RF 200-800 f/6.3-9 IS

[Kayaker72]

I thought I would also start a new thread for this lens. This is the second RF lens I picked up. I have had it for a bit over a week. For a <$2,000 lens, I am very impressed. There is much debate as to if this or the RF 100-500 +TC is the best way to get reach. But, setting that aside, there is no doubt in my mind this is a very capable lens.

Bryan's review is here.

Some of my pictures from the last week:

537A1266 by kayaker72, on Flickr

Denoise (20) applied.
537A1266 by kayaker72, on Flickr


537A1444 by kayaker72, on Flickr

537A2034-Enhanced-NR by kayaker72, on Flickr

537A2827 by kayaker72, on Flickr

537A3082 by kayaker72, on Flickr

537A3085 by kayaker72, on Flickr

537A3327 by kayaker72, on Flickr

Biggest issue is AF hit rate in low light (less than EV 13). So, this lens needs light. But, if you have light, I am pleased with the results.

[DavidEccleston]

Brant, I can see from the EXIF on Flickr you're using lightroom. Try the AI noise reduction on that first shot and prepare to be amazed at how much detail you can squeeze out of the image.

As for 100-500mm+1.4x vs. this lens... no idea. But as this can ALSO take an extender, if it's reach you're after, this one gets more of it. Provided it's not overly soft, that should mean 200-800 wins. Especially if the extender works over the full range, not just 300-500. Being able to zoom out to 280mm instead of 420mm should make finding things far easier.

[Kayaker72]

Thanks Dave...

I do occasionally use the Denoise feature. I am usually 15-20, just to have a lighter touch. I left the original and added the replacement above so people can see the difference. One thing I noticed, as I didn't adjust the crop, but it seems like the AI denoise did. AI...already messing with things....

[Kayaker72]

Two more heavily cropped images, taken at 672 mm. But, these are cropped down to ~3 MP, denoise applied.

537A3523 by kayaker72, on Flickr

537A3526 by kayaker72, on Flickr