Size and weight ae very important considerations, especially if you are planning to walk with a lens or shoot BIF. I have a 500mm F/4 lens that weighs 8.6 pounds. It is super sharp with fantastic image quality but at age 81 my ability to use this lens in other that limited applications has greatly diminished. But the things I can use for makes it worth it to me. :)
Another excellent video. Thanks. For my use, the 600 f/4 was sold after I took delivery of the 400DOII. The ability to hand hold all day was a huge factor. Now with the 100-500 and the 200-800 it looks like I will finally let go of the 400DOII and the 200-400. Given the performance of the new zoom lenses and improvements in sensor technology I no longer feel the need to chase f/4 primes.
Awesome review. Enjoyed it. I would love to add that the main difference of 600/4 of different generations is not only the weight, minimum focusing distance, but the weight distribution. I have an old EF 600/4 IS and the latest RF 600/4 IS. I can tell I like image rendering of old lens better. The main obstacle is the weight and front-heavy construction, that makes long hiking literally painful. You can’t hand-hold it. From the other hand small lenses like 100-500 give a better option for close shooting because of very tight minimum focusing distance. So for small birds 100-500 or 500 could be a better choice. Also it’s much easier to take BIF with light and compact setup.
Great video. Thanks for sharing your thoughts 🙏. I'm lucky enough to own the 500mm f4 mk2 and the 70mm-200mm f2.8 mk2 so I'm covered for the closer subjects 😊
Thanks for a very good video about this two lenses. Have always wanted a supertele, so maybe it's time to take a look at the 500. Wish you a great weekend. Greetings from a norwegian living in south Brasil. By the way, i think all of your videos are great.
I shoot mainly motorsport and own the Nikon 400mm f/2.8E FL. I was looking at the new Z 180-600 to use for wildlife but I dropped on a superb condition 500mm f/4E FL for a tiny amount more and haven’t regretted it once. The 400mm weighs quite a bit more than the 500mm which is a big consideration when trekking plus used with my Z8 instead of my Z9, it’s saving weight but with no loss of performance.
Thanks for the comparison. I feel that one of the most important differences is the background softness. The 600mm was softer, which really helps diffuse background distractions and just give a lovely creamy effect at F4. The 500mm was amazing, but the 600mm really struck a home-run here. Both super impressive lenses. I'm fortunate to own the 600mm and feel I made the right choice..Very good detailed comparison. Thank you.
I have used the EF 400, EF 500mm, and I still own the EF 600mm f4 L ii usm. The problem with these lenses has always been the size and weight, especially if you have to walk a good distance. But the advantages are clear, price (second-hand) quality of the photographs you get, and getting closer to the wildlife. They also work exceptionally well on 1.4x extenders, I guess it depends on whether you can cope with the weight and a very large camera bag.
Im in a lower budget category. I use the R7, EF 100-400 L ii, 500 F4 L is i, EF adapter, 0.71x speedbooster and 1.4x iii TC. Very happy with the performance. I use the zoom mostly because it is so versatile. The 500 is great - but it has more specific application. With the speedbooster I have a 70-300 F4 zoom and 350mm F2.8 on a CF body! And they work well with TC too. One day I’ll get RF glass, but what I have now is top quality and very versatile. I’m in no rush
Hi Fabian, thnk you very much for your fantastic reviews. I am now using a fujifilm xh2 with the fujinon xf 150-600mm. Its a very good kit for backpaking when you need to hike high in the mountains. With the 150-600 we have a real 900mm f8 of reachnes. Not to much light, I know, thats why i am considering the SIGMA 500mm f4 DG OS HSM Sport together with the fringer ef-fx pro II adapter in my fuji camera. This lens used is even more cheap than the used canons equivalents. Please Fabian, consider reviewing the sigma 500 f4 lens. Thank you very much for your efforts.
Kinesis makes a bag that will fit the 600f4 with camera attached (hood reversed of course) - model L522 (suits the mark 2 EF600f4). Either the lens by itself with hood in place, or lens+camera and hood reversed. As it is modular, you can add external pouches to carry other items.
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography it's only for the lens/camera, so is limited if you want a full back pack setup that can fit the 600f4/camera and other lenses etc. But, I usually only go out with my 500f4, so not really concerned with that.
I shoot a good amount from inside my car as it serves as s blind and i can actually get much closer to birds in the country. For this application the 500F4M2 works way better than the 600F4M2 in terms of grabbing the lens off the passenger side and getting into shooting position out of the driver side window. Of course, the 400F4DOM2, which no one ever talks about, is ever better and is also very sharp but you need to be closer to your subject. I made the decision to go with the 500F4M2 and the 400F4DOM2 (for crop-sensor bodies).
Is the 400 DO F4 mk2 still sharp by todays standards ? I have the rf800mm f11 DO (yes, it is a DO, so is the rf600mm f11) and it is nowhere near as sharp as my rf100-500 cropped in to the same fov. I assumed this softness was due to the DO lens in the 800f11
@@nordic5490 Yes, it is on the level of Canon’s other F4 telephoto lenses. I have the 800 F11 DO and it is a cheap lens, nowhere near as sharp as the 400 f4 DO mk 2 (I no longer shoot with it as it is not consistent). I have used the DO on several Canon bodies from the 7Dm2, the 90D, the 5DM4, the 5DSR, the 1DX3, the R5, and the R3. Sharp and fast on all of them. Best!
Thanks for the interesting videos. Can you comment on how the 600 F4 II EF lens compares to the RF equivalents? I'm assuming image quality is similar but how about autofocus with and without teleconverters on mirrorless cameras? Thanks!
Fabian - how wouild you rate/compare the mark 1 and 2 500f4 EF lenses? I have a mark 1, saving for a mark 2. AFAIK, the mark 2 is ever so slightly sharper, a tiny bit faster to acquire AF, maintains AF once focused a bit better but the main thing is t he weight saving (~700gm) and IS performance (mark 2 is around 2 stops better than then mark 1). Would you agree with my assessment?
I switched from the 500/4 I to 600/4 II, but I guess most of the thing I noticed would also apply if you would switch to a 500/4 II. Yes, I totally agree. The main advantage is weight savings and the mich better and quieter IS. But especially when using a teleconverter, you also have better IQ and AF with the mark ii lenses
Brilliant video. I have the rf 100-500, but would like a 600 for the light and also to be able to use 2x extender. Would this lens handle 2x well? I read somewhere that the RF 600 II actually has better iq than iii and RF 600. I guess the better weight distribution affects iq somewhat. When you increased size of 500 to 600 I guess you cropped and not zoomed the image?
The 600/4 II definitely works with the 2x extender. There is some variation in the results though, sometimes it handles it amazingly, other times I was not very happy with the result. And yes, the image quality is slightly better than with the RF600. Regarding your second question: I don’t think there really is a difference of cropping and zooming in. Or am I missing something?
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography Thanks for reply. Wrt zooming vs. cropping - I guess you are right... if you crop a 500mm image to represent the same view as a 600mm you will need to zoom it to display it in the same size as the 600mm.
Thanks Fabian! Background blur is clearly in favor of the 600 f4. But tell me if I'm wrong: instead of taking a picture from the same distance with the 500 f4 and then crop, if you get closer to you subject, so it has the same size in the viewfinder than with the 600 f4, result should be comparable if not 100% identical, right?
Yes, in terms of magnification and details absolutely. You would still have a slightly different angle of view, so the background would look slightly different. I chose to do the comparison from the same distance since I feel that it’s often the reality, that we can’t approach the birds closer
@@kilik92 According the to the App "Photopills", the depth of field of a 600mm @ f4 / 60m is 2.38m. If we get closer to the subject with a 500mm in the same proportion as the focals (600/500 or 60m/50m), Photopills tells us the depth of field of a 500mm @ f4 / 50m is 2.38m too.
And if you go to 10m with a 100mm f/4 you are still at 2.4cm depth of field. However, due to the different angle, the longer focal length should still give a „smoother“ background
Fabian you have some good points the problem is Canon never came out with a 500 IS III , if they thought about it and came up with one of these it would weigh about 5 pounds .
I am surprised that there was no mark III 500f4 EF too. With that said, the EF 500f4 mark 2 is such a great lens, it'd be hard to improve on it imho. I have the mark 1 and it's superb imho (and the mark 2 is even better!).
Hi Fabian, my current rig is a Nikon Z9, Nikon 500mm f/5.6PF, FTZII adapter, and a Nikon TC1.4xIII. I can handhold this rig and walk with it in the woods in hours. Do you think I should buy a 5kg heavy Nikon AFS 600mm f/4G more?
Thanks for your quick reply. The 600 f4g vr is the old version is quite affordablly cheap on eBay now. I know it is heavy too much but the focal length and large aperture f4 are quite compelling.
500 or 600 ? Hmmm... I'll go with the 800... on a crop sensor body please :) A 1280mm equivalent is just about right for the vast majority of my shooting.
But the RF800/5.6 is very expensive. I prefer the 600/4 in terms of price and versatility, as I use it at 600mm (on a fullframe) for more than 50% if the time
I've been waiting for your video very, very excitedly!! Thanks!!!
Glad to hear that you liked it
Exactly the information I'm looking for. Thanks for the very in-depth comparison.
😊
Size and weight ae very important considerations, especially if you are planning to walk with a lens or shoot BIF. I have a 500mm F/4 lens that weighs 8.6 pounds. It is super sharp with fantastic image quality but at age 81 my ability to use this lens in other that limited applications has greatly diminished. But the things I can use for makes it worth it to me. :)
I totally agree! Have fun taking pictures 😊
The replacement foot I use on my EF 600mm f/4 L IS II (Affiliate Link):
adorama.rfvk.net/k0oEXN
Another excellent video. Thanks. For my use, the 600 f/4 was sold after I took delivery of the 400DOII. The ability to hand hold all day was a huge factor. Now with the 100-500 and the 200-800 it looks like I will finally let go of the 400DOII and the 200-400. Given the performance of the new zoom lenses and improvements in sensor technology I no longer feel the need to chase f/4 primes.
Thanks! For me it’s more the background blur than low-light capabilities
Awesome review. Enjoyed it. I would love to add that the main difference of 600/4 of different generations is not only the weight, minimum focusing distance, but the weight distribution. I have an old EF 600/4 IS and the latest RF 600/4 IS. I can tell I like image rendering of old lens better. The main obstacle is the weight and front-heavy construction, that makes long hiking literally painful. You can’t hand-hold it. From the other hand small lenses like 100-500 give a better option for close shooting because of very tight minimum focusing distance. So for small birds 100-500 or 500 could be a better choice. Also it’s much easier to take BIF with light and compact setup.
Very good points! The weight distribution is hard to show in a video but you really feel a difference
Great video. Thanks for sharing your thoughts 🙏. I'm lucky enough to own the 500mm f4 mk2 and the 70mm-200mm f2.8 mk2 so I'm covered for the closer subjects 😊
Thanks 😊
Thanks for a very good video about this two lenses. Have always wanted a supertele, so maybe it's time to take a look at the 500.
Wish you a great weekend.
Greetings from a norwegian living in south Brasil.
By the way, i think all of your videos are great.
Thanks a lot and have a nice Sunday 😊
I myself have been saving for a while. And a 600mm MKii has come up at my local shop in Dublin. Problem is, it’s still over €7000 SH. Help 😂
I shoot mainly motorsport and own the Nikon 400mm f/2.8E FL. I was looking at the new Z 180-600 to use for wildlife but I dropped on a superb condition 500mm f/4E FL for a tiny amount more and haven’t regretted it once. The 400mm weighs quite a bit more than the 500mm which is a big consideration when trekking plus used with my Z8 instead of my Z9, it’s saving weight but with no loss of performance.
Have fun with it!
Thanks for the comparison. I feel that one of the most important differences is the background softness. The 600mm was softer, which really helps diffuse background distractions and just give a lovely creamy effect at F4. The 500mm was amazing, but the 600mm really struck a home-run here. Both super impressive lenses. I'm fortunate to own the 600mm and feel I made the right choice..Very good detailed comparison. Thank you.
Thanks! Yes, that’s also the main reason I upgraded from my old 500/4 to the 600/4
I have used the EF 400, EF 500mm, and I still own the EF 600mm f4 L ii usm. The problem with these lenses has always been the size and weight, especially if you have to walk a good distance. But the advantages are clear, price (second-hand) quality of the photographs you get, and getting closer to the wildlife. They also work exceptionally well on 1.4x extenders, I guess it depends on whether you can cope with the weight and a very large camera bag.
Yeah, I‘ve carried them 1000m of elevation as well 😅
Im in a lower budget category. I use the R7, EF 100-400 L ii, 500 F4 L is i, EF adapter, 0.71x speedbooster and 1.4x iii TC. Very happy with the performance. I use the zoom mostly because it is so versatile. The 500 is great - but it has more specific application. With the speedbooster I have a 70-300 F4 zoom and 350mm F2.8 on a CF body! And they work well with TC too. One day I’ll get RF glass, but what I have now is top quality and very versatile. I’m in no rush
Enjoy!
absolute EF 600/4!! Just bought many filters set for it from Kase. Hope it's good for my wildlife photography!
What kind of filters did you buy?
Hi Fabian, thnk you very much for your fantastic reviews. I am now using a fujifilm xh2 with the fujinon xf 150-600mm. Its a very good kit for backpaking when you need to hike high in the mountains. With the 150-600 we have a real 900mm f8 of reachnes. Not to much light, I know, thats why i am considering the SIGMA 500mm f4 DG OS HSM Sport together with the fringer ef-fx pro II adapter in my fuji camera. This lens used is even more cheap than the used canons equivalents.
Please Fabian, consider reviewing the sigma 500 f4 lens. Thank you very much for your efforts.
Thanks for the feedback
Kinesis makes a bag that will fit the 600f4 with camera attached (hood reversed of course) - model L522 (suits the mark 2 EF600f4). Either the lens by itself with hood in place, or lens+camera and hood reversed. As it is modular, you can add external pouches to carry other items.
Thanks for mentioning!
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography it's only for the lens/camera, so is limited if you want a full back pack setup that can fit the 600f4/camera and other lenses etc. But, I usually only go out with my 500f4, so not really concerned with that.
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography also Lens Trekker 600 AW III from Lowepro
I shoot a good amount from inside my car as it serves as s blind and i can actually get much closer to birds in the country. For this application the 500F4M2 works way better than the 600F4M2 in terms of grabbing the lens off the passenger side and getting into shooting position out of the driver side window. Of course, the 400F4DOM2, which no one ever talks about, is ever better and is also very sharp but you need to be closer to your subject. I made the decision to go with the 500F4M2 and the 400F4DOM2 (for
crop-sensor bodies).
Is the 400 DO F4 mk2 still sharp by todays standards ?
I have the rf800mm f11 DO (yes, it is a DO, so is the rf600mm f11) and it is nowhere near as sharp as my rf100-500 cropped in to the same fov. I assumed this softness was due to the DO lens in the 800f11
@@nordic5490 Yes, it is on the level of Canon’s other F4 telephoto lenses. I have the 800 F11 DO and it is a cheap lens, nowhere near as sharp as the 400 f4 DO mk 2 (I no longer shoot with it as it is not consistent). I have used the DO on several Canon bodies from the 7Dm2, the 90D, the 5DM4, the 5DSR, the 1DX3, the R5, and the R3. Sharp and fast on all of them. Best!
That’s a good point! Same applies to public hides with rather small openings
Does the IS on the primes interact with the IBIS of the newer Mirrorles bodys like R7, R5, R3 ?
It still works, but not as good as the new RF lenses ( I think only 2 axis or so are active)
Thanks for the interesting videos. Can you comment on how the 600 F4 II EF lens compares to the RF equivalents? I'm assuming image quality is similar but how about autofocus with and without teleconverters on mirrorless cameras? Thanks!
I was very happy with the AF and image quality of the EF 600/4 II on my R5. However, the RF version is better in AF and IS
Thanks
Fabian - how wouild you rate/compare the mark 1 and 2 500f4 EF lenses? I have a mark 1, saving for a mark 2. AFAIK, the mark 2 is ever so slightly sharper, a tiny bit faster to acquire AF, maintains AF once focused a bit better but the main thing is t he weight saving (~700gm) and IS performance (mark 2 is around 2 stops better than then mark 1). Would you agree with my assessment?
I switched from the 500/4 I to 600/4 II, but I guess most of the thing I noticed would also apply if you would switch to a 500/4 II. Yes, I totally agree. The main advantage is weight savings and the mich better and quieter IS. But especially when using a teleconverter, you also have better IQ and AF with the mark ii lenses
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography awesome, the mark 2 is my goal over the next 24-36 months all things going well. Thank you!
Brilliant video. I have the rf 100-500, but would like a 600 for the light and also to be able to use 2x extender. Would this lens handle 2x well? I read somewhere that the RF 600 II actually has better iq than iii and RF 600. I guess the better weight distribution affects iq somewhat. When you increased size of 500 to 600 I guess you cropped and not zoomed the image?
The 600/4 II definitely works with the 2x extender. There is some variation in the results though, sometimes it handles it amazingly, other times I was not very happy with the result. And yes, the image quality is slightly better than with the RF600. Regarding your second question: I don’t think there really is a difference of cropping and zooming in. Or am I missing something?
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography Thanks for reply. Wrt zooming vs. cropping - I guess you are right... if you crop a 500mm image to represent the same view as a 600mm you will need to zoom it to display it in the same size as the 600mm.
Thanks Fabian! Background blur is clearly in favor of the 600 f4. But tell me if I'm wrong: instead of taking a picture from the same distance with the 500 f4 and then crop, if you get closer to you subject, so it has the same size in the viewfinder than with the 600 f4, result should be comparable if not 100% identical, right?
Yes, in terms of magnification and details absolutely. You would still have a slightly different angle of view, so the background would look slightly different. I chose to do the comparison from the same distance since I feel that it’s often the reality, that we can’t approach the birds closer
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography Could we say background compression would be slightly different, but background blur would be very close?
I think still the 600 f4 would have slightly shallower depth of field. So more blurry background.
@@kilik92 According the to the App "Photopills", the depth of field of a 600mm @ f4 / 60m is 2.38m. If we get closer to the subject with a 500mm in the same proportion as the focals (600/500 or 60m/50m), Photopills tells us the depth of field of a 500mm @ f4 / 50m is 2.38m too.
And if you go to 10m with a 100mm f/4 you are still at 2.4cm depth of field. However, due to the different angle, the longer focal length should still give a „smoother“ background
Fabian you have some good points the problem is Canon never came out with a 500 IS III , if they thought about it and came up with one of these it would weigh about 5 pounds .
Yes, that’s really unfortunate. I‘m excited to see how they will replace it for the RF mount
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography I'm guessing the 200-500 f4 which they put a patent up for recently.
I am surprised that there was no mark III 500f4 EF too. With that said, the EF 500f4 mark 2 is such a great lens, it'd be hard to improve on it imho. I have the mark 1 and it's superb imho (and the mark 2 is even better!).
Thanks for the review. The Dropbox link though doesn't work - it says the folder doesn't exist.
Thanks for mentioning! Can you check again now?
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography It works now. Thanks
EF 1:4 500 mm + 1.4 converter is an excellent choice.
Definitely
Hi Fabian, my current rig is a Nikon Z9, Nikon 500mm f/5.6PF, FTZII adapter, and a Nikon TC1.4xIII. I can handhold this rig and walk with it in the woods in hours. Do you think I should buy a 5kg heavy Nikon AFS 600mm f/4G more?
This would be too much for me. I really felt the difference between my old 3.9kg EF600/4 and my new 3.1kg RF600/4
Thanks for your quick reply. The 600 f4g vr is the old version is quite affordablly cheap on eBay now. I know it is heavy too much but the focal length and large aperture f4 are quite compelling.
@8:40 Nice
Thanks
500 or 600 ? Hmmm... I'll go with the 800... on a crop sensor body please :) A 1280mm equivalent is just about right for the vast majority of my shooting.
But the RF800/5.6 is very expensive. I prefer the 600/4 in terms of price and versatility, as I use it at 600mm (on a fullframe) for more than 50% if the time
you should take in consideration T-stops, not F-stops. Obviosly, any 500 F4 has better t-stops vs 600 F4.
I‘m not sure I understand the reason behind that