I met you half way and got the 500mm F4 IS II with both Teleconverters..... 1.4x and 2X, both VIII .....the lens meets all my needs .....I'm in Arizona so photographing wild animals is challenging, they see you in the open and specially deer, they are smart and very fast at disappearing....
Appreciate your breakdown on this Todd and truly wish this would have been available for me in April having pulled the trigger on the RF400. I have just traded it for the RF600 based on my findings similar to yours. Very true findings on the teleconverters that you really cannot validate until you start using them and seeing their result. Low light wide open the 400 F/2.8 is beast, but when you need to increase focal length, some of the aperture trade-offs as your mentioned are just too great as compared to RF600. Well documented common-sense review with the stressor emphasized either lens' sweet spot depends on your subjects and style.
Thanks for watching! It is nice to hear that you had the same results with the RF lenses. Sorry the video was a little too late for you but glad you found that same results!
Great videos!!! Keep in mind a lot of photo shops rent lenses for you to try out on you own. And with crop sensor camera like my Canon 90D with a 1.6 crop… Thanks again!
Thanks for watching! That's what I did here and yes there would be a difference if using a cropped camera, however I only use full frame at the moment! The 400 on a cropped camera may be the overall winner because it would be a little easier to transport! As always there are a lot of different options and combinations when it comes to these things!
@@ToddDeWaldPhotography Watching your videos from Alaska has been a lot of fun… I tend to watch/listen as I’m out looking for my own wildlife… My first summer finding Great Horned Owls… Keep up the Great videos!! Thank you!
That's awesome to hear! Thanks for taking me along with you! Best of luck finding the wildlife, hoping to find some owls this fall and winter down here as well!
Nikon user here. I have the Z 400/2.8 which has a built-in extender but also takes external ones. I did similar tests, although not against a 600/4 but against the 800/6.3 prime which I also own. Summary is that at 560/4 I can see no difference at all in quality to 400/2.8, and also I cannot tell 800/5.6 images from the 400 from images from the 800 prime, sharpness-wise. Only at 1120/8 (400 with internal 1.4 plus external 2.0) was it that the 800+1.4 at 1120/9 came out above. So, the results might be different with the newest RF versions of the Canon primes as well?
Thanks for the info, as I am in the process of switching back over to Nikon! I have a feeling the new RF glass may function differently but I have heard that the new Nikon 400 with built in tc is amazing! Thanks for watching!
How is the bokeh quality of the 400/2.8 + 1.4x and/or 2x vs the 800mm PF? Do you find yourself using the 800mm much? I'm trying to decide between the 600mm PF, 800mm PF, and 600mm f4 TC
@@bladerealm124 Bokeh of 400/2.8+TC20 seems a tiny bit smoother than the 800PF, but the difference is negligible. I don't think about bokeh when choosing one or the other. I think more about what focal lengths I will need, and if the added weight of the 400+TC will bother me. But dude, 600PF vs 800PF vs 600TC are vastly different price and weight categories. All three are excellent for what they are. In short: before purchase you mostly think about the money, after purchase you mostly think about the weight.
@@mm8276352 the problem is none of the lenses are available locally to hold or test in person, so I'm trying to make an informed decision based on other's feedback who have owned or used all three. The weight does concern me since I prefer handholding, but the versatility of the built-in TC is so compelling. I hate constantly putting on and and taking off teleconverters in the field. I'm often in that 600-900mm focal range but I'm not sure if I'll find 800mm to be too tight too often, or if I'd appreciate the additional reach at the cost of additional weight over the 600 PF. I looked into renting them but it'd be well over $1,000. At that point I might as well just purchase the one I think will be the best fit and sell it for close to what I paid if it doesn't work out. I came across one review that said the 600PF didn't wow the user so he returned it and tried the 600TC and said it had that "wow factor" for him. But I've also read rave reviews of both the 600PF and 800PF that say the weight savings is worth the loss of light and TC. Budget isn't really a factor as I'm willing to spend as much as it takes to get the best fit for my needs. It's just tough to make a choice when all three are compelling in their own way.
Hi Todd. I have one question. I too love taking bird pictures just like you. Now, I have a crop sensor camera Nikon D7500. Interestingly, if I go for a 400mm f/2.8 lens (which I am contemplating to buy) will there be any reduction in sharpness? Like when you use a 1.4x converter.
Thanks for the question. Using the 400 2.8 on a crop sensor will still retain all the quality of the lens and there will not be any loss of sharpness due to the crop sensor as often occurs with teleconverters. The loss of quality occurrs because you are adding an extra glass element between the camera and lens with a teleconverter which is not the case with using a crop sensor. This makes using a crop body like the D7500 a good option to use the 400. 2.8. You’ll have more effective focal length and have the 2.8 aperture!
My preference would be a porter carrying both for me along with a few other bags of equipment, so I could swap to the one I wanted moment by moment. Barring that, the 400-sports, 600-wildlife is the way to go.
Since I already own the 100-500 and find myself quite often wanting more reach as I shot mostly birds, I will definitely go for the 600mm f4 when I finally make the purchase. I will turn 40 next year and getting a tele-prime like this is a good gift to myself as well as a sign of getting old 😂
I have not had the pleasure of using the 800mm but I have heard it is a phenomenal lens. I suspect it would be great for birds, but a little limiting for mammals but it depends on where you are and how close you can get to the subjects.
I have used the EF 800mm F5.6 IS and although cool, I think the 600mm is the better lens. I own the EF 600mm IS f4 II, and borrowed an 800mm from Canon on their "pro" service program. I had read the 600mm + 1.4X was a sharper 840mm f5.6 lens than the 800mm was by itself, and I would say that was the case, or they were equal. Did I strap the 2X on the 800, add a 7D2 and feel like a boss shooting 2560mm? Sure.
In that case I may go with the 400mm since you'll end up having more reach with the crop factor. In that case you can benefit from the f 2.8 aperture. Thanks for watching!
Shooting sports and wildlife, and having used both in one version or another, I would say they are both fantastic. If I was shooting mostly sports I'd go with the 400mm f2.8. For wildlife the 600mm f4. Both lenses work nicely with the Extenders.
The 500mm mkii is the sharpest of all Canon's big tele lenses. Look at the MTF charts! It doesn't matter as much with the bare lens, but with the extenders, it does.
You mention the 'artistic picture taking process' that you'd rather do in the field with a 600mm. If that is so, you probably have quite approachable birds in your area, or you accept birds to be quite small in the frame. I use my 200-600 mostly at 600mm and mostly in (1.5x) crop mode, making it effectively 900 mm and still do a lot of cropping in post-processing. My camera doesn't have bird eye recognition (I'm not going to spend around $3000,- just for that) so I use my center focus point that I hardly ever move, so the birds I photograph are mostly right in the center and I still have the freedom to put the bird everywhere in the frame afterwards with cropping. Luckily my 60mp camera has a lot pixels to play with.
The birds definitely are not approachable near me but I tend to find a good spot to sit and wait allowing the birds to come loser to me. This is definitely something I suggest to allow you to get closer to your subjects and reduce the need to crop in all the time. Thanks for watching!
They are a very expensive part of the kit that is for sure. They are definitely geared towards those that make money from their photography which I do. My photography and mainly video work has been my main source of income for almost a year now which is where a lens like this comes into play. Thanks for watching!
@@ToddDeWaldPhotographywhat is your main source(s) of income within photography? Do you sell/license your wildlife photos? Any tips on generating income in wildlife photography?
@@bladerealm124 My main source of income if actually video work I do for clients. I have found it is much easier to make money in that than it is to sell individual prints. My biggest tip would be to try to connect with local organizations that may need photos or footage and see if you can establish a relationship with them.
@@ToddDeWaldPhotography do you mean creating marketing videos for businesses? How do you utilize the 600mm for this? I'm looking into investing in the 600mm and trying to justify the purchase and how I could use it. Thank you
@@bladerealm124 I work with land trusts and nature preservation organizations that protect natural areas. The footage I get is of wildlife and plant life in there areas to help them promote donations from the public and that sort of thing.
You can always back up but moving forward may result in losing the shot 400mm just never seems like enough for me EVER Im always friiggen cropping and it completley defeats the purpose for making great prints I will possibly just keep a 100-400 or a 70-200 2.8 on another body.
@@ToddDeWaldPhotography which is what I mostly shoot. Interestingly, I just got back from a 4500 mile road trip, where I took about 12,000 shots. Maybe 5 X's I got too close to fit a whole "larger" bird in the frame (still able to focus though) but out of those 5X's, 4 of them made super cool head shots, that actually made it through multiple culls, all the way to my Flickr page :)
I shot a 400 2.8 for over a year for wildlife. It always seemed lacking. Then i got a 600 f4 and regretted ever buying the 400 2.8. A 600 f4 is so much better for wildlife. The 400 2.8 was ONLY better for owls. The 600 f4 is king of wildlife for a reason. We need to leave the 400’s for the sports shooters. 🙂
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
this is exactly what I was looking for. I've always been wondering about the 400+1.4. Thanks!
Thanks for watching! I'm glad it was of some use!
I met you half way and got the 500mm F4 IS II with both Teleconverters..... 1.4x and 2X, both VIII .....the lens meets all my needs .....I'm in Arizona so photographing wild animals is challenging, they see you in the open and specially deer, they are smart and very fast at disappearing....
That's also a great combination! Good luck with it and hopefully it allows you to get the photos your looking for!
Appreciate your breakdown on this Todd and truly wish this would have been available for me in April having pulled the trigger on the RF400. I have just traded it for the RF600 based on my findings similar to yours. Very true findings on the teleconverters that you really cannot validate until you start using them and seeing their result. Low light wide open the 400 F/2.8 is beast, but when you need to increase focal length, some of the aperture trade-offs as your mentioned are just too great as compared to RF600. Well documented common-sense review with the stressor emphasized either lens' sweet spot depends on your subjects and style.
Thanks for watching! It is nice to hear that you had the same results with the RF lenses. Sorry the video was a little too late for you but glad you found that same results!
Good review. Thanks. 600 tough size to travel with.
Thanks for watching! 600 is definitely a little more difficult to travel with and something to consider!
I've been debating this too for Sony - I think I'm going 600 because I'm always wanting more reach
That was pretty much my concern as well especially for small birds. Thanks for watching!
I had the same conclusion as you from a friend , so I moved ahead to get 600mm F4 IS II and a teleconverter 1.4 VIII . Very satisfied.
Glad to hear! Thanks for watching!
Great videos!!! Keep in mind a lot of photo shops rent lenses for you to try out on you own. And with crop sensor camera like my Canon 90D with a 1.6 crop… Thanks again!
Thanks for watching! That's what I did here and yes there would be a difference if using a cropped camera, however I only use full frame at the moment! The 400 on a cropped camera may be the overall winner because it would be a little easier to transport! As always there are a lot of different options and combinations when it comes to these things!
@@ToddDeWaldPhotography Watching your videos from Alaska has been a lot of fun… I tend to watch/listen as I’m out looking for my own wildlife… My first summer finding Great Horned Owls… Keep up the Great videos!! Thank you!
That's awesome to hear! Thanks for taking me along with you! Best of luck finding the wildlife, hoping to find some owls this fall and winter down here as well!
Great info thank you. I just bought the RF 600 f4.0 for my R3 … Scarlett McCaws here I come 🎉
Great! Best of Luck!
How did it go, do you have any video samples, I would love to see it
Thanks!
Thank you so much I really appreciate the support!
Excellent reviews and analysis Todd! I appreciate your analytical skill and articulate communications.
Thanks for watching! I am glad it was useful!
I heard the same thing about the EF 400mm III but I found that the RF 400mm works very well with both extenders with my R7 for added reach. 😊
Thanks for watching! That sounds like a great setup!
I'm in Connecticut too - just stumbled on your page!
Great which area? Thanks for watching!
@@ToddDeWaldPhotography East Hampton , CT
Watching from Niantic and getting ready to splurge on the RF 600!
Nikon user here. I have the Z 400/2.8 which has a built-in extender but also takes external ones. I did similar tests, although not against a 600/4 but against the 800/6.3 prime which I also own. Summary is that at 560/4 I can see no difference at all in quality to 400/2.8, and also I cannot tell 800/5.6 images from the 400 from images from the 800 prime, sharpness-wise. Only at 1120/8 (400 with internal 1.4 plus external 2.0) was it that the 800+1.4 at 1120/9 came out above.
So, the results might be different with the newest RF versions of the Canon primes as well?
Thanks for the info, as I am in the process of switching back over to Nikon! I have a feeling the new RF glass may function differently but I have heard that the new Nikon 400 with built in tc is amazing! Thanks for watching!
How is the bokeh quality of the 400/2.8 + 1.4x and/or 2x vs the 800mm PF? Do you find yourself using the 800mm much? I'm trying to decide between the 600mm PF, 800mm PF, and 600mm f4 TC
@@bladerealm124 Bokeh of 400/2.8+TC20 seems a tiny bit smoother than the 800PF, but the difference is negligible. I don't think about bokeh when choosing one or the other. I think more about what focal lengths I will need, and if the added weight of the 400+TC will bother me. But dude, 600PF vs 800PF vs 600TC are vastly different price and weight categories. All three are excellent for what they are. In short: before purchase you mostly think about the money, after purchase you mostly think about the weight.
@@mm8276352 the problem is none of the lenses are available locally to hold or test in person, so I'm trying to make an informed decision based on other's feedback who have owned or used all three. The weight does concern me since I prefer handholding, but the versatility of the built-in TC is so compelling. I hate constantly putting on and and taking off teleconverters in the field. I'm often in that 600-900mm focal range but I'm not sure if I'll find 800mm to be too tight too often, or if I'd appreciate the additional reach at the cost of additional weight over the 600 PF. I looked into renting them but it'd be well over $1,000. At that point I might as well just purchase the one I think will be the best fit and sell it for close to what I paid if it doesn't work out. I came across one review that said the 600PF didn't wow the user so he returned it and tried the 600TC and said it had that "wow factor" for him. But I've also read rave reviews of both the 600PF and 800PF that say the weight savings is worth the loss of light and TC. Budget isn't really a factor as I'm willing to spend as much as it takes to get the best fit for my needs. It's just tough to make a choice when all three are compelling in their own way.
I've had my Canon EF 400mm f/2.8 L IS II USM since just before the pandemic, ordered a 600mm f/4 L IS II USM earlier today so I'll have both.
Thanks for wanting! Sounds like you have all your bases covered! I'm sure you'll enjoy the lens!
Hi Todd. I have one question. I too love taking bird pictures just like you. Now, I have a crop sensor camera Nikon D7500. Interestingly, if I go for a 400mm f/2.8 lens (which I am contemplating to buy) will there be any reduction in sharpness?
Like when you use a 1.4x converter.
Thanks for the question. Using the 400 2.8 on a crop sensor will still retain all the quality of the lens and there will not be any loss of sharpness due to the crop sensor as often occurs with teleconverters. The loss of quality occurrs because you are adding an extra glass element between the camera and lens with a teleconverter which is not the case with using a crop sensor. This makes using a crop body like the D7500 a good option to use the 400. 2.8. You’ll have more effective focal length and have the 2.8 aperture!
@@ToddDeWaldPhotography Thank you Todd. That was very encouraging. I am surely going to buy one now.
I think the prime (pun) purpose for the 600 was wildlife and the 400 sports?
I think you’re right a lot of folks, me included are tempted by the 2.8 aperture for low light and wildlife!
My preference would be a porter carrying both for me along with a few other bags of equipment, so I could swap to the one I wanted moment by moment. Barring that, the 400-sports, 600-wildlife is the way to go.
u made my mind, for not changing my 600mm f4. thank!!
Glad it was helpful! In a perfect world, I would love both lenses but the 600mm would still be on my camera much more than the 400!
Since I already own the 100-500 and find myself quite often wanting more reach as I shot mostly birds, I will definitely go for the 600mm f4 when I finally make the purchase. I will turn 40 next year and getting a tele-prime like this is a good gift to myself as well as a sign of getting old 😂
You will not be disappointed it is an amazing lens!
800mm vs 600mm - Which one would you choose? Do you have any thoughts regarding the 800mm 5.6 IS?. Thank you for a great video.
I have not had the pleasure of using the 800mm but I have heard it is a phenomenal lens. I suspect it would be great for birds, but a little limiting for mammals but it depends on where you are and how close you can get to the subjects.
I have used the EF 800mm F5.6 IS and although cool, I think the 600mm is the better lens. I own the EF 600mm IS f4 II, and borrowed an 800mm from Canon on their "pro" service program. I had read the 600mm + 1.4X was a sharper 840mm f5.6 lens than the 800mm was by itself, and I would say that was the case, or they were equal.
Did I strap the 2X on the 800, add a 7D2 and feel like a boss shooting 2560mm? Sure.
Would your advice be the same if you had a crop sensor for example the R7
In that case I may go with the 400mm since you'll end up having more reach with the crop factor. In that case you can benefit from the f 2.8 aperture. Thanks for watching!
Thanks for this information 🤟
Glad it was helpful! Thanks for watching!
Hi Todd. Subscribed I went for the 600mm f4 doing more small birds here in the UK both great lens 👍
Great choice, they really are both great lenses! Thanks for watching and good luck with your photography!
Shooting sports and wildlife, and having used both in one version or another, I would say they are both fantastic. If I was shooting mostly sports I'd go with the 400mm f2.8. For wildlife the 600mm f4. Both lenses work nicely with the Extenders.
That’s very true! The new Nikon 400mm with built in tc is a really intriguing lens now that I’m back shooting Nikon!
Appreciate your advice
It was very helpful thx✌️
Shehan
Glad it was a help, thanks for watching!
What blind are you using Todd?
I use the Tragopan V6 blind. It works really well and has held up in all kinds of weather.
The 500mm mkii is the sharpest of all Canon's big tele lenses. Look at the MTF charts! It doesn't matter as much with the bare lens, but with the extenders, it does.
The 500 is lighter too which is a big plus! Thanks for watching!
You mention the 'artistic picture taking process' that you'd rather do in the field with a 600mm. If that is so, you probably have quite approachable birds in your area, or you accept birds to be quite small in the frame. I use my 200-600 mostly at 600mm and mostly in (1.5x) crop mode, making it effectively 900 mm and still do a lot of cropping in post-processing. My camera doesn't have bird eye recognition (I'm not going to spend around $3000,- just for that) so I use my center focus point that I hardly ever move, so the birds I photograph are mostly right in the center and I still have the freedom to put the bird everywhere in the frame afterwards with cropping. Luckily my 60mp camera has a lot pixels to play with.
The birds definitely are not approachable near me but I tend to find a good spot to sit and wait allowing the birds to come loser to me. This is definitely something I suggest to allow you to get closer to your subjects and reduce the need to crop in all the time. Thanks for watching!
you prefer 400 2.8 or 600 f ??
Right now I use the 600mm
Wow! Just looked at the price for the 600mm. How would I justify owning a lens at the price. Are you able to make money on your photography?
They are a very expensive part of the kit that is for sure. They are definitely geared towards those that make money from their photography which I do. My photography and mainly video work has been my main source of income for almost a year now which is where a lens like this comes into play. Thanks for watching!
@@ToddDeWaldPhotographywhat is your main source(s) of income within photography? Do you sell/license your wildlife photos? Any tips on generating income in wildlife photography?
@@bladerealm124 My main source of income if actually video work I do for clients. I have found it is much easier to make money in that than it is to sell individual prints. My biggest tip would be to try to connect with local organizations that may need photos or footage and see if you can establish a relationship with them.
@@ToddDeWaldPhotography do you mean creating marketing videos for businesses? How do you utilize the 600mm for this? I'm looking into investing in the 600mm and trying to justify the purchase and how I could use it. Thank you
@@bladerealm124 I work with land trusts and nature preservation organizations that protect natural areas. The footage I get is of wildlife and plant life in there areas to help them promote donations from the public and that sort of thing.
The EF 500mm with both extenders is sharper than both of these lenses!
Good to know thanks for watching!
You can always back up but moving forward may result in losing the shot 400mm just never seems like enough for me EVER Im always friiggen cropping and it completley defeats the purpose for making great prints I will possibly just keep a 100-400 or a 70-200 2.8 on another body.
That is very true! That’s my set up as well at this point. Thanks for watching!
800mm
That is also a good option especially for small birds!
@@ToddDeWaldPhotography which is what I mostly shoot. Interestingly, I just got back from a 4500 mile road trip, where I took about 12,000 shots. Maybe 5 X's I got too close to fit a whole "larger" bird in the frame (still able to focus though) but out of those 5X's, 4 of them made super cool head shots, that actually made it through multiple culls, all the way to my Flickr page :)
@@Chris_Wolfgram that sounds like an awesome trip! Congrats on so many keepers!
I shot a 400 2.8 for over a year for wildlife. It always seemed lacking. Then i got a 600 f4 and regretted ever buying the 400 2.8. A 600 f4 is so much better for wildlife. The 400 2.8 was ONLY better for owls. The 600 f4 is king of wildlife for a reason.
We need to leave the 400’s for the sports shooters. 🙂
Yes I see your points! Thanks for watching!
Sell a kidney Todd, and have both!
Haha yes that is a very good option!
Sorry but you rant on and on . Got tired after 5mims
Unnecessary comment and not even true - nice work and ignore the trolls
Thanks for watching I appreciate it!
Thanks for watching