… but I just like them so much. I’m particularly pleased both face and claws came out sharp.
Red Kite, Prospect Park, Reading, UK. Canon R5 mk II + RF200-800mm
You must log in or register to comment.
No, please keep posting Kite photos!
Breathtakingly photogenic and distinguished bird! Great shot, thank you! 😍
To totally sidetrack this conversation, I think this may have pushed me off of one side of the fence. I’ve been debating the RF 200-800 and the RF 100-500 for a while and based on your photo I might just take the longer of the two.
I have the 100-400 and sometimes it doesn’t have the range to get enough of the frame on a bird, because the little bastards just do not have the decency to come any closer. Talk about rude.
Yes, I also have the telephoto converter but it really doesn’t give results noticeably better than just cropping the picture and blowing it up. I’m not entirely convinced that bunging it on the back of the 100-500 isn’t just putting pearls before swine.
Observations then:
-
Obviously a very expensive lens for most people
-
I’ve paired it with a good (and expensive) Full-frame body
-
This was in good light - which you can’t rely on (see various of my other posts over the last few months for examples): ISO 320 at 1/1250. I normally expect more round ISO 1000-5000 in my birding shots, and you can tell the difference.
-
A Teleconverter is in effect waveshands doing an optical crop, which, in effect is losing you precious light. If the subject is brightly lit that won’t be a problem, but yes, for more usual lighting, can result in what you say. There’s some optical distortion as well, but I suspect its often not bad.
-
The lens is seriously heavy. I do use it handheld for birds, but can only hold it on target for a couple of minutes, before resting it more comfortably. There again, I’m not strong. But do test out the weight (on a camera) before purchase - I was a little gung ho on this.
-
Do get a hood, not for glare, but to protect against knocks, especially while learning to handle it
Yeah, both lenses are expensive, so I figure anyone committed to obtaining one is ready for that. (I sure am, even though I don’t want to be. I also notice that due to tariffs, or whatever the fuck else, both lenses jumped in MSRP by about $250 a few weeks ago.)
The teleconverters add quite a few cons for not many pros. Not only do you lose a full ƒ-stop of light with the 2x one that I own due to essentially just taking a bite out of the center of the cone of light that would be your field of view, but there’s something like 7 additional lens elements in the damn thing that add their own layer of optical aberration. In the case of the 2x one the loss in sharpness is extremely distinct, to the extent that I’m sure it’s no better than just cropping 50% out of your image and blowing it up in post. I remain unsold on the notion that their optical drawbacks are “not bad.” It seems there’s no such thing as a free lunch, and building a poor man’s 200-800 by slapping the 2x converter on the cheaper 100-400 lens definitely produces a crap result.
I stand corrected on Teleconverters then - a long while ago I was investigating them, and I gathered a “Not too bad” vibe, without much jumping for joy, which left me unconvinced.
Yeah, it’s really kind of a drag. Maybe the 1.4x one is slightly better but I’m not in a big hurry to find out.
Just for completeness, I did have a lot of pleasure birding with the RF600 F11 lens for a few years - no zoom, fixed aperture, but it served me well (and much lighter and so easier to aim). The RF200-800 is only better as a matter of degree (a bit more reach, a bit more light, and occasionally that zoom is useful), rather than a step change improvement. That “degree” does of course mean some shots noticeably change from OK to nice, because bird shots are often on the limits of what a camera can make look good.
Agree on both the weight and ISO fronts. It looks like the 200-800 is 2,050 grams. I use a Tamron 150-500, which weighs in at 1,870 or so grams.
I am vaguely fit in the ‘I worked out nearly 20 years ago and am now a Dad’ kind of way. I can hand hold the lens, and have for the occasional half inning of youth baseball, but I greatly prefer sitting on the ground and using a knee as a makeshift monopod. My personal weight threshold for hand holding seems to be around a kilogram. It’s too bad Sony’s 70-200 2.8 ii plus 2x teleconverter doesn’t hold up to the 150-500 in terms of image quality.
Youth sports tend not to be well shaded, but I still see 1,000+ ISO pretty frequently.
Do get a hood
Does it not come with one?
Weight - sounds like you should do OK, and are used to the challenge, but I’d still recommend trying the lens on a camera in the camera shop first, if you are lucky enough that’s possible. The knee monopod - I know it well from the times I was able to use it! Oh, a factoid - handheld pointing directly upwards to spot goldcrests really emphasises the weight problem.
Hood - I can’t remember - now you mention it, it probably did, as the hood I use is a Canon one, and I’d guess there’s a plenty of cheaper third party options for me to have bought. So change the advice to “Actually use the hood you get, regardless of apparent need due to weather”.
Oh, I wasn’t the person who asked about the lens. I was only chiming in to agree on the weight factor.
And yes, agree on actually using the hood for exactly the reason you said. It’s nice to be able to put the good directly against a something like a chain link fence without having to worry about the front element.
-
Nevar!
I’m learning to draw as a hobby and I’m drawing birds this month. My boyfriend insisted that I post today’s drawing because ‘You turned a cool bird into a psychotic villain.’
Anyway, thank you for the photo!
Oh, Kites can do “Evil Mastermind” looks really well already - even this one is not giving a friendly look! And glad to have provided practice for your new and promising skill.
Gorgeous!
