NOOOO!!!! The 200mm f/2.0 is discontinued!!!!!

[Joel Eade]

Too funny.

It may not pay, but it helped keep my sanity during the pandemic.

Plus, hobbies are expensive. Things more expensive than a 600 mm lens.....hmmmm: Harley Davidson Low Rider; pair of jet skis; fishing boat & trailer (never mind the truck needed to pull the trailer); ok..how about that truck to pull the trailer....

After that, your 200 f/2 or 600 f/4 seems downright affordable!!

Totally agree here .... one thing the spouse did veto was the Harley! Not due to cost but more safety concerns.

[Fast Glass]

On the subject of big white image quality, I am surprised on two counts. The 800mm f/5.6 holds its own compared to the 600mm f/4 II and the 600mm f/4 III. And the mark III's IQ is not really an upgrade, depending on how much CA annoys you. God it must have been years since I've looked at these super telephoto charts.

I have found the III overall somewhat less sharp in many areas depending on which extender you use, but with less red and magenta CA. But it has this weird blueish/low contrast hue with extenders. Especially compared to the II and the 800mm. It probably would not be as noticeable in the real world because pics are not usually black and white lines. But you are not really gaining IQ with the III lens as a whole and defiantly loosing some with extenders.

Now I am not much of a pixel peeper, so if weight, IS, balance, and AF are important to me the mark III lenses are the one to get. But at this price point, even though I am not the pickiest person around, is kinda disappointing they couldn't at least keep the contrast up.

Makes me feel a lot better about the 800mm, even if it looses out on certain modern goodies. Which defiantly makes it a lot more relevant today. Kinda like the 200mm f/2.0, it was an older design but still amazing!

I would love to know why they discontinued it. It truly is a crying shame and I can't image it is because of lack of demand, relative to the almost certainly low production numbers to begin with. That lens was amazing on every level.

[Kayaker72]

On the subject of big white image quality, I am surprised on two counts. The 800mm f/5.6 holds its own compared to the 600mm f/4 II and the 600mm f/4 III. And the mark III's IQ is not really an upgrade, depending on how much CA annoys you. God it must have been years since I've looked at these super telephoto charts.

I have found the III overall somewhat less sharp in many areas depending on which extender you use, but with less red and magenta CA. But it has this weird blueish/low contrast hue with extenders. Especially compared to the II and the 800mm. It probably would not be as noticeable in the real world because pics are not usually black and white lines. But you are not really gaining IQ with the III lens as a whole and defiantly loosing some with extenders.

Agreed. If I were to get a 600 right now it would almost certainly be the Mk II and not the Mk III. A lot of that would be for cost savings, but even trying to balance the performance with extenders advantage of the Mk II vs the weight advantage of the Mk III and ignore the price point difference, I might still go with the Mk II. Granted, I personally hand hold almost all my shots (even with the 500 f/4) but at 600/840/1200, I suspect that would be more of tripod mounted lens, thus the weight savings is more about lugging the bag around and at that point, I'll take the extra IQ.

I actually wonder why Canon released the Mk III versions of the 400/600. Part of me thinks it may have just been "me too" products showing the world that they can produce a low weight design similar (better ) to Sony. That or they were manufacturing trial balloons as Canon learned to move elements back toward the camera. And if you think Canon doesn't do that, just look at the entire EF-m system. But somehow they made it through before Canon shut the door on new EF lenses.

I would love to know why they discontinued it. It truly is a crying shame and I can't image it is because of lack of demand, relative to the almost certainly low production numbers to begin with. That lens was amazing on every level.

RF

That is the short answer. The longer answer, Canon does a very good job of producing what will sell and running their business. It could be as revered as the 200 f/2 is by many of us, it wasn't a very profitable lens. But, more, I suspect this tells us than an RF version is coming in the next 12 months and Canon might try to use it to encourage the RF lens conversion. But you have to think production of the EF 200 f/2 ceased awhile (years?) ago if they are running out of stock now. So, there is a plan.

[Joel Eade]

I think the 800mm f/5.6L has always been touted to have stellar sharpness and overall IQ.

The downside is it's size and weight.

The 600mm is not too easy to deal with but the 800 is not hand-holdable for 99% of people and an even bigger challenge to travel with.

I think the 800mm sales really dropped off when the new versions of the 600mm and the teleconverters hit the market.

Most all the reviewers noted the new 600mm plus the 1.4 TC version II or III produced images of equal sharpness to the 800mm. So you get equal performance with less bulk and increased versatility .

I am hoping they bring out an RF 600mm f/4 DO lens!!!

[Fast Glass]

For me, I think the IQ is not as good if you are comparing it to the 800mm, and the 800+1.4. Or even the II with extenders. It would nessarily be a deal breaker, but I feel like at $13,000 plus tax. It should have at least matched the previous gen IQ.

But sometimes IQ is not everything, and of course I would rent any lens like that before committing to purchase.

I don't knock it entirely. But I am used to Canon producing stuff that has NO compromise compared to the previous gen. When you compared the 600 II to the 600. It just simply smashed it out of the park. There was no down side. It was much sharper with and without extenders, better contrast, less CA, it was much lighter, better AF, much better IS, and a more up to date design as a whole.

When you pay as much for the new version, you don't want to roll back on any features.

Now if my shooting style included a lot of hand holding or just simply didn't want to lug around as much weight. Then I would look past the IQ, and it is still by no means bad. Up until you slap the 2x. Then it really start to show some weakness especially in the contrast department.

Overall all, I'm just slightly disappointed in the 600 III IQ. But if/when I have the wifey approval for something like that. I would probably give the III a chance and rent both the 600 III and 800. I want to see in the field, how I use a super telephoto lens, under the circumstances I shoot. How noticeable the IQ is and see how the other benefits affect the overall picture taking process. Because sometimes IQ is not the only factor, maybe the better IS makes up for it depending on shooting style for example.

[Joel Eade]

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/...mp=0&APIComp=2


A little difficult to tell in this comparison due to image size differences but it gives some idea about the 800 vs the 600 with teleconverters

[Fast Glass]

I'm referring to wide open IQ especially at the 1200mm'ish range. There the 600mm III has a definite disadvantage.

As with Bryans awesome review, I rarely ever stop down with a super telephoto lens except for a landscapes in ideal lighting. Otherwise it remains open 99% of the time. But that is just me.

Bare lens IQ is good to know for when you can frame it with a 600mm. But that difference to me is very minimal. I care about bigger differences in IQ and for me that would be with a 600mm III with a 1.4x and 2x. Then it levels the playing field and you can see the 800 having a noticeably better contrast. Because the 800mm, 1200mm focal lengths are very useful to me.

Also, comparing the 600mm f/4 at 5.6 is kinda unfair. You would have have to stop down the 800mm one stop as well if you wanted to look at stopped down IQ.

Yeah I know, if you can manage it you get better IQ. But I don't do much setup birding. I like going out and getting wild birds. They don't always let you get good shots up close. So have being able to get a decent 1120mm with only a 1.4x is huge.

[Joel Eade]

Sounds like the 800/5.6 is the lens for you!

[Kayaker72]

if it is 1200 you are after, I have to agree, starting with the 800 will give better IQ.

If it is 800, I think it is pretty much a push between the 600 II plus 1.4x tc and 800.

But this starts to be why the 600 Mk III seems to fall off compared to the 600 II.

[Fast Glass]

Indeed, that pretty much was my opinion. That the 600 II and 1.4x is not bad. I think the 1200 and 1120 comparison is still not too bad. I'd give the nod to the 800 1.4 combo at that point but still not bad.

600 III, it just enough of sharpness and contrast loss that bugs me. But while I definitely heavily lean towards the 800, I would still give serious thought on the 600 II or III. There are still a bunch of improvements on those lenses. Both are still much better than the orginal 600mm IS anyway and photogs still took great pics with that lens.