Welcome to /c/birding, a community for people who like birds, birdwatching and birding in general! Feel free to post your birding photos or just photos of birds you found in general, but please follow the rules as outlined below.
This should go without saying, but please be nice to one another. No petty insults, no bigotry, no harassment, hate speech,nothing of that sort! Depending on the severity, you'll either only get your comment removed and a warning or your comment will be removed and you will be banned from /c/birding.
This is a community for posting content of birds, nothing else. Please keep the posts related to birding or birds in general.
When posting photos or videos that you did not take, please always credit the original photographer! Link to the original post on social media as well, if there is one.
Absolutely no AI-generated content is allowed! I know it has become quite difficult to tell whether or not something is AI-generated or not, but please make sure that whatever you post is not AI-generated. If it is, your post will be removed. If you continously post AI-generated content, you'll be banned from /c/birding (but it's obviously okay if you post AI-generated stuff once or twice without knowing you did so).
Please provide rough information location, if possible. This is a more loosely-enforced rule, especially because it is sometimes not possible to provide a location. But if you post a photo you took yourself, please provide a rough location and date of the sighting.
Delighted to see them back in the park. While not really a native bird, they are a long time introduction from Asia, and these are "wild". Prospect Park, Reading, UK
Canon R5 Mk II + RF200-800mm
Bonus female, also showing a failure to correct for depth of field
I really want that lens. I can't justify $1900 on it at the moment, though.
Stupid economy.
Great pictures, though!
It's a distinctly mad lens - heavy, so can be a challenge to use hand-held, and ironically the long focal length also means it's hard to find the target you want a photo of.
But when it works (and more importantly, I "work"), it really works.
I'd recommend looking at the RF600mm lens - a lot cheaper, a lot easier to use, but just not quite the same "reach": I enjoyed it for some years till I graduated to this one.
Fixed focal length and a fixed aperture. Yow. I've never used a fixed lens that long.
The F11 aperture is just the minimum, the camera will happily go to higher F numbers. The RF200-800mm is shown as a variable aperture because its minimum F6.3 at 200mm, F9 at 800mm. You can't do the F6.3 at 800mm, much as sometimes it would be nice.
The RF600mm has a listed minimum focal length of 4.5m, the other 0.8m with 200mm FL.
The fixed focal length of the 600mm means you've got to be pretty clear what you are planning to photo. HOWEVER, if it's solely wild birds in the wild the chances of getting so close you can't take the photo with that lens are surprisingly small (well, at least in my UK experience). You will have one or two regrets, but the lighter weight and much cheaper price will probably be a consolation. Your problem really comes if while you're out with the 600mm and you see a pretty flower or stunning landscape - then you've either a lens change or a regret.
Oh, both these lens would be a bit odd on a crop-frame camera. They might still work, but you may find targeting really hard due to the effective focal length (huge), and you might run into weight issues if you hold things poorly.
Based on what I've read I believe the above is not the case. According to both Canon themselves and this review, for instance, this lens truly has a fixed aperture. ƒ/11. That's all you get.
This kind of fills me with an inexorable sense of dread. But not quite so much as being a prime that's that long. Even if I spend most of the day with my lens wound out to its maximum, I at least use the shorter settings on the zoom range to track and find my subject with a wider field of view.
Anyway, if I get a photohowitzer as big as the RF200-800 I will surely use it with some manner of tripod or monopod. For around the back yard my current 100-400 is probably quite sufficient.
Maybe I'll win the lottery or something...
On aperture - "Oh!" and "How did I not notice that over years of use?"
Perhaps explained by rarely even wanting to change the aperture from minimum as I was always craving more light in my birding photos - if I had more light than I needed, I'd just up the speed, as that's almost as useful for birds.
If you've already got a 100-400mm the 600mm fixed focal length is probably not going to give you enough "more".
As to "photohowitzer" - all the bird photos I've given on this group are hand-held (if obviously with camera and lens stabilizer functions all on), even those of birds in flight. Tiring to the wrists but doable for a minute or two - and yes, I do wave around a couple of 4kg one-hand dumbbells as part of morning exercise.
Provided we're talking about the same lens, anyhow...
Every once in a while I also get the itch to just get one of the Canon focal length extenders and declare the hell with it. Still haven't been able to justify the cost for one of those, either.