p.1 #1 · Canon 600mm III IQ Worse than v. II (even with 1.4X TC attached)?
I've always wanted a long Canon lens for wildlife, and I'm about to give myself a big Christmas present this year. In deciding between the 500mm II and the 600mm III, I had been leaning to the 600mm III. The 500mm seems easier to carry and haul around by all accounts, but I often read about a preference for more reach. As I often have my 300mm II with the 2x TC attached, I know what that feels like.
Accordingly, I've been leaning to paying the substantial additional money for the 600mm III.
Then I saw this comparison at The Digital Picture Review, which has generally provided me with accurate comparisons of lens IQ:
As you can see, the 600mm II is a bit better at the center than than new 600mm III:
Have users who have "upgraded" from the 600mm II to the III been disappointed by the new lens, particularly with the 1.4x or 2x TC attached?
If real-life results of adding the 1.4X TC to the old 600mm II really left the new, bare lens in the dust as these tests imply, I would pay more for the old lens, weight and all. If, on the other hand, the new lens is comparable to the IQ of the old one, I'd gladly pay up for the weight reduction.
I would appreciate feedback from those who have used/compared both lenses, or links to similar tests that would confirm or refute the tests I linked above.
I am separately weighing the differences to the 500mm II, but I am interested in whether the 600mm III is the right alternative, or whether that lens has so compromised IQ for weight savings that the prior version would make more sense for me. For example, if the old 600mm II is truly better at 840mm than the new lens is bare, or if the new 600mm III at 840mm is as bad as the review above makes it appear, I would easily opt for the old 600mm II lens.
p.1 #2 · Canon 600mm III IQ Worse than v. II (even with 1.4X TC attached)?
I'm sure others will chime in but here's my 2 cents. I was recently in the same situation as you. I had decided to buy a big prime, thought about switching to Sony or Nikon. Decided to stick with Canon, got an r5 and the 600III.
Only had the 600III for about 6 weeks. Been very pleased. That said, I don't have a 600II to compare it to. Mainly use the 1.4x when shooting waterfowl. Have used it some with shorebirds/songbirds but only sparingly. Happy to try and share some full-size processed jpegs if you want to pixel peep.
I would consider a used 500II but I don't think I would buy a new one at this point. I had originally planned on buying a 500 but decided to get the 600III once I realized they weighed the same.
I thought about waiting on an RF version but I didn't want to wait 1-2 years. They might be hard to come by at the start and I couldn't justify spending that much to pre-order without waiting on some hands-on reviews.
p.1 #3 · Canon 600mm III IQ Worse than v. II (even with 1.4X TC attached)?
The two guys I really trust evaluating those two lenses are Pius and Rob on here. They both are really happy with the 600III and I haven't seen them complain about any noticeable loss of IQ compared to the 600II they both owned. Kingofkings also has good experience with both.
I owned the 600II for many years. I've had the opportunity to shoot with Pius' 600III a few times. Even with the 2xTCIII on the lens I felt the IQ was top notch.
I've also shot an entire afternoon in Florida with the 500II. It was also excellent but I feel the 600s have the edge. The 600III is lighter than the 500II (only slightly) but more importantly it is much better balanced back towards the camera. I think for handheld shooting the 600III is every bit as easy to handhold and because of the balance even better than the 500II. But of course the 500II is narrower and shorter to pack. And less expensive, especially when easier to find used ones.
p.1 #4 · Canon 600mm III IQ Worse than v. II (even with 1.4X TC attached)?
jffielde wrote:
I've always wanted a long Canon lens for wildlife, and I'm about to give myself a big Christmas present this year. In deciding between the 500mm II and the 600mm III, I had been leaning to the 600mm III. The 500mm seems easier to carry and haul around by all accounts, but I often read about a preference for more reach. As I often have my 300mm II with the 2x TC attached, I know what that feels like.
Accordingly, I've been leaning to paying the substantial additional money for the 600mm III.
Then I saw this comparison at The Digital Picture Review, which has generally provided me with accurate comparisons of lens IQ:
As you can see, the 600mm II is a bit better at the center than than new 600mm III:
Have users who have "upgraded" from the 600mm II to the III been disappointed by the new lens, particularly with the 1.4x or 2x TC attached?
If real-life results of adding the 1.4X TC to the old 600mm II really left the new, bare lens in the dust as these tests imply, I would pay more for the old lens, weight and all. If, on the other hand, the new lens is comparable to the IQ of the old one, I'd gladly pay up for the weight reduction.
I would appreciate feedback from those who have used/compared both lenses, or links to similar tests that would confirm or refute the tests I linked above.
I am separately weighing the differences to the 500mm II, but I am interested in whether the 600mm III is the right alternative, or whether that lens has so compromised IQ for weight savings that the prior version would make more sense for me. For example, if the old 600mm II is truly better at 840mm than the new lens is bare, or if the new 600mm III at 840mm is as bad as the review above makes it appear, I would easily opt for the old 600mm II lens.
Joseph I have used both 600 II and 600 III with and without TC's, after extensive use its hard to call on image quality. But i sure enjoy the weight reduction for hand-holding. Comparison images below, bare 600 III and 600 II x 1.4.
p.1 #5 · Canon 600mm III IQ Worse than v. II (even with 1.4X TC attached)?
I say if you don't already have a 600, it makes sense to go with the 600III at this point for the weight reduction. Also, look at real world images, like the Eagles above...that is what counts. Later for the wall shots.
p.1 #7 · Canon 600mm III IQ Worse than v. II (even with 1.4X TC attached)?
This discussion is really helpful. I really want the extra reach and the package weight and distribution seem fantastic to me. Thank you for your insights.
p.1 #8 · Canon 600mm III IQ Worse than v. II (even with 1.4X TC attached)?
Bare lens... its a no-brainer, the 600 III is razor sharp and lighter. That's saying a lot because I truly believe the 600 II was Canon's best lens. It was almost a no compromise lens, and did everything well. Things change a little when TC's are added to the 600 III. The question is how much do you value using the TC, and then how critical are you? Even with me saying "Its not as good with the TC", most people will not care about the difference. That's something you'll need to flesh out based on your expectations. Canon obviously had to make some concessions optically, to get the lens elements pushed back in to the lens. There's a reason they were always further forward in the past, I'd guess they were easier to optically correct the aberrations. Sony appears to have done a better job correcting for this optical formula, so there is hope they may fix it on the RF mount.
My suggestion, hold out for the RF mount (if you have an RF camera). But if that's asking too much, figure out where you stand on TC performance. For me, the 600 III's TC performance was a deal breaker, but I do accept that the images coming out of them do look better than the resolution charts make it seem.
p.1 #9 · Canon 600mm III IQ Worse than v. II (even with 1.4X TC attached)?
Thanks, Mike. You raise considerations that matter to me.
I do care about the 1.4x TC -- honestly I've come to have such lowered expectations with the 2x TC that I use it rarely (and expect compromised results).
I'm okay with slight image degradation from the use of a 1.4x TC, but I'm worried by comparisons like this, that show the 500mm II with 1.4x TC is slightly better (at 700mm) than the 600mm III bare lens.
It's hard for me to believe that people would own the 600mm III if that's really the case -- let alone pay $13K for the pleasure. That's why I'm seeking real-world users' opinions here.
I have a 1DX III and don't plan to have an RF camera for many years.
p.1 #10 · Canon 600mm III IQ Worse than v. II (even with 1.4X TC attached)?
I do believe that 600 II is a tad sharper than the III in the centre, even canon’s own MTF charts shows this. But the difference is most likely slight and don’t take everything on Brian’s website as absolute gospel because reliable resolution testing of these big whites very difficult, and there a quite a few other anomalies there too, I.e the 400 DO II, which looks terrible on DDP.
I own the mk II myself, the III where I live is double the price so it never was really in the equation.
p.1 #11 · Canon 600mm III IQ Worse than v. II (even with 1.4X TC attached)?
LS_Ren,
It's so funny you mention the 400 DO II. I ended up passing on that lens in favor of a 400mm f/5.6 based on Brian's resolution charts for that lens as well. I had the same thought in that case (how can they possibly sell that lens for $7k, if that's really what it's performance looks like). Even today, I suspect that people aren't shelling out that money for performance that really looks that bad, but one never knows. Occasionally, the emperor really has no clothes. Real-world users often sort out performance well enough for my purposes.
p.1 #13 · Canon 600mm III IQ Worse than v. II (even with 1.4X TC attached)?
LS_Ren wrote:
... don’t take everything on Brian’s website as absolute gospel because reliable resolution testing of these big whites very difficult...
This is a very prudent statement. However, I'll add he went out of his way to test two different copies of the 600 III. This is rare for him, he seems to only do this when the lens disappoints. In this case, both lenses performed very similar, I'd say its likely an accurate assessment.
Additionally, I wish more sites tested these lenses. I believe DXO and Lens Rentals are the only other consistent resources, but I'm not sure if either of the two are as extensive in the number of tested lens types. Granted, no test criteria is as good as Lens Rentals, but Bryan's testing give you a good assessment of quality with only a few variations to consider.
EDIT:
And there Pius goes and proves, the charts are not everything.
p.1 #14 · Canon 600mm III IQ Worse than v. II (even with 1.4X TC attached)?
jffielde wrote:
LS_Ren,
It's so funny you mention the 400 DO II. I ended up passing on that lens in favor of a 400mm f/5.6 based on Brian's resolution charts for that lens as well. I had the same thought in that case (how can they possibly sell that lens for $7k, if that's really what it's performance looks like). Even today, I suspect that people aren't shelling out that money for performance that really looks that bad, but one never knows. Occasionally, the emperor really has no clothes. Real-world users often sort out performance well enough for my purposes.
I have the 400mm f/5.6 and the 400mm f/4 DO II. Both are great lenses. In real world shooting they have comparable IQ.
The f/5.6 is lighter and the AF is fast. The DO is still relatively light and the AF is very fast. It is one stop faster, and has 4 stops of IS. That is mostly why it sells for so much more.
p.1 #16 · Canon 600mm III IQ Worse than v. II (even with 1.4X TC attached)?
Don’t let any perceived concerns of IQ w/wo TCs bother you. In real world use, the 600III is no better than the 600II for IQ, but also no worse. Same with TCs when comparing the same combos. If you want a lighter, more easily handheld lens, go with the 600III. If it will be a tripod queen, save yourself a lot of money and get the 600II. That’s as simple as it gets.
I don’t think the IS improvements are really that notable between the two. So your two real factors are weight and weight distribution. Consider all other things equal.
p.1 #18 · Canon 600mm III IQ Worse than v. II (even with 1.4X TC attached)?
I don't always trust that site's lens review. They have shown results in the past that fly in the face of reality. IIRC they must have had an appalling copy of one of the BWL's as it's IQ was rubbish and the lens of course had excellent IQ even with 1.4x TC for everyone I saw that owned it. The 600II already has superb IQ, it was always going to be tough to better it. It was all about the improved balance and weight reduction not IQ.
Technically the Sony and Nikon versions have better MTF's but in the real world it's irrelevant.
p.1 #19 · Canon 600mm III IQ Worse than v. II (even with 1.4X TC attached)?
I've used the Canon EF 500mm f4 IS I some years ago and remembered how bad the samples at the-digital-picture looked for that lens. I mean they were really bad, but what a difference the real testing was. The lens was super sharp.
You don't have to worry about the new 600 III, the lens is extremely sharp and it takes the extenders very, very well, as sampled above.
I've tested it against a friend's 600II and the 600III was visibly sharper at 100% crops. Tested it against another 600II and found it was too close to call.
The weight savings and the weight distribution are amazing. If you'll use it on a tripod get the 600II, but for everything else get the 600III.
p.1 #20 · Canon 600mm III IQ Worse than v. II (even with 1.4X TC attached)?
KINGOFKNGS wrote:
If you want a lighter, more easily handheld lens, go with the 600III. If it will be a tripod queen, save yourself a lot of money and get the 600II.
I think that's the best summary.
The III trades a little bit of theoretical IQ for a much better chance of getting the shot.
In the real World, easier panning and less shake probably mean the output IQ is actually better.
