficult to get a good read on unless you have two lenses of differing quality to take perfectly similar photos to A/B test.
David Berry
🇦🇺 Australia 🦘
Some cost-cutting 'features' (or lack thereof):
- black (instead of white) lens hood—at least it's included which is a first (?) for a non-L lens;
- no lens case (all L-series lenses come with them);
- no dedicated control ring (programmable for aperture, ISO, exp.comp, etc.)—manual focus ring can be switched over;
- collar is permanently attached—that would be acceptable if the foot were removable.
I have no idea how it performs but that may just be the ugliest modern supertelephoto lens ive ever seen.
Cameron T
Well-known member
I can't remember the last time anyone asked me how my lens looked when they saw one of my shots.
but yes. It's not what I'd consider good looking eitherThe L lenses have been white, but the real designation I think is the red ring.
It looks like it comes down to a comparison of the image quality vs cost with the 100-500. It has gotten down to around $2400 vs. The $1900 for the 200-800. But the 1.4 is costly. Also the 100-500 is lighter and smaller.
Will be interesting to see the comparisons with the 100-500 when the full reviews come out.
It looks like it comes down to a comparison of the image quality vs cost with the 100-500. It has gotten down to around $2400 vs. The $1900 for the 200-800. But the 1.4 is costly. Also the 100-500 is lighter and smaller.
Will be interesting to see the comparisons with the 100-500 when the full reviews come out.
I can't say I agree. Not sure why would matter how it looked if it did the job.
Because you have to look at it. By your logic no aesthetics should ever be considered in design or marketing.
If you like it, buy it. Im entitled to my opinion on its looks and it looks to me like it was designed by someone with no regard for visual appeal. When Im trying to make a beautiful image I dont want to sour the experience with ugly tools.
To each their own tho.
radal
New member
looking good
That Nikon is sharper part is surely debatable and hard to quantify. No objective tests are out on this new lens as far as I know. But what would be the point of comparing when the lenses are not interchangeable between systems. One would have to compare by price point as an academic exercise. Take a $1900 200-800 or similar if one exists from Nikon and run a mtf or whatever on both. Probably the closest would be the z 180-600 with a 1.4x. Or you'd have to do a total system comparison including body cost to compare similar price points.
Last edited:
Canon makes great gear. But in a thread titled "For Canon shooters, the 200-800 is out and looks good" I thought the aesthetics were a topic of discussion, especially since you quoted me and seemed to be asking for me to clarify my position. If I had known someone such as yourself who claims aesthetics are of little concern would in fact be so defensive of the lenses aesthetics I wouldnt have replied to you.
Cameron T
Well-known member
I think you mistook "looking good" for aesthetics, vs "looks good" as a lens for taking images.
They actually made negative comments to each other about all sorts of things, they reportedly disliked each other immensely.Hmmmmm Didn’t Leonardo Da Vinci make negative remarks to Michelangelo about the brushes being used on the Sistine Chapel ceiling?
….Ha…can’t we all get along! So true about Leo & Micky…
David Berry
🇦🇺 Australia 🦘
The sample photos on Duade Paton's video were taken in open country where the lens's large depth of field did not pose a major problem. It'll be interesting to see photos taken where the background is both distracting and only a few metres beyond the subject.
I eagerly await reviews by Jan Wegener and, especially, Janine Krayer (Pangolin).
… David
I eagerly await reviews by Jan Wegener and, especially, Janine Krayer (Pangolin).
… David
Last edited:
Calson
Well-known member
When a lens specification allows for f/9 max apertures it frees the optical engineers considerably. They can use smaller and lighter and less expensive to produce lens elements and less powerful OS motors.
The very high usable ISO of today's cameras coupled with the internal optical stabilization needed by mirrorless cameras makes super telephoto performance when shoot hand held possible. The Z9 with its subject recognition and autofocus performance makes it possible for me to use the 800mm f/6.3 lens with sharp images at slower shutter speeds and without need for a tripod.
It appears that the camera and lens manufacturers are placing more weight on the wildlife photography market with their new products. After decades taking a back seat to sports shooters this is a much appreciated development.
The very high usable ISO of today's cameras coupled with the internal optical stabilization needed by mirrorless cameras makes super telephoto performance when shoot hand held possible. The Z9 with its subject recognition and autofocus performance makes it possible for me to use the 800mm f/6.3 lens with sharp images at slower shutter speeds and without need for a tripod.
It appears that the camera and lens manufacturers are placing more weight on the wildlife photography market with their new products. After decades taking a back seat to sports shooters this is a much appreciated development.
ajrmd
Well-known member
I’m glad that Canon is finally coming up with some reasonable alternatives and this lens will open up opportunities for videographers as well as still users. Personally, it’s a lens I wouldn’t be interested in for many reasons and I think the jury is still out with respect to performance. I saw some other videos comparing it side by side to the 100-500 (+tc) which IMHO is the only mid-priced, high performing TP lens Canon produces. The IQ, namely sharpness and contrast were better on the 100-500. Also, one has to see how well the AF works, especially in lower light, how resistant iit is to CA, flare, etc. FWIW, I would never trade my internal zooming f/6.3 180-600 for this bazooka.
Let's see those videos you mentioned?
jcollins
Member
Very interesting that it's not getting better grades than what oughta be considered it's predecessor, I was really hoping to see Canon knock it outta the park with their mid-range options but even the apertures (f8 @ 600mm) don't seem competitive with what other brands are offering at that price point.