Canon RF 800mm F/11 Lens - Does anyone like it?

[mglotspeich]

Hi all,

Thanks to Marc I have purchased the RF 100-400mm lens. I also purchased the RF 1.4x extender and it works so very well with this lens. I know that most people will recommend to get the 200-800mm lens to achieve 800mm focal length. However that is beyond my budget and the lighter lens of the 800mm F/11 appeals to me. I am concerned about the image quality with this lens. I know the restrictions of the F/11 aperture, but can anyone give me "first hand" experience while working with this lens? I am using the R6 Mark II. My intentions are to shoot birds and moon shots. Thanks in advance!

Mike

[March411]

Wow Mike, you are jumping in with both feet, already adding to that growing lens stable.

Wish I could offer some assistance but I've only used one very briefly. Produced some nice images and it was lighter then I expected. 

[mglotspeich]

Hi Marc! This might be a Christmas present. 😂

[kvbarkley]

Here is Ken Rockwell's take, with sample pictures.

https://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/lenses/800mm.htm

[ebiggs1 · Accepted solution]

"My intentions are to shoot birds and moon shots."

Your best option is the Canon RF 200-800mm f/6.3-9 IS USM Lens. 

"However that is beyond my budget ..."

Sometimes the seemingly more expensive option at first works out to be the cheapest way to go as you are now finding out. If you had bought or saved a while for and bought the Canon RF 200-800mm f/6.3-9 IS USM Lens first you would not be back wanting to know if the RF 800mm f11 is a good lens. A 100-400mm with a 1.4x tel-con is still not 800mm at only 640mm. If 800mm FL is needed or wanted, a true 800mm native FL is always preferable to a tel.con.

My recommendation is to now stop the lose and either wait for, or save for, and buy the Canon RF 200-800mm f/6.3-9 IS USM Lens. IMHO, I would sell the RF 100-400mm if it would help to and make buying the RF 200-800mm f/6.3-9 IS USM a quicker reality. Again, IMHO, I had two different versions of the 100-400mm (the EF versions) and I didn't care for either of them both got sold on. Not that they are bad lenses they weren't but they are simply not good birder lenses at least there is better.

[mglotspeich]

Thanks EB for your response! Do you own the 200-800? If so what camera are you using? Do you think that at 800mm the 200-800 will produce sharper images than the prime 800 f/11?

The positives I see if I purchase the 200-800 over the 800.

• 2/3 f-stop advantage ( not sure if this makes a difference)
• Being able to close focus at 10 ft instead of 20 ft (nicer bokeh)
• Weather resistant
• Expanded A/F area
• Comes with a lens hood

BTW I would never sell my RF 100-400 as it is nice and compact and can be used on vacations with my wife. Plus it takes wonderful images!

[ebiggs1]

I do not. I have the Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Sports Lens. I use it one a 1DX and a 1D Mk IV.
I hounded Canon to the point of being a pest to make a 150-600mm. They did not see fit to do so. However, when they came out with the R series they did and they did it one better by making it a 200mm instead of a 150mm on the small end. The fact is nobody buys a super tele zoom to use the short end. You will be at the longer side 90% of the time. Being in the business as long as I have you make a lot of photography friends. I know a couple who own the Canon RF 200-800mm f/6.3-9 IS USM Lens. 

"2/3 f-stop advantage ( not sure if this makes a difference)"

It doesn't but that is only at 800mm it is a tad bit fast at shorter FL. The other four things you list as positives are user choices.

"I would never sell my RF 100-400 as it is nice and compact and can be used on vacations with my wife."

We are all different. The 100-400mm is a zoom I tried to love to the point of buying one twice. It's just not a good FL option because it is always too long when you want a short FL and not long enough when you want a tele. 

"Plus it takes wonderful images!"

Don't they all.