Pixel Perfect wrote:
It seems to me their is very little supply going on from Canon. It's bad enough the new prices are so insane, but at least they could have the decency to produce the freakin' lenses in more than what appears to be 2-3 lenses a month.
I'm temped, or more like cornered, by the situation to go for the available 400mm 2.8 IS II (= 560 f/4 with a 1.4x) to tide me over. I don't want to purchase the also available 500 since it's too close to the 600 in length, even with considering the weight advantage. A future addition of the 600 will offer a good variety of focal length options. Canon is astute. It's devouring us.
Harry.C wrote:
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.
Sorry but my experience comes from actually using the new 400/2.8II extensively in every light condition possible.
Having the 300/400/500/600 and 800 I know very well the capabilities of the respective lenses are as opposed to using flawed test information.
Take a look at the 800 test example. Worst IQ on a white I've ever seen and so far from my 800 as to make the test useless.
The OP has his own idea's and opinions none of which are based off use of the lenses he discusses and compares.
The 600II is one fine lens but ignoring basic facts to reinforce his own decision to purchase a lens does nothing to enhance or educate anyone as to the relative merits of each individual lens.
Simple points like AF performance degradation with TC's for instance.
That alone is enough to justify an 800 for those who rely on AF speed.
Anyone who has tested the new AF module with TC's and compared them on a 1Dx will know exactly what I mean..
dehowie wrote:
Simple points like AF performance degradation with TC's for instance.
That alone is enough to justify an 800 for those who rely on AF speed.
Anyone who has tested the new AF module with TC's and compared them on a 1Dx will know exactly what I mean..
Are you talking about AF degradation with TC on the same lens, or with TC on a shorter lens?
I will repost one of my own posts from a while ago. I am surprised that nobody else mention this when comparing AF speed of lenses with and without teleconverters:
While it is always preferrable to avoid teleconverters when possible, the focus speed slowdown of 50% with a teleconevrter on a certain lens does not necessarily translate to 50% slower focus when compared to another lens with longer focal length. The key here is the difference in MFD. When two lenses are designed with the same focus throw and the same maximum drive speed, but different MFD's, the lens with the shorter MFD will have the fastest AF in the sense that it will use the shortest time to move focus from one subject distance to another.
In the case of the 400II and the 500II, the MFD's are 2.7 and 3.7 m. I don't know exactly how large portion of the focus throw that covers 2.7m - 3.7m on the 400, but usually the closest distances occupy the largest portions. On my 300 2.8 I, the throw from MFD at 2.5m, to 3.5m, is about 35%. From 2.5m to 4.5m it is about 50% of the total throw from MFD to infinity.
Let's say the focus throw from 2.7m to 3.7m on the 400 II is 30% of full scale. If that is correct, the [subject distance referenced] focus speed of the 400II+1.4 will be 71% of that of the 500II. (Calculated as 0.5x(1/(1-0.3)))
However, 560 mm is closer to 600 than to 500 mm, which makes it natural to compare the 400II+1.4 also with the 600II.
The 600II has an MFD of 4.5 m, and let's assume that 2.7 - 4.5 m occupies 45% of the focus throw on the 400 II. If that is correct, the [subject-distance referenced] focus speed of the 400II+1.4 will be 91% of that of the 600II. (0.5x(1/(1-0.45)))
The numbers are not accurate, but you get the point. The focus slowdown with teleconverters is not really crippling performance, but an adjustment that is necessary in order to restore normal operation, as with such a long focal length, short MFD and fixed focus throw, without slowdown it would be effectively faster than a long native lens, and less accurate.
In the case of a 70-200II+2x and a 400 5.6, the effect is remarakable, because the zoom has very short MFD and the prime has a very long MFD, and in som cases I have observed that the zoom with 2x teleconverter gives me a faster [subject distance referenced] AF speed that the longer prime lens.
Oct 05, 2012 at 07:02 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
@ Anders
I belive you are wrong when assuming this about the AF, Af speed and MFD. They tested the 300/2,8 IS II and 400/2,8 IS II here is Swedish http://www.fotosidan.se/cldoc/test-canon-300-2-8l-is.htm
Before they have also tested the new 500 II and 600 II. So they write a bit about those also. They mostly compare the different version of the new and old lens. Also together with the new and old extenders. And on different bodies. In the AF speed test between old and new versions. It was a draw and the speed was the same. Even the old lenses with mk II extenders had the same speed as the new lens with mk III extenders. The IQ was better with the new mk III extenders on both old and new lenses. But AF speed exactly the same.
They also write that the weight reduction and IS are the two things that makes a difference from old lenses. And if you like to get faster AF and sharper pics you should use the 1DX. It makes a difference on both the old and new super-tele lenses. That's why they say you should first upgrade your camera to the new generation AF, before upgrading the lenses. And a 1DX with the first generation IS super-tele's has faster and better AF than a 1D4 with the new mk II super-tele's
Lars, thank you for the link, it is a valuable review. But I don't see enything in it with relevance to my assumptions.
What I say is based on 1 fact and 2 assumptions:
fact: MFD
assumption 1: The total focus throw measured in rotational angle
assumption 2: The rotational speed of the focus motor
Since I wrote the first time, the lenses have become available, and it would be easy to check.
To say everything in a way much easier to comprehend:
When you look at the focus scales, it is easy to see that the focus motor needs to rotate less to move focus from 10 m to infinity with the 600 II than with the 800. Is this correct or not?
Doctorbird wrote:
Already decided against the 800 - weight and all the reasons in this thread. My solution with the 400mm which is also available seems best for me.
Db
I suppose weight is one good reason to skip 800L.....the lens is best used on a pod, although a few of us do use it handheld as well. And make no mistake about it: 800L is one formidable long range tool, albeit a bit specialized one. It's IQ is very beautiful, I'd say almost peerless, and if not defocused too much, the AF speed is excellent. In fact, 800L focusses better on 1DX than on my older cameras, and one reason for that is probably in the better way 1DX handles extreme defocus.
However, 800L is not for everyone, and many people would do well by choosing a shorter and lighter lens. I sold my first copy wanting to go for 600 II instead, but within 3 months I had to get another new 800L.
dehowie wrote:
Sorry but my experience comes from actually using the new 400/2.8II extensively in every light condition possible.
Having the 300/400/500/600 and 800 I know very well the capabilities of the respective lenses are as opposed to using flawed test information.
Take a look at the 800 test example. Worst IQ on a white I've ever seen and so far from my 800 as to make the test useless.
The OP has his own idea's and opinions none of which are based off use of the lenses he discusses and compares.
The 600II is one fine lens but ignoring basic facts to reinforce his own decision to purchase a lens does nothing to enhance or educate anyone as to the relative merits of each individual lens.
Simple points like AF performance degradation with TC's for instance.
That alone is enough to justify an 800 for those who rely on AF speed.
Anyone who has tested the new AF module with TC's and compared them on a 1Dx will know exactly what I mean..
1. I'm only comparing and talking about the new 600mm F4 IS II lens vs the 800mm F5.6 in regards to choosing one of them. If you have unlimted funds and some assistants to carry your array of lenses, then I can see owning all of the big telephoto lenses, but in regards to this discussion, the only logical reason you seem to be giving for selecting the 800mm over the 600mm is faster af speed for the 800mm vs 600mm +1.4xTC. In my experience, the af speed using 600mm+1.4x TC and 800mm are very similar. If the 800mm is faster, it is a very small difference that does not have any noticable effect on my productivity in the field.
2. I rely on AF speed as much or more than anyone. AF speed is certainly more of a requirement for the type of photography I do compared to the type of photography you do.
3. If you had to choose only one super telephoto over 500mm which would you choose, 600mm II, or the 800mm?
4. How long have you had your 600mm II?
5. You said "The OP has his own idea's and opinions none of which are based off use of the lenses he discusses and compares.The 600II is one fine lens but ignoring basic facts to reinforce his own decision to purchase a lens does nothing to enhance or educate anyone as to the relative merits of each individual lens." I could say the same thing to you, but I won't because it is insulting and you are entitled to your own opinion. You have not only insulted me, but all of the other posters ion here who hold the same opinion. For your comment to be true, I would have had to forgo purchasing a used 800mm for 9k, then waited many months to purchase the 600mm for 13k, all for the purpose of deceiving FMers via this thread. Come on!
6. I see you are from Cairns. Do you know David Milson aka Lumpy? If so, say hi for me and ask him about my experience with the 800mm.
Oct 05, 2012 at 07:50 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #10 · Canon 600mm F4 IS II vs Canon 800mm F5.6
alundeb wrote:
Lars, thank you for the link, it is a valuable review. But I don't see enything in it with relevance to my assumptions.
What I say is based on 1 fact and 2 assumptions:
fact: MFD
assumption 1: The total focus throw measured in rotational angle
assumption 2: The rotational speed of the focus motor
Since I wrote the first time, the lenses have become available, and it would be easy to check.
To say everything in a way much easier to comprehend:
When you look at the focus scales, it is easy to see that the focus motor needs to rotate less to move focus from 10 m to infinity with the 600 II than with the 800. Is this correct or not? ...Show more →
You can't see on the focus scale how fast or slow the AF motor will rotade/move. And 99,9% the times I'm shotting I don't go from MFD or close to that to infinity.
In the test they did the test shots both as normal test shots. And also in real life shootings at (Allsvenskan) soccer. And Horse Polo.
You only look at the lenses!! How can you say you don't see enything in it with relevance to your assumptions ? They tested the AF speed on both the new and old lenses with different MFD. And wrote they had the same AF speed. And they wrote a lot about AF speed and every time they wrote old and new lenses or extenders have the same speed
p.5 #11 · Canon 600mm F4 IS II vs Canon 800mm F5.6
alundeb wrote:
Lars, thank you for the link, it is a valuable review. But I don't see enything in it with relevance to my assumptions.
What I say is based on 1 fact and 2 assumptions:
fact: MFD
assumption 1: The total focus throw measured in rotational angle
assumption 2: The rotational speed of the focus motor
Since I wrote the first time, the lenses have become available, and it would be easy to check.
To say everything in a way much easier to comprehend:
When you look at the focus scales, it is easy to see that the focus motor needs to rotate less to move focus from 10 m to infinity with the 600 II than with the 800. Is this correct or not? ...Show more →
The focus limiting switch and the way you use AF has a huge impact on the AF speed in the field. For example: If you prefocus at an approximate distance and then control your focus so it never focuses on anything at a vastly different distance, then the AF adjustments will be almost instantaneous with any lens-TC combination that is capable of AF. That is what made the Kingfisher image I posted earlier possible even though I was using stacked TCs that focused EXTREMELY slowly. Testing how long it takes the lens to travel thru its entire Af range doesn't measure AF speed in relation to how it is actualy used in the field. Technique also plays a huge role in the imporatnce of Af speed.
p.5 #12 · Canon 600mm F4 IS II vs Canon 800mm F5.6
Lars Johnsson wrote:
You can't see on the focus scale how fast or slow the AF motor will rotade/move. And 99,9% the times I'm shotting I don't go from MFD or close to that to infinity.
In the test they did the test shots both as normal test shots. And also in real life shootings at (Allsvenskan) soccer. And Horse Polo.
You only look at the lenses!!
10m to infinity was only an example. The same will apply for any distance, like 20m to 30m.
Oct 05, 2012 at 08:08 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #13 · Canon 600mm F4 IS II vs Canon 800mm F5.6
JimN wrote:
The focus limiting switch and the way you use AF has a huge impact on the AF speed in the field. For example: If you prefocus at an approximate distance and then control your focus so it never focuses on anything at a vastly different distance, then the AF adjustments will be almost instantaneous with any lens-TC combination that is capable of AF. That is what made the Kingfisher image I posted earlier possible even though I was using stacked TCs that focused EXTREMELY slowly. Testing how long it takes the lens to travel thru its entire Af range doesn't measure AF speed in relation to how it is actualy used in the field. Technique also plays a huge role in the imporatnce of Af speed. ...Show more →
+1
Oct 05, 2012 at 08:09 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #14 · Canon 600mm F4 IS II vs Canon 800mm F5.6
alundeb wrote:
10m to infinity was only an example. The same will apply for any distance, like 20m to 30m.
Then you are wrong. Because that's about what they did in some tests. And the only increase in AF speed was when they used the new AF system on the 1DX (5D3) instead of the old bodies. No difference between lenses or extenders
p.5 #16 · Canon 600mm F4 IS II vs Canon 800mm F5.6
After reading through this thread (again) since jaybird555 resurrected it, I now know the real reason why Canon ditched APS-H for full frame: to get all of us to upgrade from our 500s to the 600 and 800! Must be some margin on those new great whites.
p.5 #17 · Canon 600mm F4 IS II vs Canon 800mm F5.6
alundeb wrote:
Are you talking about AF degradation with TC on the same lens, or with TC on a shorter lens?
I will repost one of my own posts from a while ago. I am surprised that nobody else mention this when comparing AF speed of lenses with and without teleconverters:
While it is always preferrable to avoid teleconverters when possible, the focus speed slowdown of 50% with a teleconevrter on a certain lens does not necessarily translate to 50% slower focus when compared to another lens with longer focal length. The key here is the difference in MFD. When two lenses are designed with the same focus throw and the same maximum drive speed, but different MFD's, the lens with the shorter MFD will have the fastest AF in the sense that it will use the shortest time to move focus from one subject distance to another.
In the case of the 400II and the 500II, the MFD's are 2.7 and 3.7 m. I don't know exactly how large portion of the focus throw that covers 2.7m - 3.7m on the 400, but usually the closest distances occupy the largest portions. On my 300 2.8 I, the throw from MFD at 2.5m, to 3.5m, is about 35%. From 2.5m to 4.5m it is about 50% of the total throw from MFD to infinity.
Let's say the focus throw from 2.7m to 3.7m on the 400 II is 30% of full scale. If that is correct, the [subject distance referenced] focus speed of the 400II+1.4 will be 71% of that of the 500II. (Calculated as 0.5x(1/(1-0.3)))
However, 560 mm is closer to 600 than to 500 mm, which makes it natural to compare the 400II+1.4 also with the 600II.
The 600II has an MFD of 4.5 m, and let's assume that 2.7 - 4.5 m occupies 45% of the focus throw on the 400 II. If that is correct, the [subject-distance referenced] focus speed of the 400II+1.4 will be 91% of that of the 600II. (0.5x(1/(1-0.45)))
The numbers are not accurate, but you get the point. The focus slowdown with teleconverters is not really crippling performance, but an adjustment that is necessary in order to restore normal operation, as with such a long focal length, short MFD and fixed focus throw, without slowdown it would be effectively faster than a long native lens, and less accurate.
In the case of a 70-200II+2x and a 400 5.6, the effect is remarakable, because the zoom has very short MFD and the prime has a very long MFD, and in som cases I have observed that the zoom with 2x teleconverter gives me a faster [subject distance referenced] AF speed that the longer prime lens....Show more →
Huh??
Here's how I do it. I take 600 II out to actually shoot pictures. HMMMMM very light. UGH! GOOOOOOD!
HMMMMMM! Take Heep good pictures. GOOOOOD!
Looky nice with Lens Coat! HMMMMMM! GOOOOD!
Work good with 1d MK IV ! Hmmmmmm! GOOOOOD!
p.5 #18 · Canon 600mm F4 IS II vs Canon 800mm F5.6
Lars Johnsson wrote:
Your argument is wrong When saying the 600mm has more focal length flexibility, because you can shoot at 600mm. No people buy a 800mm lens if they like to shoot at 600mm.
A bare lens will always beat another with TC.
Your # 3 & 4 are wrong
With your kind of argument the 400/2,8 will be even better
+1 +1 +1
p.5 #19 · Canon 600mm F4 IS II vs Canon 800mm F5.6
jaybird555 wrote:
+1 +1 +1
Well yes, but how many people can shoot exclusively at 800mm?
Most people tend to shoot a range of subjects, and not everyone can afford to own one $10-12K supertele at each focal length. I think that's the real argument for the 600 (or 400 or 500), though it would be great if we could own them all.
p.5 #20 · Canon 600mm F4 IS II vs Canon 800mm F5.6
Well yes, but how many people can shoot exclusively at 800mm?
Exclusively Well not 100% but I would say I use my 800mm about 95% of the time for bird photography, 20% of the time for floral work (over the past 3 years).
