1. You obviously missed my points. The point is that the 600mm lens when used with TCs provides more focal length options within the 600mm-1200mm lens than the 800mm with TCs. I believe it does this without any sacrifices in image quality, at least none that matter to the end result.
2. You are apparently fond of exagerating things. You complain about me starting a thread about this every month. That is a ridiculous. This is the second thread I have started here on this topic. I only started a new thread because the old one is closed. I wanted to update the thread with my opinion now that I have the new 600mm.
3. Please tell us about your experience with either or both of these lenses and demonstrate your claims with some pics, or perhaps you can't because your opinions are completely based on other peoples opinions.
4. If you are going to quote me, please use my entire quote without taking it out of context and try to post in such a way that people can tell who said what.
I'm simply saying that I see no reason to buy the 800mm when the 600mm is the same price. I have yet to hear a reason that makes sense to me. The only logical reason I have heard is that the 800mm F5.6 images are higher quality than the 600mm F4 IS II + images, but this is not true in my experience. As I said have compared RAW images made with my 600mm to RAW images made with my 600mm+1.4x and I can't tell the difference unless I look at the exif data. I am also saying that in my experience the 800mm F5.6 are not higher quality than the 600mm F4 IS II images.
If you own an 800mm that's great. Its a great lens. If you are about to buy either a 600mm or an 800mm, I can't see any logical reason to choose the 800mm over the 600mm, but I can see many reasons to choose the 600mm over the 800mm. In fact, I forgot to include a couple of reasons in my original post.
1. You can shoot the 600mm at F4. That makes it usefull in situations where the 800mm may not be usefull.
2. The 600mm has a much shorter minimum focus distance. Again, this makes it more flexible than the 800mm.
I think it's six of one, half-dozen of the other. You could argue for either lens and seriously you're not going to be disappointed with either choice. Personally I'd choose 600 II even though I know 1.4x might be attached a fair bit. If the mk II 800 is the same weight as the 600 II (which it should be) has much improved mfd ~5m, and subsequently better distance limiter settings, then I'd more than likely get the 800 and use my 500 when I'm not FL limited.
JimN wrote:
I'm simply saying that I see no reason to buy the 800mm when the 600mm is the same price. I have yet to hear a reason that makes sense to me. The only logical reason I have heard is that the 800mm F5.6 images are higher quality than the 600mm F4 IS II + images, but this is not true in my experience. As I said have compared RAW images made with my 600mm to RAW images made with my 600mm+1.4x and I can't tell the difference unless I look at the exif data. I am also saying that in my experience the 800mm F5.6 are not higher quality than the 600mm F4 IS II images.
If you own an 800mm that's great. Its a great lens. If you are about to buy either a 600mm or an 800mm, I can't see any logical reason to choose the 800mm over the 600mm, but I can see many reasons to choose the 600mm over the 800mm. In fact, I forgot to include a couple of reasons in my original post.
1. You can shoot the 600mm at F4. That makes it usefull in situations where the 800mm may not be usefull.
2. The 600mm has a much shorter minimum focus distance. Again, this makes it more flexible than the 800mm. ...Show more →
I've no immediate plan to buy either lens. But if I'll have the good opportunity to choose one of the two, I'd go for the 600 II for the same reasons that Jim expounded.
I would also agree with Jim's reasoning. This was my same line of thought when I originally ordered the 600 back in February (and I've yet to receive it). However, Lars is right that if you need 800 and want an 800mm lens and have no need for a 600mm lens then I guess the 800L makes some sense. Canon states officially that the AF is slowed 50% with a Canon 1.4TC and then 75% with a 2.0TC. So theoretically using the 800L should have better AF than the 600 + 1.4TC. However, all reports from people with the lens including Arash's great review don't seem to indicated any noticeable hit in AF response. And no one has shown any loss in IQ with the 600 and TC vs the 800. One other small thing is that on the 1DX and 5D3 the 600II can use all the AF points...not so with the 800L.
Overall I still will purchase the 600II over any other super telephoto as it seems to be the most versatile for my shooting. But I do have a use for 600 f/4 so it won't always have the 1.4 TC attached. I would also love to have the 200-400f/4 if it ever comes out!!
RobAmy wrote:
First off congrats on the new gear, I own the new 300mm and it is amazing. I am sure the new 500mm and 600mm are also amazing pieces of gear.
I personally traded my 600mm in for the 800mm and never looked back. I personally got tied of paying thousands of dollars for a lens that always had a TC on 90% of the time. At least where I live 600mm is often just to short. Maybe the new 600mm and TC is on par or even better image quality wise then the 800mm but to me I still prefer the 800mm.
I think saying the 800mm is obsolete is silly but each his own. If is still a great tool of the trade.
I like the fact that the new 600mm is lighter for sure but that is not enough for me to give the 800mm up, I personally think the 800mm is just a great lens and a pleasure to use.
However if the 600mm with TC's work for you then you made a wise purchase. At the cost of these lenses they are all great and we should pick the tool that works best for us.
JimN wrote:
There are many lens+TC combinations that are as good as or better than bare lens. The 600mm + 1.4xTC vs 800mm is an example of this. Another example is the 300mm F2.8+1.4xTC compared to a 400mm F5.6 oe a 100-400mm F5.6.
I have seen several reports now from users of both the 600 II + 1.4 III and the 800 saying that they are indistinguishable in image quality. I have not seen any report saying that the 800 has better image quality. Those who claim this will have to back it up with facts. There is one lab test suggesting that the 600 + TC is significantly sharper than the 800, but we can ignore that test.
alundeb wrote:
I have seen several reports now from users of both the 600 II + 1.4 III and the 800 saying that they are indistinguishable in image quality. I have not seen any report saying that the 800 has better image quality. Those who claim this will have to back it up with facts. There is one lab test suggesting that the 600 + TC is significantly sharper than the 800, but we can ignore that test.
I think IQ being very similar is a given, but have we had real reports of the difference in AF speed or of keeper rates between the two combos. I'd expect 800 to have faster AF, but does this translate into anything noticeable in the real world?
p.2 #10 · Canon 600mm F4 IS II vs Canon 800mm F5.6
I think having both makes you even more flexible.
And while we are at it, let's add the new 500 also, because it's very light.
And maybe also the new 400, because it gives us 2.8 flexibility.
Who needs money in the bank, let's spend it and help the economy.
p.2 #12 · Canon 600mm F4 IS II vs Canon 800mm F5.6
Given the logic of the OP the 400/2.8II makes way more sense than other.
Given as he clealy states you are limited to 5.6 by the AF on the 1Dx why by a 600?
The 400/2.8 gives 2.8 at 400 mm offering more flexibility than either..
Plus 560 at F4 with stellar IQ.
Plus 800/5.6.
It gives everything the 600 does plus way more flex at the short end.
You can't have your cake..
p.2 #13 · Canon 600mm F4 IS II vs Canon 800mm F5.6
dehowie wrote:
Given the logic of the OP the 400/2.8II makes way more sense than other.
Given as he clealy states you are limited to 5.6 by the AF on the 1Dx why by a 600?
The 400/2.8 gives 2.8 at 400 mm offering more flexibility than either..
Plus 560 at F4 with stellar IQ.
Plus 800/5.6.
It gives everything the 600 does plus way more flex at the short end.
You can't have your cake..
That is a logical fallacy. It is not valid to extend the results that way. The 400/2.8+2X may be worse than 600+1.4X even though 600+1.4X is not worse than 800.
p.2 #14 · Canon 600mm F4 IS II vs Canon 800mm F5.6
One point that seems to be overlooked is that there a occasions in which when photographing birds/wildlife, you are surprised by a close-flying bird and need to reduce magnification. You can't do that with the 800mm while with the 600mm you can take off a teleconverter.
As far as one being sharper than the other, who cares? It's so minimal of a difference, it's a moot point.
I have been shooting with the 600mm II for months now and LOVE the lens. I have been amazed by the minimum focus range, I can get much closer to the subject compared to the first version of this lens.
BTW, the 400mm 2.8 II with a 2x TC is waayyy too slow for fast BIF's. I had one last winter and returned it due to this reason.
p.2 #15 · Canon 600mm F4 IS II vs Canon 800mm F5.6
AJay wrote:
One point that seems to be overlooked is that there a occasions in which when photographing birds/wildlife, you are surprised by a close-flying bird and need to reduce magnification. You can't do that with the 800mm while with the 600mm you can take off a teleconverter.
Don't you think the the close-flying bird is long gone after you take off the lens, take off the convertor and put the lens back on again ?
p.2 #16 · Canon 600mm F4 IS II vs Canon 800mm F5.6
alundeb wrote:
That is a logical fallacy. It is not valid to extend the results that way. The 400/2.8+2X may be worse than 600+1.4X even though 600+1.4X is not worse than 800.
So please explain why it's a logical fallacy when applying it to the 400 and not the 600?
What makes the 600 immune from something you believe effects the 400 but not the 600?
How is the 600 at F2.8
Like I said you cant have it both ways.
For flexibility the 400 kills both of them stone dead with almost no decrease in IQ at 560 and again little at 800.
If keeping AF is an issue why wouldn't you based on the OP's criteria of flexibility want the ability to shoot just as long but also shorter and in poorer light?
p.2 #17 · Canon 600mm F4 IS II vs Canon 800mm F5.6
dehowie wrote:
So please explain why it's a logical fallacy when applying it to the 400 and not the 600?
1) It is the classical "If you can take this, you can take that as well" fallacy. It is wrong to assume that if a small degradation of 0.1 [insert whatever magnitude here] can be tolerated, an addition degradation of 0.2 can be tolerated as well.
2) They are two individual lenses with individual properties. Test results from one set of lenses can not automatically be applied to another set of lenses.
3) In one case, we use a 1.4X TC, in the other case a 2X TC. These are optically different, and impair autofocus vastly different.
p.2 #18 · Canon 600mm F4 IS II vs Canon 800mm F5.6
As you can see from below, the image degradation comparing the 400 to the 600 is much worse than when comparing the 600 to the 800. Hopefully this explains why it is a fallacy to extend the OP's statement to other lenses.
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #19 · Canon 600mm F4 IS II vs Canon 800mm F5.6
It seems to me a lot of the consideration about which lens one wants is what other gear one has. If you have two 1D4s and a 500 f/4, then I would say the 800 makes a lot more sense. You can have a great two camera set up and basically no need for 600 f/4. If your next longest lens is a 300 or a 400 f/5.6 and you only have one camera, then the 600 f/4 might make a lot more sense. Especially if you would often shoot in the 600mm range. So I don't think there is only one clear choice. Rather as always the choice will be affected by other gear, budget, and what you shoot.
). However, Lars is right that if you need 800 and want an 800mm lens and have no need for a 600mm lens then I guess the 800L makes some sense. Canon states officially that the AF is slowed 50% with a Canon 1.4TC and then 75% with a 2.0TC. So theoretically using the 800L should have better AF than the 600 + 1.4TC. However, all reports from people with the lens including Arash's great review don't seem to indicated any noticeable hit in AF response. And no one has shown any loss in IQ with the 600 and TC vs the 800. One other small thing is that on the 1DX and 5D3 the 600II can use all the AF points...not so with the 800L.
?