|
|
phast_geek
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 8, 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jan 19, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $7,600.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, fast focus, image stabilization.
|
|
Cons:
|
It's heavy and expensive!
|
|
I got this lens to replace my Sigma 300-800 f/5.6 lens that was my favorite for birding. My 300 f/2.8 got me hooked on IS, and I really wanted IS on a longer reaching lens.
I sold the Sigma in good faith that I would like the Canon 600 better and was not disappointed. My first outing with the lens was to photograph Atlantic Puffins. I used it with a 50D body and it delivered excellent results. Puffins fly very fast and this was no problem for focus speed and tracking. Very sharp shots.
I would not use this lens (or any large lens) without a gimbal mount. My choice is a Jobu designs Black Widow Pro. It balances the considerable weight of the lens easily and makes tracking moving targets more feasible.
The lens also works well full frame on a 5D mark2 when the extra reach is not needed. I have recently paired it with a 7D (replacement for my 50D) and the combo is working very well though I have not used it extensively (yet). The high pixel count and crop factor with this lens is killer for birding!
|
|
 Jan 19, 2010
|
|
Badmono
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 10, 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Mar 24, 2009
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp - Great IQ - Typical 'L' Prime infact.
|
|
Cons:
|
Slow focussing - IMO this lens is made obsolete by the Canon 400 F2.8 IS 'L' and 1.4x convertor
|
|
I have to say I don't own this lens though I could buy one for a very reasonable price. However I've used the lens quite a lot over an 18month period, and my initial thoughts were very positive. However the initial impressions have dulled over the period of usage to the point where I'd prefer to use my own 400 F2.8 IS fitted with a 1.4x convertor. My reasons are as follows:
1. IQ is similar on both setups.
2. Focussing is much faster with the 400 & 1.4x convertor, important for birding.
3. I personally prefer the weight balence of 400 &1.4x when used on a monopod, though both setups weigh approximately the same.
4. The 600 is longer and IMO more awkward to line up on a small bird quickly.
5. New the 600 costs more than the 400 & 1.4x:-(
6. The 400 and 1.4x is more usuable [F2.8 aperture and 400mm when you need it]
7. Most birders can only carry one BIG lens out on location taking the 400 & both convertors is a no brainer IMO because of the increased flexibilty.
>
If you have only ever used the 600 F4 then you probably think its the dogz bollox, and for sure it takes awesome shots But you could do better, & IMO you need to try a 400 & 1.4x, and then I'm sure that like me You'll never use the 600 again!!
As I previously mentioned I refused to buy the 600 when offered it at a very reasonable price, coz I'd never use it enough.
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2009
|
|
jcmedeiros
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Jun 30, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 529
|
|
Review Date: Feb 24, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $6,200.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
sharpness, image stabilization, brokeh, focusing speed
|
|
Cons:
|
|
|
I acquired a nearly new 600 F/4L IS last Fall to shoot motorsports. I've owned the 400 f/2.8L IS for a couple years but really needed some extra reach. I'd used the 400 with extenders but wasn't really happy with it. I considered the 500 f/4L IS, an excellent lens which a good friend of mine owns. I've used it a couple of times but decided it was just too close to the 400 to justify it.
Once you adjust to the size and mass of the 400, the 600 is not any really much different. In fact, it seems to be a bit easier to handle. This is probably because of it's extra length and higher mass moment of inertia. Anyhow, it's size it not big deal to me.
My first outing with the 600 was at a WERA sanctioned event at Barber Motorsports Park last Fall. The results were just incredible. Shooting from very long distances was a breeze. I was able to rethink how I shot the track, creating new and unique angles that were just not possible with my 400.
Recently I've used it to cover baseball. Once again, the extra reach enables me to easily shoot the outfielders and create outrageously tight crops on the infielders. Shooting the infield and batters from the outfield is also quite amazing.
If you can afford this lens, I highly recommend it. A lot of the birders have their sites set on the 800, so you probably can find a deal if you're patient.
|
|
|
Feb 24, 2009
|
|
JDSA
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 9, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 235
|
|
Review Date: Apr 28, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $7,200.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Very sharp images, great bokeh at even f/8, takes pictures like no other Canon lens.
|
|
Cons:
|
It could weigh less :-). The first one arrived with a huge front focus issue, second one is perfect. A family member's first one was soft, not quite sure where focus was.
|
|
It's a huge monster to drag around but it you need it, or think you need it, there is nothing like it. Shooting Ironman cycling the bokeh was incredible even at f/8. For surfing it has excellent reach. Feather and fur details are excellent.
The 600 works equally well with a 1D2N or a 5D. For extra apparent reach hang a 1.6 CF camera on it. For shooting looser hang a FF camera on it. Image quality with an Extender 1.4 II is still better than many lesser lenses. It's even fun shooting closeups of kids in the backyard (from the other side of the yard!).
It does take some technique to master it. I found it much harder to use than my 300mm f/2.8 IS. The narrow view angle means that IS is less effective than with wider view lenses. As much as I like my 300mm there is just no comparison to the look of images taken with the 600mm.
If Canon could deliver properly adjusted products to the final user my ratings would be 10. Two out of three copies that I've personally tried were not unsable. My replacement, from B&H of course, is perfect.
My advise? Get one but get it about 30 days before you really need it so that any quality issues can be dealt with.
|
|
|
Apr 28, 2008
|
|
dehowie
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 22, 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 264
|
|
Review Date: Feb 11, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Everything except for its weight but that goes with the territory..
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
Well its just about worth its weight in gold. Marginally sharper than my 500 this is a killer lens for whatever you want to use it for.
Cant wait to get it to an airshow...
Simply awesome..
|
|
|
Feb 11, 2008
|
|
Vasco Garcia
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 17, 2007
Location: N/A
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Nov 17, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Read all the other comments....there is nothing more to add.
|
|
Cons:
|
Not really.....I was prepared for the weight.
Sometimes you are too close to the action, oh well!
|
|
What is there more to say, about that monster lens. Always wanted to have one. Back in 2004 I finally bought my first prime. Back then I was still a Nikon shooter and the 400 f 2.8 was a brilliant lens, although shooting mainly Aviation stuff with it, I was missing some important mm at the end.
Then I made the costly switch to Canon (which was the best move ever) and about 2 weeks ago, after about 2 years without a prime lens, I purchased the 600mm f4. I just got back from the Dubai Air Show 2007 and all I can say is WOW. You get what you pay for. This lens is sharp, sharp and sharp. I was surprised that you can even handhold it for a couple of shots.....
Panning shot at 1/15sec not a problem, thank you IS. Attached to a Wimberley Head the 600mm f4 is almost weightless and a joy to work with.
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2007
|
|
mho01
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 27, 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 5
|
|
Review Date: Jul 21, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Build Quality, Image Quality, Very fast silent AF.
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
Superb sharp images from this lens even at f4.
Effective IS, autofocus in very fast, silent and accurate.
Superb quality with the 1.4xmkII converter.
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2007
|
|
davidearls
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: Mar 9, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 2604
|
|
Review Date: May 30, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Image quality - what else is there?
|
|
Cons:
|
Weight?
|
|
In praise of older lenses, then.
My copy of the 600 f4 is date-coded UI - 1994. That's pre-image stabilization. Pre-magnesium. This beast topples the scale at 13 pounds - quite a bit heftier than the newer version.
Irony of ironies is that the weight of the beast is its own best friend. Mount this thing on a REALLY sturdy tripod (15kg rating), and it's not going anywhere. Inertia is its own form of IS.
This particular copy has seen at least three owners on FM, and there's a review of this copy somewhere down this thread. So why another review?
Mainly because when you shell out what you do for one of these things you want to know it's not going to wear out. I don't know the full history of the lens. It looks like Joanie Weston used it to distribute strategic blows through several seasons of roller derby. But you don't buy 'em for the outside.
Ugly doesn't matter. Stopped down to f5.6, this lens minimizes the amount of additional sharpening required in post processing, and we all know enough about PP to realize that it's an activity that's destructive to the image.
I was lucky to learn my long lens technique without IS lenses, and in fact, I think the way to learn to use a lens with IS is to turn the IS OFF until you start getting good shots. Then you can turn it on if you feel the need. But if you've got your technique developed, you may find you'd just as soon have the $3-4K you'd otherwise pay for a new piece of equipment that has IS.
I guess my point is that if you're itchin' to get into LONG, don't be afraid to look at older copies that don't have IS. Look hard, ask tough questions, they're out there - and they still deliver jaw-dropping images -
|
|
|
May 30, 2007
|
|
Andybrightuk
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 23, 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 77
|
|
Review Date: Jan 26, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, Image Stabilizer, Rapid and quiet AF,
|
|
Cons:
|
Costly but genuine flourite element must cost a bomb to produce on its own.
|
|
Basically the only reason I switched to Canon.
A big and costly lens but when you consider what you get and the manufacturing process, such as producing a pure naturally cultured flourite element, the price comes into perspective.
I'm used to a 600/4 lens so the weight and size is no shock, the size being more of an issue to me than weight.
The bare lens produces razor sharp images at f4, with the EFII 1.4x very little is lost in any area of image quality and even the EFII 2x, with suitable care, the results can be staggering and more than capable of publishable work., although AF speed drops a fair bit and only centre point focus can be used on the Canon pro bodies.
The tripod collar rotates smoothly, so I presume this has been rectified from earlier models. The tripod foot is fine for me, the rubber grip a very pleasing addition for those who carry the lens by it's foot for long distances.
I would prefer the focus preset to be recalled via a button towards the camera body, or even via the camera itself. Moving your hand down towards the end of the lens is not great for those staked out for wildlife.
AF speed is very rapid and quiet and the magical I.S. comes in to effect quicker than many I.S/VR lenses I have used.
I.S. on lenses like this really comes into it's own in tough conditions, especially when the wind is up in exposed locations and when light is poor (we don't all live in sunny places) with static subjects when using teleconverters. All in all, i find I.S. on long primes to allow me to concentrate on the actual subject and composition, rather than spending every moment trying to reduce vibration... and at 850mm+, that's an issue no matter the support you have.
images and more detailed review at
http://www.digiscoped.com/Canon600mm.html
|
|
|
Jan 26, 2007
|
|
Desert_Watcher
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: Jun 15, 2006
Location: Kuwait
Posts: 416
|
|
Review Date: Jan 6, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $7,100.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
fast focusing, amazing IS and extremely sharp
|
|
Cons:
|
very heavy, not effecient without a gimbal head and a good tripod
|
|
i was dreaming to own such lens with it's amazing preformance and results for wildlife photography, so i did the crazy thing and i over limited my credit card to purchase one, and still i'm paying for the credit card  and till the next 2 years, but in my opinion it worth it.
the only problem that made me a little bit depressed is that, this lens requires a wimberly gimbal head and a carbon fiber bogen tripod (= 1500 $) to function in the right way, other wise forget to get the best of it, unless you are a muscle builder.
|
|
|
Jan 6, 2007
|
|
c75mitch
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 26, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 84
|
|
Review Date: May 27, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $6,500.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Great lens, really sharp and incredible fast.
|
|
Cons:
|
The only negative is the weight, but you get used to it.
|
|
Great lens, fast and sharp. My 1.4x stays on all the time and the IS is a life saver.
The only draw back is the weight, but you gradually get used to it.
|
|
|
May 27, 2006
|
|
sapro
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Jan 14, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 2922
|
|
Review Date: Jan 30, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Everything about it
|
|
Cons:
|
May be cost? But still cheaper than other 600/4 lenses, and it has IS!
|
|
See my review of the lens at http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/346727 .
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2006
|
|
|
