RF 600mm f/4 L IS USM

The new lens arrived today.

Reading all the reviews I knew that the weight had shifted to the back of the lens changing the balance.
This IMO is a huge change, it is easier to hand hold than the EF 500mm F/4 II which is about the same weight.
My opinion for my use this makes it worth the upgrade.

I knew they had done away with the carrying case, but they really missed an opportunity with the new soft case.
An extra few inches to accommodate a body on the lens would have made it much more useful.

My office has the new big prime smell now, interesting odor but enjoying it while it lasts. For those that have never had one, especially new they put off an interesting smell.

Just a point is that the RF lens is the EF 600mm III with a built in adapter.
Looking at the IQ charts Bryan did the EF 600mm II was sharper than the new EF 600mm III.
Looking at the RF 600mm vs the EF 600mm II that difference isn't really noticeable, granted you have just a few MP less. Perhaps there is improvement and balance with the new R5, or the EF 600mm III when it was released had the R bodies in mind.

RF Comparison
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/...mp=0&APIComp=0

EF 600 II vs III
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/...mp=0&APIComp=0

EF 600 III vs RF 600
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/...mp=0&APIComp=0

As always I worry about such things but shouldn't
Tomorrow I will be comparing the 500mm II to the RF 600mm.
I am optimistic that the new RF 600 should be stellar.

Congratulations Rick!

I hadn't picked up on it, but you are right, there is definitely something better about Bryan's tests with the RF compared to the EF 600 III. It doesn't seem to be as simple as adding a built in adapter.

And, the RF version seems better, just look at with the 2x TC.

Looking forward to your impressions.

I just finished checking it out and am ready to find something to use it on. Here is my impression.

My cave man version of checking IQ is to set up a printed target, checked the 500mm at 15 feet and 18 feet for the 600mm. There is no noticeable difference for the average laymen between the two lens when it comes to IQ. There is no reason to buy this lens if you are trying to get better IQ only.

I have checked the IS, it is makes no noise at all. I started wondering if it even works. I checked by turning it on and off hand held and it does work. I am hearing no clicking or whirling noises. If this is normal it is not as noisy as the older versions.

Unlike the other RF lenses I recently bought, the 24x70, 70x200 and 100x500 I had said and think the upgrade is very marginal. I do not think it is true for the 600mm. I am overly impressed by the weight redistribution, reduction and the ability to hand hold.

Edit: And the carrying case is a miss for Canon. A few dollars more put into the bag could have made it useful. As it is I still need a bag to carry it with camera on.

Autofocus speed? Function with1.4 or 2.0 TC.

When I ponder a 600 other than the occasional lion or bear, most times focus speed is going to be important.

With lions and bears I am thinking TC function may be important :) and tigers. Oh my! :)

Any findings on these items?

Thanks.

Mike

@HD

Congrats! That is a seriously awesome lens. I have debated between the minor IQ loss compared to the II and the weight savings of the Mark-III/RF version before. But both are simply excellent and among the best 600mm available. And seems by your testing you are quite happy with it.

But yes, I agree with Kayaker. It is definitely better the RF version based on Bryan's crops. Which is strange to me since I thought that both are optically the same? Just a different mount.

Not sure, someone smarter than me might be able to chime in.:)

Just spending some time at a local park birding as we speak. Beautiful day here in the PNW, life is good.:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busted Knuckles

Autofocus speed? Function with1.4 or 2.0 TC.

When I ponder a 600 other than the occasional lion or bear, most times focus speed is going to be important.

With lions and bears I am thinking TC function may be important :) and tigers. Oh my! :)

Any findings on these items?

Thanks.

Mike

---

There has always been a speed penalty with the old versions of the TC and the big whites.
I will bet this lens is the same.
Regardless I have them in the B&H basket to order later tonight.

The TCs are different optical formula. Post vs pre adapter

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busted Knuckles

The TCs are different optical formula. Post vs pre adapter

---

As Brant pointed out the 1200mm RF 2x is is much better that the EF 1200 EF 2x III.

If Canon holds true to form I bet the performance (including speed) is equal or better with the new than it was with the old.

One thing that concerned me was the lack of noise from the IS system. Bryans review said there is an audible click and noise that you can hear. I haven't been able to hear it at all, even with my ear against the barrel. So I keep retesting it. I saw a video on the internet where the reviewer was talking about shooting at a shutter speed of 1/6 hand held and could read the print on the target. I gave it a try on the wife's shampoo and sure enough hand held I could read the print with IS, and no go without. I wonder if this one point is a carry over from the EF III review that didn't get updated.

1/6th of a sec? :)

Nothing like 7-8 stops of IS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HDNitehawk

My cave man version of checking IQ is to set up a printed target, checked the 500mm at 15 feet and 18 feet for the 600mm. There is no noticeable difference for the average laymen between the two lens when it comes to IQ. There is no reason to buy this lens if you are trying to get better IQ only.

---

Good to hear. But also good to hear that the ergonomic changes may be worth it. As crazy as it is, I often handhold the 500 II. Someday having that be easier would be welcome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HDNitehawk

Edit: And the carrying case is a miss for Canon. A few dollars more put into the bag could have made it useful. As it is I still need a bag to carry it with camera on.

---

I use the Mindshift Firstlight 40L. Bryan did a review here. I very much like the bag, but do not love it. It is basically a large padded cube that can fit 500 or 600 mm lenses. But, I tend to use the cubed area. All the side pouches have limited use. There is zero padding in the computer sleeve, so I have never used it except to store a rain jacket. I also wish the belt was removable.

All that said, never had an issue at an airport. Fits easily in the overhead bins. And it is comfortable.

Congrats on the lens!

RE extender performance, I tested the EF MkIII and the RF extenders head to head on my EF 600/4 II.

https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/th...l-is-ii.41215/

I found the 1.4x versions functionally equivalent. For the 2x, in my hands the EF III was sharper than the RF. The RF 2x was actually similar to the two 1.4x TCs stacked. The RF also added noticeable barrel distortion.

For bags, I use a LowePro Lens Trekker 600 AW II (there’s now a vIII, I don’t know what changed). It does a great job, it’s basically dedicated to the 600/4 with no space inside for other lenses, but there is sufficient space for the mounted 2x TC + 1D X. A tripod attaches to one side, the attachment is robust enough for my RRS TVC-33. There are strap attachment points for LowePro’s lens cases on the sides as well. The only one I usually use is the Lens Case 1N, which they unfortunately discontinued a long time back, when they switched from their relative size numbering with a letter suffix (like 1N) to the metric measurements (e.g., Lens Case 11x14). In that transition several sizes were lost, notably the 1W which is perfect for many ‘standard-sized’ lenses with a hood reversed, like the 24-105/4, 16-35/2.8 or /4, TS-E 17 or 24, etc. Also lost was the 1N, which was designed specifically to hold both the 1.4x and 2x TCs, and even came with a little padded disc to go between them.

Enjoy the new lens!!

So looking at your tests, it's bizarre that the EF 2x III is better, but Bryan's crops show the RF 2X having a clear advantage.

My only explanation is the RF extender is optimized for the RF 600mm. Which if I am correct is optically the same as the III. And since you were testing it on the EF 600mm f/4 II. Maybe that is the reason for the discrepancy between your results and Bryan's results.

But even then it hardly makes a lot of sense since the 600mm II is actually a touch sharper than the 600mm III.

There possibly could be some sample variation in the mix as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fast Glass

But even then it hardly makes a lot of sense since the 600mm II is actually a touch sharper than the 600mm III.

There possibly could be some sample variation in the mix as well.

---

Copy variation?


I ordered the RF 1.4 and RF 2x extenders last night.
Also ordered LensCoat in RealTree, wasn't able to get the Hoodie though.
Went with the Lowepro Lens Trekker 600 AW III, I would have went with the Tamrac version but apparently they do not make their Expedition 9 anymore and the version they had for big lenses were not in stock.
I am set.

@HD

Yup, copy variation. Sample variation. We talking about the same thing.

That's awesome, I would definitely say you are set!

Gonna do some testing with the 1Dx III, R5, possibly R3, 200mm f/2.0, 300mm f/2.8 IS II, 300mm f/2.8 IS, 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II. And all my existing bodies, 1DS III, 1D III and my old 60D, just for kicks.

I want to see which is the right body for me. And most importantly which one has the best AF. I have some of Canon's best auto focusing lenses and gonna give them a through run down with an 35 year experienced, and very good friend, photographer. I never seen a really good vid comparing the 1Dx III and a R3 or even R5. So I want to put them through their paces, and see which one has the best AF. I suspect the R3 will be a fantastic all arounder. But will it, or can it, out pace the AF of the 1Dx III. That I want to find out.

And I think I might do a video on my findings and get something like the Atamos screen recorder. So I can get some in view finder footage as well. Along with sifting through all the images.

Fun times playing with 25k worth of gear!!!!!

Copy variation definitely occurs, it’s more common in consumer lenses than L series lenses, but certainly occurs in the latter. For example, check out Bryan’s review of the EF 24-70/2.8L II. He ended up testing four copies of that lens because the first two did not perform well. When I was reviewing the EF-M 18-150 for TDP, my results differed substantially from Bryan‘s posted ISO 12233 chart images. He ordered another copy and tested it, found it was significantly better, and replaced those images in the tool.

I did test my RF 1.4x and 2x with the RF 100-500, and the results were as expected, so I don’t think there’s an issue with my RF 2x. In real world shooting, I’m not sure those differences would be evident anyway. But I do definitely recommend testing a new lens when you get it.

Indeed. I have seen sample variation in lenses I have owned as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

Copy variation definitely occurs, it’s more common in consumer lenses than L series lenses, but certainly occurs in the latter. For example, check out Bryan’s review of the EF 24-70/2.8L II. He ended up testing four copies of that lens because the first two did not perform well. When I was reviewing the EF-M 18-150 for TDP, my results differed substantially from Bryan‘s posted ISO 12233 chart images. He ordered another copy and tested it, found it was significantly better, and replaced those images in the tool.

I did test my RF 1.4x and 2x with the RF 100-500, and the results were as expected, so I don’t think there’s an issue with my RF 2x. In real world shooting, I’m not sure those differences would be evident anyway. But I do definitely recommend testing a new lens when you get it.

---

I went through multiple copies of the EF 24-70 f2.8 II before I found a pristine one. Big primes I think are held to higher level of Quality Control.

The discussion about the RF 2x I think started with Brant.
It wasn't a problem with the RF 2x, it appears to perform better than the EF 600mm III version with a 2x.

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/...mp=2&APIComp=2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HDNitehawk

It wasn't a problem with the RF 2x, it appears to perform better than the EF 600mm III version with a 2x.

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/...mp=2&APIComp=2

---

The difference is that Bryan's comparison is using different cameras with (slightly) different resolutions and different OLPFs (the 5DsR has a 'self-canceling' AA filter, the R5 has an AA filter (not sure if it's the newer design used on the 1D X III that has four layers instead of two), and Canon's DPP sharpens up AA filtered images very well.

When I compared the EF 2xIII with the RF 2x, I found the former to be sharper when using the same lens on the same R3 camera, with identical processing – pretty much the most apples-to-apples comparison possible, for the given sensor resolution (which is significantly lower than the 45-50 MP of the 5DsR/R5).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

The difference is that Bryan's comparison is using different cameras with (slightly) different resolutions and different OLPFs (the 5DsR has a 'self-canceling' AA filter, the R5 has an AA filter (not sure if it's the newer design used on the 1D X III that has four layers instead of two), and Canon's DPP sharpens up AA filtered images very well.

When I compared the EF 2xIII with the RF 2x, I found the former to be sharper when using the same lens on the same R3 camera, with identical processing – pretty much the most apples-to-apples comparison possible, for the given sensor resolution (which is significantly lower than the 45-50 MP of the 5DsR/R5).

---

Many variables at play. If I understand your testing you are using EF lenses.
It sounds like you have a fair comparison of an EF lens with both adapters.

The question I see raised, does the RF adapter play better with the RF lenses. I doubt it does, I think some of the EF 600mm III comparisons were because of a weak lens.

To your first point, if the EF 600mm III had been tested with a R5, and the RF 600 tested with a RF it might be a very comparable test.

Looking at Bryans test the EF 600mm II vs the RF 600mm with 2x the center is better on the EF and the Periphery on the RF.
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/...mp=2&APIComp=0
Then the difference between the RF 600mm and the EF 600mm II.
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/...mp=2&APIComp=0

Looking at all the charts it appears that there might be an issue with the EF 600mm III tested. If it is a soft lens the 2x would magnify the softness.

My RF extenders show up tomorrow, it might be interesting to see how the RF 600mm stacks up against the EF 500mm II at the same and equal framing distances.

My testing was with just one lens, the EF 600/4L IS II. I was going to write that I've offloaded all my EF lenses that take a TC so that is my only option, but upon reflection while that would be technically true since TS-E lenses aren't EF, I could actually repeat the test of EF vs RF extenders alone and combined with my TS-E 24L II, a wickedly sharp lens.

Could be that Bryan got a suboptimal copy of the 600 III.

Will be interesting to see what you learn!

I just looked at the teleconverters and they appeared to be the same optical formula just with a modified external caller that adjust for flange distance

This looks like a job for the guys at lens rentals :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

My testing was with just one lens, the EF 600/4L IS II. I was going to write that I've offloaded all my EF lenses that take a TC so that is my only option, but upon reflection while that would be technically true since TS-E lenses aren't EF, I could actually repeat the test of EF vs RF extenders alone and combined with my TS-E 24L II, a wickedly sharp lens.

Could be that Bryan got a suboptimal copy of the 600 III.

Will be interesting to see what you learn!

---

The lens checks out with my limited ability.
I printed an 11x17 ISO 12233 chart.
Set up the camera in manual and set locked the settings in identical, wide open at 300 shutter speed and let Auto ISO adjust exposure.
Basically I was shooting for an equal comparison at equal settings.
I set them up at 20' and 24' for equal framing.
Shot three sets of pictures with both lenses native, 1.4x and 2x.

Here is what I found:

The bare lens 500mm was just slightly sharper in the center, but the 600 mm was sharper in the corners. From all the reviews I expected this.

With the 1.4x the 600mm was just slightly sharper all around. This was surprising.

At 2x the ISO's were getting high. The 500mm 2x shot was at an 8000 ISO and wasn't bad.
However the 600mm at a 6000 ISO was a mess. I brought in a lamp from the garage and reshot it at 1000 ISO, that shot was comparable but the 500mm was still sharper. Looking at Bryans charts I think the comparison I have is the same. I am debating on whether to return the 2x or not. Its use would be limited.



Overall I think I have a good copy. It needs to warm up outside so I can put it to use.

Very interesting. I have been GAS defying a super tele f4. But I am getting weak....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HDNitehawk

The lens checks out with my limited ability.
I printed an 11x17 ISO 12233 chart.
Set up the camera in manual and set locked the settings in identical, wide open at 300 shutter speed and let Auto ISO adjust exposure.
Basically I was shooting for an equal comparison at equal settings.
I set them up at 20' and 24' for equal framing.
Shot three sets of pictures with both lenses native, 1.4x and 2x.

Here is what I found:

The bare lens 500mm was just slightly sharper in the center, but the 600 mm was sharper in the corners. From all the reviews I expected this.

With the 1.4x the 600mm was just slightly sharper all around. This was surprising.

At 2x the ISO's were getting high. The 500mm 2x shot was at an 8000 ISO and wasn't bad.
However the 600mm at a 6000 ISO was a mess. I brought in a lamp from the garage and reshot it at 1000 ISO, that shot was comparable but the 500mm was still sharper. Looking at Bryans charts I think the comparison I have is the same. I am debating on whether to return the 2x or not. Its use would be limited.



Overall I think I have a good copy. It needs to warm up outside so I can put it to use.

---