p.3 #1 · Official Canon EF 600mm f/4L is III thread (Post your pics)
aboutthelight wrote:
Sorry to sound like "that guy" but none of the recent shots except for the kingfisher look sharp at all to me. And even the kingfisher is not as detailed as I think it should be with a 5dsr and the 600 iii. Those with and without the extenders look the same. Not sure if the lens is having some issues or what? Do not mean to sound rude in any way but just being honest.
You have to realize that the Upload feature on FM that Pius is utilizing robs critical sharpness...has been an ongoing discussion for years (most recently in the 400/2.8 GM images thread). They also look noticeably worse on 5K monitors versus 2K monitors...some issue with scaling. I have a 5K iMac beside a 2K iMac and the 2K displays the images sharper.
Have a look at Pius' Flickr where you can see a much better representation of these shots...for instance here is one of the kingfishers and eagles direct from Flickr....does it look better to you?
p.3 #2 · Official Canon EF 600mm f/4L is III thread (Post your pics)
They both look better now to me and I think they both look good, not great. As Pius mentioned it may just be a function of being a large crop combined with some sort of compression on the site. 4 and 5k monitors are the great equalizer. If a shot is not razor sharp with excellent fine feather details then it will not look good when viewed on the larger monitors. Most things look good when posted on smaller monitors with less resolution. Almost everything looks great when I view them on my iphone. For instance Geoff, your Wood Duck that you posted that was facing head on looks absolutely fantastic on the 5k. It is just a matter of how critically sharp the raw file was. Any faults will be revealed when viewing images on the screens with greater resolution.
p.3 #3 · Official Canon EF 600mm f/4L is III thread (Post your pics)
Let's not pixel peep....but I agree with all and also about the image volume vs quality in that post. However, those 2 images are PRETTY darn good for me, and I am a semi-pro at wildlife photography.
LGTM ! The lens is performing fantastic in Mr Pius's hand, the only flaw there is, is possibly human flaw.
p.3 #4 · Official Canon EF 600mm f/4L is III thread (Post your pics)
Pius Sullivan wrote:
---------------------------------------------
Don't feel bad about commenting on my photos good or bad..
I'm hoping to see other photographers post so I can compare, maybe I'm looking in the wrong places but I don't see many photos posted with Canon 600mm III.
I bought this lens for the weight reduction, for now I don't see much difference in image quality between 600 II vs 600 III.
All of the photos posted here are big crops, I have taken pictures of robins and other small birds that i can get close to... the 600 III has detail resolving power.. (It has punch) ;}
Pius
Thanks for posting these excellent and nice images. Knowing that the photos are crops, makes the sharpness look good. You are one of the few lucky ones to own this lens yet, more will follow. Keep up the good work!
p.3 #5 · Official Canon EF 600mm f/4L is III thread (Post your pics)
Pius Sullivan wrote:
---------------------------------------------
Don't feel bad about commenting on my photos good or bad..
I'm hoping to see other photographers post so I can compare, maybe I'm looking in the wrong places but I don't see many photos posted with Canon 600mm III.
I bought this lens for the weight reduction, for now I don't see much difference in image quality between 600 II vs 600 III.
All of the photos posted here are big crops, I have taken pictures of robins and other small birds that i can get close to... the 600 III has detail resolving power.. (It has punch) ;}
Pius
I enjoy the images themselves, I forgot to mention that haha. Do you still have your version II? I’ve been hoping to find a comparison set of photos of a 3D object with controlled lighting indoors.
Not for pixel peeping purposes but to judge the whole image. I usually do this by bringing a rock and piece of wood which feature light and dark areas and using bounce flash or something similar near them to control for lighting changes happening in nearby windows etc.
For example I found canon to be killing off some of the tonality in favor of pixel peeping resolution on some of their new replacement lenses like the 35l II for example.
p.3 #8 · Official Canon EF 600mm f/4L is III thread (Post your pics)
jkochuni wrote:
Has there been a conclusion made on if the 600mm III is as sharp as the 600mm II? Can someone post a RAW file from the camera?
I haven't seen any direct comparisons in a controlled environment to compare. TheDigitalPicture has the 400/2.8III available to compare to the Mk II and that shows about equal centre sharpness and noticeably better corners on the Mk III...especially as you add TCs to it.
However, the 400 results don't really mean anything to the 600. I'm betting it will be so close in the centre that it won't matter one bit out in the field because there are so many other variables that will even out the IQ in a real world scenario anyways.
You buy the 600III to save on weight....and that means you better be handholding it most or all of the time....otherwise I can't see any point in the lens at all.
p.3 #9 · Official Canon EF 600mm f/4L is III thread (Post your pics)
arbitrage wrote:
I haven't seen any direct comparisons in a controlled environment to compare. TheDigitalPicture has the 400/2.8III available to compare to the Mk II and that shows about equal centre sharpness and noticeably better corners on the Mk III...especially as you add TCs to it.
However, the 400 results don't really mean anything to the 600. I'm betting it will be so close in the centre that it won't matter one bit out in the field because there are so many other variables that will even out the IQ in a real world scenario anyways.
You buy the 600III to save on weight....and that means you better be handholding it most or all of the time....otherwise I can't see any point in the lens at all. ...Show more →
p.3 #17 · Official Canon EF 600mm f/4L is III thread (Post your pics)
jkochuni wrote:
Hello Pius,
Would you be willing to upload a Raw file for viewing?
How will viewing a single (or even a few) random RAW files help with comparing to the 600II? Wouldn't one need a very controlled test with both lenses shooting the same thing to make any kind of conclusion. I have 10s of 1000s of 600II images on a number of camera bodies and even if Pius sent me every RAW file he has taken with the 600III it wouldn't tell me anything.
Fortunately for Pius (but unfortunate for any comparison) he was able to unload his 600II for a decent price and move on...
p.3 #19 · Official Canon EF 600mm f/4L is III thread (Post your pics)
So I'm new to the forum and would appreciate some advice.
I am committed to adding a longer prime to my package. Initial target would be for Wildlife - ELK, Deer, Moose, and moving into some birding .
Choice is either the EF 600mm II or III. I shoot primarily on POD. The new lens is 13K and version II 10.4k from reputable dealer, so a 2.6k savings . Canon support claims service on the version II through 2025. The II version has been a solid performer and the III remains to be proven. The II has been in service for approx 9 years plus 7 more years of Canon service to 2025 ( 16 Years ) - So by following that the new III should have the same over the next 15 years . What does one buy? - the II and save 2.6K which I would put for maybe a 200-400 with converter or the new III.
p.3 #20 · Official Canon EF 600mm f/4L is III thread (Post your pics)
JAS23 wrote:
So I'm new to the forum and would appreciate some advice.
I am committed to adding a longer prime to my package. Initial target would be for Wildlife - ELK, Deer, Moose, and moving into some birding .
Choice is either the EF 600mm II or III. I shoot primarily on POD. The new lens is 13K and version II 10.4k from reputable dealer, so a 2.6k savings . Canon support claims service on the version II through 2025. The II version has been a solid performer and the III remains to be proven. The II has been in service for approx 9 years plus 7 more years of Canon service to 2025 ( 16 Years ) - So by following that the new III should have the same over the next 15 years . What does one buy? - the II and save 2.6K which I would put for maybe a 200-400 with converter or the new III....Show more →
If I shot primarily from a POD, I'd stick with the II....I'd also just buy a pristine used copy if possible...there are many being sold these days....that will save you a lot more than the 2.6K...there are four nice copies currently for sale on this forum and asking $7.5-8K....that type of savings would go a long way to getting the 200-400, especially if you bought that used also. The good things is most of us super tele owners take good care of our big lenses....buying used from a reputable FM seller is something to seriously consider.
Yes, you bought it for the right reason!! Same reason I would have bought it if I still shot Canon....handholding...