Canon RF 200-800mm f/6.3-9 IS USM — Field Review
I have been using the Canon RF 200-800 for over a year. It has made two trips to Yellowstone and I have used it in a variety of situations, I have also used it for shooting FastCAT (a dog sport). For folks who are not familiar with the RF 200-800, it is a remarkably flexible lens with a variable aperture. At 200, it is a F.6.3 lens, at 800mm it drops to F9 on the long end. The lens comes standard with Image Stabilization. While there are other lens options out there, there is not a lot out there that is in the price range that offers the flexibility of this lens. I realize I am supposed to keep you guessing until the end of the article, but what’s the point? It is a really solid option – as long as you realize what it is that you are working with.
1. Reach and compositional flexibility
This is the first native lens that I have ever had that extends past 300mm. While I cheated with my 2x extender on my 300mm lens prior, all I can say is how liberating it is to have a lens I can zoom that far out without having to shuffle in my bag for an extender. Before we go further, it might be helpful to examine why I am saying that tele-extenders are not the best way of getting additional focal length with a camera. Unfortunately, any time you put something between your camera body and the lens, you are adding additional layers of complexity to the process. Even in the best of scenarios, adding a tele-converter can introduce a variety of undesired consequences - from Chromatic Aberrations (Color Fringing) to Reduced Sharpness (loss of detail) to Flare and Ghosting. Second, the greater the magnification you add to the equation, the more significant you see these additional flaws. Third, by adding an extender, you cut down light coming into the sensor. With a 1.4 extender, that is usually a full stop of light. With a 2x extender, that would be two stops of light. This reduced level of light makes it harder to autofocus the lens and can cause a more degraded image because this also yields a lower signial-to-noise ratio. The impacts of a tele on a lens may not be consistent between lenses - and my guess is that the more complex the system the more potentially damaging the impacts are. i.e. using a 1.4 extender on a prime lens will have different impacts on a Zoom Lens which is more complex and making some optical compromises in order to get the focal length. Having said all that, photography is all about knowing what trade-offs you need to make in order to get an image that you are pleased with. I am also not saying that every image ever taken with a tele-extender is 'bad....' I have over 20 years of images that I took with extenders in order to get the equivalent focal length that I needed for a situation. For the most part, effective post processing can really help with some of these difficulties - but you still need to know it is there in order to deal with it. The goal of not having a Tele Extender on my lens was absolutely one of the reasons why I was looking so strongly at the RF200-800 lens.
With all this said, having the new RF 200-800 that I did not need to make this profound compromise has really been a game changer for situations when I needed to be far away. For example, last fall, when I was in Yellowstone, I was photographing a number of wolves that had taken down an elk in the river. The wolf images in this article would never have been possible had I been using a significantly shorter focal length lens.
Wolf Photo
On that same trip, I was also fortunate to see Grizzly 399 in the Tetons with her 4 cubs. I am still heartbroken with her passing – what a loss. In all my years photographing the Tetons, I had never seen her. LOL, I knew where she was, so to speak, but our paths had not crossed.
A sad number of the images I took of 399 and her cubs did not come out. Technique really matters, and as you can expect, the light was crap. Given the R5II’s sensor limitations at high ISOs (I am sorry, they are real) I was afraid to really kick up the camera as far as I needed to in order to capture as many really sharp images.
The rule of thumb is that you need your camera to be at 1/focal length for a sharp image. It is also a good rule of thumb that in order to freeze action, you need to be at least 1/1000th of a second. I like to be closer to 1/1250th of a second. I was shooting shutter speeds of closer to 1/250th of a second. I struggled even though I had the camera on a tripod. Did I mention that technique counts? However, this is also an area where having more expensive, faster glass also counts. There is no question that for me, this lens is a compromise. I don’t do lots of wildlife or fast moving dog photography (think FastCAT) events and I cannot justify the expense on a faster lens. What I need is closer to $14,000 – and if the bookings and income are there, I will consider it..but I am a firm believer of staying within my budget and I am not buying glass for the exception to the rule.
Grizzly 399 Image
2. Super Sharp when used within its limits
At many focal lengths (especially middle zones like ~200-600mm), and with good light, the 200-800 performs impressively. I will even go so far as to say I am really really pleased. I have several landscape images that I have taken with this lens that just make me really happy – images that I never could have taken with a narrower setup.
One of my favorite compositions from the trip to South Dakota’s Badland’s this year was taken with this lens. This was taken with my 200-800 on a tripod on my way back to my camp site. For folks who are interested, yes, I ran both noise reduction and sharpening on it. The image is NOT perfect, but for what it is…it is amazing. Did I mention that this image is uncropped?
Badlands Image
As I mentioned above, this lens definitely struggles in low light – not because it is actually struggling. i.e. the lens functions exactly as it was designed. It struggles because its design limitations come up against the limitations of the camera and sensor that it is paired to.
Yellowstone 2025 Photo
3. Value vs alternatives
Compared to using a prime lens or a shorter zoom plus extenders, this lens is just super accessible and the right price point. I looked long and hard at the 100-500 lens, which has the coveted “L” designation that the 200-800 does not. It boasts a slightly faster aperture and dual motors for focus. In today’s market, the 100-500 is selling for $2700 – about a 30% markup over the 200-800. For me, the reach of the 200-800 is just better, and for the slight difference in focus speed, I just felt that the 100-500 was just too limited...given the need for extenders to get the reach of the 200-800. Canon also sells a 600mm and 800mm fixed RF lens that I definitely considered – but while they are long, they are really (really) slow at F11. They are priced right though at under $1,100 each for each of these primes.
Unfortunately, the lenses you REALLY want are thousands of dollars more expensive. For example the RF 800 F5.6 sells upwards of $18,000 at B&H. The 600 F4 is a more modest $14,000. I think that if money was no object, I would probably pick up a 600 F4 and add a 1.4 Teleconverter for when I need the extra reach. I know I have been on a 'no tele-extenders' kick through much of this article, but every tool has a time and place. Canon allegedly has a 200-500L lens in the pipeline – I am sure that will also be grossly expensive…but if you have the scratch and can justify the expense, could you also buy one for me???? But you can see though, there is really no perfect option for all situations, unless you are so well heeled that you really can have the right lens for each situation.
Wolf Photo
4. Image stabilization
So…Canon claims that it has 5 ½ stops of image stabilization…which combined with the camera’s in-body stabilization that comes out to 7 ½ stops at the wide end (200mm). The additional benefit then decreases the further the lens is zoomed out - back to 5.5 stops at 800mm. In theory, that should help make up some of the difference in light gathering need in order to get sharper images at lower than recommended shutter speeds, but that is just a one way street. i.e Image Stabilization only helps you on the camera side of an image. If you are photographing a moving object (like a bird or bear or a wolf) the Image Stabilization means nothing and you really need to be shooting the right conditions for your subject matter.
Sad to say, I have always felt that Image Stabilization was the most over sold feature on a lens - but I could be wrong – and I never argue with success. Having said that, and yes, this is a bit of a brag - I know that I can walk into most scenarios with some colleagues and leave the situation with far more winners (usually taken with less expensive gear) than my comrades because my fundamentals are solid. While yes, the answer is “all of the above,” use every advantage you can, if you have only some much money and need glass with a certain reach….get the non IS lens and use a proper tripod.
Yellowstone 2024 Image of creek at sunrise waiting for wolves
5. Size, weight, handling
This is definitely not a tiny lens – in fact, it is as long as the entirety of my backpack. However, for those of us who come from large and heavy F2.8 telephoto lenses, it really isn’t THAT heavy - I will even go so far as to call it svelte!! The 200-800 comes in at about 4.5 pounds. As a comparison, my Sigma 120-300 F2.8 was over 7 pounds. That is pretty significant difference in weight. While I would not want to be hand holding this lens in low light (again, I never argue with other people’s success), I believe that it is hand holdable – particularly when the lens is not fully extended.
6. Durability
I have had zero problems with this lens. I have used it in a variety of conditions from low light and in rain. Having said that, I have read multiple reports on other websites (including Canon Rumors) that indicate that the 200-800 can actually split in two between the extending elements.
One Last Image
What to do to get the best from it:
[*]Use a fast shutter speed at longer focal lengths to combat shake. Remember the rule of 1/(focal length) as a a good starting point (with crop, etc.), so at 800mm that means pretty fast speeds, especially handheld Stabilization + support: Use a monopod or tripod when possible – or leaning against something for support. Good light: early morning / golden hour — when the light isn’t harsh and there’s enough to keep noise low even when aperture narrows Raise ISO intelligently and accept some trade off — modern sensors handle high ISO much better, and raw processing helps. I will even go so far to say that sensor noise is almost irrelevant at lower ISOs and even as far as ISO 3200 and 6400 (though dynamic range definitely takes a hit). The most important thing to do is to get the image sharp, everything else can be worked with. Keep subject distance in mind — atmospherics (heat haze, air clarity) matter more when subjects are far away, especially at max zoom.
Verdict — is it “worth it”?
In field terms: ABSOLUTELY YES, if you understand its limitations and align them with what and how you do your work. This lens is not a magic cure for every telephoto problem (fast action in low light, tight indoor work, etc.), but it extends the creative reach for many photographers in a way few zooms can. For someone wanting long reach, good sharpness, and acceptable trade-offs, this lens is a strong option. If your work lends itself to needing the fastest shutter speeds in low light, and you have the money to spend, you may have to consider more expensive alternatives.
