Canon RF 800mm f/11 IS STM

[Levina de Ruijter]

Despite it's specs it's an amazingly useful lens. Especially out in the field it performs really well and the f/11 becomes irrelevant.

Here's a pic with the RF 1.4x TC, taken on a grey day with flat light.

Great crested grebe

• Canon EOS R6
• RF800mm F11 IS STM + EXTENDER RF1.4x
• ƒ/16
• 1120mm
• 1/500s
• ISO 1600

• Canon EOS R6
• RF800mm F11 IS STM + EXTENDER RF1.4x
• ƒ/16
• 1120mm
• 1/500s
• ISO 1600

 

[Jonnie]

Those are pretty good results. And that for a lens that's been ridiculed.

 

[RichardB]

Those are pretty good results. And that for a lens that's been ridiculed.

That lens is way better than the specs would have you think.

 

[Jan1977]

I don't own that lens any more. I sold it after I bought the RF200-800. It was a nice and capable lens, certainly in combination with the ISO-capabilities of the EOS R cameras. Here are some shots I took with the lens in the past:

• Canon EOS R7
• RF800mm F11 IS STM
• ƒ/11
• 800mm
• 1/2000s
• ISO 2500

• Canon EOS R7
• RF800mm F11 IS STM
• ƒ/11
• 800mm
• 1/1250s
• ISO 1250

• Canon EOS R7
• RF800mm F11 IS STM
• ƒ/11
• 800mm
• 1/1250s
• ISO 1600

• Canon EOS R7
• RF800mm F11 IS STM
• ƒ/11
• 800mm
• 1/1250s
• ISO 800

 

[Levina de Ruijter]

I don't own that lens any more. I sold it after I bought the RF200-800. It was a nice and capable lens, certainly in combination with the ISO-capabilities of the EOS R cameras. Here are some shots I took with the lens in the past:
View attachment 4965View attachment 4966View attachment 4967View attachment 4968

When I bought the R5m2 I also added the 200-800mm to my shopping cart. Then removed it, thinking it was quite a bit heavier than the lightweight 800/11.

How would you say the 800/11 and the 200-800mm compare in terms of image quality? AT 800mm of course.

 

[Jan1977]

When I bought the R5m2 I also added the 200-800mm to my shopping cart. Then removed it, thinking it was quite a bit heavier than the lightweight 800/11.

How would you say the 800/11 and the 200-800mm compare in terms of image quality? AT 800mm of course.

I'm not a pixel peeper and just look at what the end-result looks like (despite 800mm I still tend to crop). With 800mm other factors like atmospheric shimmer come into play as well.

Having said that, I feel that at 800mm the RF200-800 certainly aint worse than the RF800, but not sure I would call it better. If I had to choose between the RF200-800 permanently used on 800mm and the RF800 I would doubt, but think I would still go for the RF200-800. The weight and size of the RF800 are preferable, but the minimal focus distance of the RF200-800 is nicer (around 3.3m at 800, whereas the RF800 is at 600). The weight of the RF200-800 is acceptable for me as I was used to heavier lenses and I'm not a small person.

The ability to zoom is what really favors the RF200-800 for me, making it easy to find subjects sometimes by zooming out and then zooming in. The F9 vs F11 are not relevant for me, just too little of a real difference. The MFD (0.8m at 200mm towards 3.3m at 800mm) allowed me to shoot some damselflies or other close-up insects, which I would have never gotten with my RF800.

Also I use the RF 1.4x a lot on the RF200-800 lately (since I use my R5ii rather than the R7 I sold). There the zoom is very beneficial as well 280mm - 1120mm makes little difference on the 'wide' side and still reaching 1120 on the 'far' side. The RF800 with the 1.4x only is 1120mm which is long, making it even more difficult to find the subject than with 800mm . I have no feel for the image quality difference between the RF200-800+1.4x and the RF800+1.4x . I can't remember really shooting the latter, although I think I might have tried it some time in the past.

 

[Levina de Ruijter]

I'm not a pixel peeper and just look at what the end-result looks like (despite 800mm I still tend to crop). With 800mm other factors like atmospheric shimmer come into play as well.

Having said that, I feel that at 800mm the RF200-800 certainly aint worse than the RF800, but not sure I would call it better. If I had to choose between the RF200-800 permanently used on 800mm and the RF800 I would doubt, but think I would still go for the RF200-800. The weight and size of the RF800 are preferable, but the minimal focus distance of the RF200-800 is nicer (around 3.3m at 800, whereas the RF800 is at 600). The weight of the RF200-800 is acceptable for me as I was used to heavier lenses and I'm not a small person.

The ability to zoom is what really favors the RF200-800 for me, making it easy to find subjects sometimes by zooming out and then zooming in. The F9 vs F11 are not relevant for me, just too little of a real difference. The MFD (0.8m at 200mm towards 3.3m at 800mm) allowed me to shoot some damselflies or other close-up insects, which I would have never gotten with my RF800.

Also I use the RF 1.4x a lot on the RF200-800 lately (since I use my R5ii rather than the R7 I sold). There the zoom is very beneficial as well 280mm - 1120mm makes little difference on the 'wide' side and still reaching 1120 on the 'far' side. The RF800 with the 1.4x only is 1120mm which is long, making it even more difficult to find the subject than with 800mm . I have no feel for the image quality difference between the RF200-800+1.4x and the RF800+1.4x . I can't remember really shooting the latter, although I think I might have tried it some time in the past.

Thanks for the write up, Jan.

Unfortunately I am a pixel peeper. Image quality is very important to me, it trumps everything else really. But I gather that the 200-800 is not decidedly better @800mm than the 800/11 so then there is no point in me getting it. I came so close to buying it when I bought the R5m2. I had both in my cart but removed the lens. I don't know, it just seems like a lens that is fun to have. But truth be told, I don't think I would use it more than I use the 800/11, which is hardly ever, because the 100-500 is my lens for birds. I love that lens and with the 1.4x extender it gets me to 700mm. I really don't need anything else.

I think I'm pretty much done now in terms of gear. I feel I now have the perfect birding set up. Plus I have the RF 100L macro for if I would like to do some tabletop stuff again. I also have the RF 50/1.8 and the RF 16mm. Yep I'm done... No more GAS!

 

[Jan1977]

Thanks for the write up, Jan.

Unfortunately I am a pixel peeper. Image quality is very important to me, it trumps everything else really. But I gather that the 200-800 is not decidedly better @800mm than the 800/11 so then there is no point in me getting it. I came so close to buying it when I bought the R5m2. I had both in my cart but removed the lens. I don't know, it just seems like a lens that is fun to have. But truth be told, I don't think I would use it more than I use the 800/11, which is hardly ever, because the 100-500 is my lens for birds. I love that lens and with the 1.4x extender it gets me to 700mm. I really don't need anything else.

I think I'm pretty much done now in terms of gear. I feel I now have the perfect birding set up. Plus I have the RF 100L macro for if I would like to do some tabletop stuff again. I also have the RF 50/1.8 and the RF 16mm. Yep I'm done... No more GAS!

"No more GAS" is just a temporary state of mind, GAS is a 'veenbrand' to use a Dutch term for it

(For the non-Dutch readers, a 'veenbrand' is a type of nature fire that often is beneath the surface, so you do not see flames while the fire is spreading beneath the surface, until it suddenly emerges to the surface again somewhere...)

 

[Jeff WX1USN]

Thanks for the write up, Jan.

Unfortunately I am a pixel peeper. Image quality is very important to me, it trumps everything else really. But I gather that the 200-800 is not decidedly better @800mm than the 800/11 so then there is no point in me getting it. I came so close to buying it when I bought the R5m2. I had both in my cart but removed the lens. I don't know, it just seems like a lens that is fun to have. But truth be told, I don't think I would use it more than I use the 800/11, which is hardly ever, because the 100-500 is my lens for birds. I love that lens and with the 1.4x extender it gets me to 700mm. I really don't need anything else.

I think I'm pretty much done now in terms of gear. I feel I now have the perfect birding set up. Plus I have the RF 100L macro for if I would like to do some tabletop stuff again. I also have the RF 50/1.8 and the RF 16mm. Yep I'm done... No more GAS!

Levina do you still have the RF800? I thought you mentioned you sold it, but I am not sure.

 

[Levina de Ruijter]

Levina do you still have the RF800? I thought you mentioned you sold it, but I am not sure.

Yes, I still have it!

 

[Jeff WX1USN]

Yes, I still have it!

I had rented one, found it tough to use at least for me on BIF. perching birds and planes it was ok. I prefer the 200-800 as I can find the bird at 500 and zoom in.

 

[Levina de Ruijter]

I had rented one, found it tough to use at least for me on BIF. perching birds and planes it was ok. I prefer the 200-800 as I can find the bird at 500 and zoom in.

I just tried it on the R5II on a heron. He was straight across the canal from where I live, on the roof of a houseboat. I took shots. Then put the camera in pre-capture mode and tracked him. I just downloaded the shots. I think they're all good! I'll post some in a bit.

 

[Jeff WX1USN]

I just tried it on the R5II on a heron. He was straight across the canal from where I live, on the roof of a houseboat. I took shots. Then put the camera in pre-capture mode and tracked him. I just downloaded the shots. I think they're all good! I'll post some in a bit.

Looking forward to seeing them.
The big difference from the 200-800 is the 800/11 is so much lighter

 

[Levina de Ruijter]

I processed three of a long series of shots, all in good focus. I have to say that the heron was just across the canal from where I live, right, so not that far away. Cropped from 8192px to 5674px.

• Canon EOS R5m2
• RF800mm F11 IS STM
• ƒ/11
• 800mm
• 1/4000s
• ISO 1000

• Canon EOS R5m2
• RF800mm F11 IS STM
• ƒ/11
• 800mm
• 1/4000s
• ISO 1000

• Canon EOS R5m2
• RF800mm F11 IS STM
• ƒ/11
• 800mm
• 1/4000s
• ISO 1000

 

[Jeff WX1USN]

Nice shots!

Makes me want to get the 800 but then I remember when I rented it although it was good and it was light I like being able to zoom out a bit to acquire birds. At the same time that I rented the 600 and 800 I also rented the RF1.4x and RF2x, and found the RF1.4x was better the RF2x just seems to me to be a bit soft.

So I have the 100-500 and it becomes a 420-700 with the R6ii and have the 200-800 which is heavy, having the 100-500 I really don't NEED the 200-800 but I like it anyway!

If someone were to ask should I get the 100-500 with 1.4x or the 200-800 I would say that the 200-800 is slightly sharper at 720mm than at 800mm and at 720 it is very similar to the 100-500 w 1.4x, very close in sharpness. the 200-800 is good if you know or feel you will be the wider FOV and don't want to change lenses in the field.

Compared to the RF 800/11 the 100-500 with the RF1.4x, the 100-500 becoming a 420-700 you get that 300mm of zoom to get objects in the FOV.