Does The Canon RF 200-800mm f/6.3-9 IS USM Have A Design Weakness?
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
I try hard to be nice to my lenses. The 200-800 on R7 is the best combo I have found for my hummingbird shooting. The 200-800 is very close in sharpness to my EF 800 f/5.6 L with slightly less CA and, oh, so much lighter. It also focuses considerably closer and the zoom is usable as a push-pull, so excellent for finding the subject without a red dot sight. I have dropped two RF lenses - the 800 f/11 and the 24-240. The 800 was unfazed, but I had to send the 24-240 back to Canon for a focus group replacement, and the price was reasonable. There is a trade-off between weight and sturdiness in a complex lens design. The 800 f/11 is a mechanically very simple lens without even an Iris mechanism, so even though it is very light and quite cheap, it is tough.
Upvote
0
There certainly is copy variation. I have compared two copies of the RF 200-800mm. One was noticeably sharper than the other on the R5 at both 500mm and 800mm. The sharper copy is as sharp as the RF 100-500mm at 500mm, or even slightly sharper. It is certainly sharper than the RF 100-500mm + 1.4xTC.
RF 200-800mm vs RF 100-500mm vs RF 800mm on R7 and R5
I went through this in 2020, comparing the RF 100-500mm with the EF 100-400 II, EF 400mm DO II and the Nikon 500mm f/5.6 PF. Basically, the 100-500 was just about as sharp as the Nikon prime, outresolved the DO II (and with the RF IIxTC outresolved the DO II with the EF 2x) and as a bare lens...
www.canonrumors.com
The RF 200-800mm is now my standard walk around lens for birding. However, for travel, I will take the RF 100-500mm, both because it easier to pack and now because it would appear to be more robust.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
josephandrews222
I Shot the Sheriff, but I Did Not Shoot the Deputy
Two things:
(1) Interesting (to me) that this comes up now.
The 200-800 is my 'largest' Canon lens...in terms of volume.
It 'barely' fits into my go-to Manfrotto backpack...after dividers are removed (not ideal). The R5II plus a bit more fits inside as well, but the whole thing is far from perfect, and basically requires me to use an additional shoulder bag. I guess I need to look at yet another backpack.
The EF 100-400II that I own nicely fits into the same pack...with room for other necessaries...and fits so well that I seldom use the very nice Canon padded double-zippered 'bag' that shipped with the L lens.
I was a bit shocked (maybe I shouldn't have been?!) at the price of the Canon lens designed specifically for the 200-800, it does not ship with the lens.
I settled for this one:
BPAULL 0012
The BPaull padded case seems to work, at a price I thought was worth trying.
I own a small piece of (wheeled) luggage that I thought might serve as a 'container' for the 200-800 safely inside the BPaull.
But then I got to thinking. The city streets, sidewalks, curbs and stairways that I would be rolling this suitcase over and around...are anything but smooth.
I had one event to shoot last week, and decided not to employ the suitcase-on-wheels, because I wondered about the effects of vibrations (and worse) that the case will experience as I tug it along for a mile or so, from my car to the venue.
I've sold a few of my images but am NOT a professional photographer, many of whom have wheeled containers for their gear, containers that are used on a daily basis.
Do they worry about the effects of vibrations etc. that I have described here? I know I would, just in terms of the camera bodies!
And might the physical construction of the 200-800 be susceptible to these sorts of vibrations?
(2) Did Canon really push the envelope in terms of making this lens lightweight?
I am reminded of Apple's first attempt to make a thin big-screen iPhone:
www.theverge.com
Some early adopters found that certain usage patterns resulted in a 'bent' iPhone!
=====
The 200-800, on the R5II...produces remarkable images.
(1) Interesting (to me) that this comes up now.
The 200-800 is my 'largest' Canon lens...in terms of volume.
It 'barely' fits into my go-to Manfrotto backpack...after dividers are removed (not ideal). The R5II plus a bit more fits inside as well, but the whole thing is far from perfect, and basically requires me to use an additional shoulder bag. I guess I need to look at yet another backpack.
The EF 100-400II that I own nicely fits into the same pack...with room for other necessaries...and fits so well that I seldom use the very nice Canon padded double-zippered 'bag' that shipped with the L lens.
I was a bit shocked (maybe I shouldn't have been?!) at the price of the Canon lens designed specifically for the 200-800, it does not ship with the lens.
I settled for this one:
BPAULL 0012
The BPaull padded case seems to work, at a price I thought was worth trying.
I own a small piece of (wheeled) luggage that I thought might serve as a 'container' for the 200-800 safely inside the BPaull.
But then I got to thinking. The city streets, sidewalks, curbs and stairways that I would be rolling this suitcase over and around...are anything but smooth.
I had one event to shoot last week, and decided not to employ the suitcase-on-wheels, because I wondered about the effects of vibrations (and worse) that the case will experience as I tug it along for a mile or so, from my car to the venue.
I've sold a few of my images but am NOT a professional photographer, many of whom have wheeled containers for their gear, containers that are used on a daily basis.
Do they worry about the effects of vibrations etc. that I have described here? I know I would, just in terms of the camera bodies!
And might the physical construction of the 200-800 be susceptible to these sorts of vibrations?
(2) Did Canon really push the envelope in terms of making this lens lightweight?
I am reminded of Apple's first attempt to make a thin big-screen iPhone:
Internal documents reveal Apple knew the iPhone 6 was more likely to bend than previous models
Turns out #bendgate was real
www.theverge.com
Some early adopters found that certain usage patterns resulted in a 'bent' iPhone!
=====
The 200-800, on the R5II...produces remarkable images.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
It\'s a great lens and I\'m very happy with it for the price. Usually I\'m fairly gentle with my equipment so I\'m not too worried but this is a great reminder to be extra careful.
Upvote
0
My experience with one of each the 100-500 and 200-800 (I have bought both) is:There certainly is copy variation. I have compared two copies of the RF 200-800mm. One was noticeably sharper than the other on the R5 at both 500mm and 800mm. The sharper copy is as sharp as the RF 100-500mm at 500mm, or even slightly sharper. It is certainly sharper than the RF 100-500mm + 1.4xTC.
RF 200-800mm vs RF 100-500mm vs RF 800mm on R7 and R5
I went through this in 2020, comparing the RF 100-500mm with the EF 100-400 II, EF 400mm DO II and the Nikon 500mm f/5.6 PF. Basically, the 100-500 was just about as sharp as the Nikon prime, outresolved the DO II (and with the RF IIxTC outresolved the DO II with the EF 2x) and as a bare lens...
The RF 200-800mm is now my standard walk around lens for birding. However, for travel, I will take the RF 100-500mm, both because it easier to pack and now because it would appear to be more robust.
- the naked 100-500 is sharper than the naked 200-800 in the overlapping range
- the naked 200-800 is sharper than the 100-500 + 1.4x .... but I hate extenders so I may be biased
- for hiking / traveling the 100-500 wins because of weight, size and versatility (better at macro) and it's a bit faster
- if I need more than 500m then I get the 200-800
- I haven't subjected the 200-800 to much abuse, but it feels solid like the 100-500 (albeit partly may be because of the heft)
Upvote
0
Upon reviewing the provided photos, there appears to be substantial and unusual wear. All along the top, it seems that paint is worn off. You can see a thin silver band where there should be paint, like the rest of the lens. Perhaps the photographer was often pressing this against a tree, rock, or building for stability, and it put a lot of pressure on the extended lens barrel. It might also be possible to torque the zoom in or out too hard, given the large zoom ring. That might stress that particular part of the lens.
And what's the deal with people being so proud of trashing their camera equipment? Carpenters treat their tools with care, and they are made of wood and steel. Cameras and lenses are complex electronics. Be a little kind to them and they will treat you well.
ban
And what's the deal with people being so proud of trashing their camera equipment? Carpenters treat their tools with care, and they are made of wood and steel. Cameras and lenses are complex electronics. Be a little kind to them and they will treat you well.
ban
Upvote
0
My wife has the 200-800. We sold her 100-500 to purchase it. She's never looked back with any regret, despite the additional size. She's also the clumsiest person I know. I am shocked she isn't one of the people with a broken lens. Generally, I'd say if this woman carried around that lens for more than a year and it survived, it must be a pretty tough lens. I wonder if that plastic part joining the halves had a bad batch. Plastics need specific curing.
Upvote
0
Canon 200–800 is a much better lens than the Sigma 150–600.
I have both so I know. Probably this Design flaw occurs really rarely, seems currently only a few occurrences are recorded. We’ll see.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I would argue that ALL Canon lenses have an easy to fix design flaw - they lack an ARCA-SWISS compatible mounting plate. Ditto Sony/Konica/Minolta and Nikon.
Upvote
0
I keep wondering how much more expensive a metal assembly flange would have been.
We all know such a lens must be able to take some abuse (safaris, for instance).
Sorry, but for me this is poor engineering, unless only a small batch is affected.
Most lenses made by Canon are extremely well designed mechanically, as often stated by Roger Cicala. What went wrong here?
We all know such a lens must be able to take some abuse (safaris, for instance).
Sorry, but for me this is poor engineering, unless only a small batch is affected.
Most lenses made by Canon are extremely well designed mechanically, as often stated by Roger Cicala. What went wrong here?
Upvote
0
Good to know and I'll try to be extra careful and it's a bit worrying for sure but I'm insured and when I dropped my R6ii in the sea it was replaced and when I dropped my 7Dii with my EF 100-400ii attached they replaced my broken lens so I guess either Canon will replace it if I break it under the 5 Year Warranty they have in New Zealand or my insurance company will so I'll carry on enjoying the best telephoto I've ever owned.
Be interested to know how many of these lenses are out there: 10,000 20,000 maybe 50,000 ?
Be interested to know how many of these lenses are out there: 10,000 20,000 maybe 50,000 ?
Upvote
0
Some early users of the 100-500 had the issue of the tripod ring falling off, because the screw did not properly attach itself when screwed in. AFAIR it was not all user error, as some reported a replacement ring solved the issue.
Mine never had anything, and I've banged it around plenty.
Upvote
0
Thanks, Paul, for doing this analysis. Indeed, this could be one point to get to an answer to this problem.
It depends on the individual situation when the lens broke.
So, when you hit the window frame of the rover during a safari on a bumpy road, I would have recommended a soft enough beans bag or to not shooting while driving, if you cannot handle your lens properly. Agreed.
But if you store the lens in your cushioned camera backpack, and it breaks because of the shaking when you ride on the back of the snow mobile, then I wouldn't accuse the photographer.
Would you accuse the carpenter when his awl breaks into pieces that he carefully stored before in his tool bag?
(disclaimer: I have no detailed information, how the lens was stored in the backpack)
So it really depends, and to me this sounds a little bit more like the cause is more on the design side.
Upvote
0
Don't think so, metal doesn't easily break like this plastic element did. The 2 halves of the 200-800 are joined via plastic (or name them high quality polymers...), I cannot imagine metal breaking here. Otherwise, plastics are often the better choice for lens mount parts.
I remember the Leica R winders and motor drives. Screws were screwed in place in brittle plastic, despite the exaggerated price. None lasted me longer than 1-2 years. In the end, I was scr...d...
And yes, I can confirm, the EF 100-400 L II is an extremely solid lens and the 100-500 seems to be as well made.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Similar threads
