I had the opportunity to borrow John's (Neuro's) EF 600 II a bit ago for a quick photoshoot. While I didn't get to use it over multiple days, really, what I wanted to get a sense of was size/weight, how handholdable it was, and what it felt to walk around with it on my Blackrapid strap.

My basic impressions are really pretty predictable, but it is nice to have them confirmed:
  • The 500 F4 IS Mk1 was widely considered to be handholdable. Guess what? The 600 f/4 II is about the same weight. It is very much handholdable. I even find the disclaimer of "not for extended periods of time" to be both true and misleading. It is true in that I wouldn't want to handhold it for 10 minutes without a break, but that is true with just about any lens. I easily held it on target for multiple bursts as I followed some cardinals foraging on the ground. Probably ~1 minute. That is all I want, therefore, it is a handholdable lens, IMO.
  • Walking around. Both it and the 500 f/4 II are both so well balanced that walking around with them is pretty easy. I did notice the extra weight and size of the 600 f/4 II cause a bit more movement/sway while walking compared tot he 500 f/4 II, which barely moved. Not a big deal, but the 500 f/4 II was easier to walk around with.
  • Weight. Yep, it is a bit bigger and heavier than the 500 f/4 II. Noticeable, but not unwieldy. It really is only 1.8 lbs heavier than the 500 f4 II. Actually, I think John's reaction was telling as we swapped the 150-600S for the 600 II, his perception was that it was "about" the same weight, when it is 2.35 lbs lighter. None of these lenses are a 70-200 f4 IS. You notice all of them and the balance of the Canon's really helps in the handling.
  • Size. The 600 II is ~2.3" longer w/o the hood and 3.3" longer w/ hood mounted compared to the 500 f/4 II. The diameter of the lens is only 0.14" wider than the 500 f/4 II without the hood, but 0.85" wider (almost 8") with hood. This is actually somewhat significant as carryon luggage is typically limited to 9" depth, and you need a bit of space for the padding/luggage. John did confirm that the max diameter seems to have been measured at the nut, so he can fit the 600 II into his Storm IM2500 (which I also have), that can fit in most overhead bins. But that was without the normal padding of the storm. The 500 f/4 II fit into the Storm with padding and into my Gura Gear Kiboko 22L (tight, but see pic above), which I have barely fit into the overhead bins of smaller airplanes.



With that, I'll continue my general impressions with the same format used for the 400 DO II and 500 f/4 II.

AF Speed:

  • Really fast. Actually, again John's impression is telling, he noted right away how slow the 150-600S was in comparison.



AF Accuracy:



  • Very impressed.



IQ:



  • Excellent.



Portability: True Transport


  • Size: 600 f/4 II: 18x 6.85 inches without hood. 500 f/4 II: 15.3x6.7 inches. Sigma 150-600S: 11.8x4.8 inches. Didn't even try to fit it in my current larger bag (kiboko 22L). I'll be buying the Firstlight 40L for a new large bag.
  • Weight: 600 f/4 II: 8.65 lbs (without hood). 500 f/4 II: 7.5 lbs. 150-600S: 7 lbs.


See above

Usability:



  • For walking around, the 600 f/4 II was great, just a bit more movement and heavier than the 500 f/4 II. But, really, with any of these lenses, I was fine walking around.



With TCs:

  • Did not try, but I know it works well.



Fun Factor:

  • In terms of walking around, the 500 f/4 II with a 1.4 TC mounted might be more "fun". Just a bit lighter, smaller, etc. But really, this was a bit more reach for a bit more weight. Still a lot of fun, and the 600 II is probably the best tripod mounted birding lens out there. So there is fun in that, even though I didn't mount it to a tripod.



So, I am almost done. I have purchased the 100-400 II and am comparing it with a TC against my 150-600S. I am also planning a final "what lens meets my needs" evaluation, and hope to order something this week.

Thanks,
Brant