p.2 #2 · Canon 600mm III IQ Worse than v. II (even with 1.4X TC attached)?
I've always been appreciative of TDP's lens comparisons but they just don't really equate to reality of focusing on subjects at a normal distance.
Someone mentioned the 400DOII earlier. That lens is right up there with IQ that matched my 300/2.8ISII and was close enough to my 600II that I didn't care about any IQ differences. Just picked the right lens for the job. The 400DOII did better at equivelent focal lengths/apertures than the 300II with TCs to get to those equivelents. The 300II was regarded as the highest IQ Canon lens on tests done on DXO years ago. I think it was the only lens that fully resolved the 5D3's sensor. And the 400DOII can hold its own. Yet TDP results don't shine as favorable a light on the 400DOII.
I do appreciate that TDP tested two copies of the 600III. And as mentioned earlier that does speak to something being a little bit off compared to the 600II he tested years ago. So I'm sure there is something in there.
If I was a tripod kind of guy I'd buy a used 600II. But I'm a handheld 90% of the time kind of guy so I'd be picking up a 600III if I was in the market for that lens. I have the similar weight and weight distributed Sony 600/4 so I know how nice the handholding is with that new 600III.
Of course all of this will become irrelevant when Canon releases the RF 600 f/4 DO and shaves off even more weight and reduces the length to less than a 400III. Just make sure you have a spare kidney and a lung left to sell
p.2 #3 · 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.
This is why I say look at real world images and forget those wall shots (that's what I call them).
p.2 #5 · Canon 600mm III IQ Worse than v. II (even with 1.4X TC attached)?
I know arbitrage and some others have hinted at this already, but testing supertelephoto lenses is an inherently flawed process. The focal ranges in which they operate along with their focal length means their focusing groups travel across a large distance.
Most tests of these lenses are done, for practical reasons, at very close focusing distances compared to what you would normally use them for in the field.
The 600II may in fact be blisteringly sharp when compared to the 600III across all focusing distances but with these tests it’s very difficult to know that. It is pretty undeniable that the 600III clearly has some softness in TDPs comparison when compared to the 600II. But the 600 III could also be sharper or as sharp as the 600 II when at your expected working distance.
p.2 #6 · Canon 600mm III IQ Worse than v. II (even with 1.4X TC attached)?
I read the review in TDP. I decided the optics were a wash with maybe a slight advantage to the II. That said, the weight was too alluring. Lighter than a 500 f4. What is not to like?
p.2 #7 · Canon 600mm III IQ Worse than v. II (even with 1.4X TC attached)?
Flowernut wrote:
I read the review in TDP. I decided the optics were a wash with maybe a slight advantage to the II. That said, the weight was too alluring. Lighter than a 500 f4. What is not to like?
The length. It's not a DO.
I only used one copy of the 600/4 AF III. It's an excellent lens, but not up to the 500/4 IS II IME.
A shorter version would be nice.
p.2 #8 · Canon 600mm III IQ Worse than v. II (even with 1.4X TC attached)?
EB-1 wrote:
The length. It's not a DO.
I only used one copy of the 600/4 AF III. It's an excellent lens, but not up to the 500/4 IS II IME.
A shorter version would be nice.
EBH
Hopefully, the RF version will give us even more, but based on the pricing strategy of the other EF-RF equivalent lenses, it will be quite a bit more expensive. However, I'm sitting back and waiting for the RF600 lens and holding onto my coins tightly and by passing the newer RF lenses for now.
p.2 #9 · Canon 600mm III IQ Worse than v. II (even with 1.4X TC attached)?
EB-1 wrote:
The length. It's not a DO.
I only used one copy of the 600/4 AF III. It's an excellent lens, but not up to the 500/4 IS II IME.
A shorter version would be nice.
EBH
We all hope for the 600 DO. I've used the 500 a good bit. That was my first long FD lens as the 600 FD had a poor reputation. I find the 500 is best for general nature and 600 for birds. Travel has not been a problem with 600 in US. Took one to Japan and Africa. It will fit in an international size roll aboard (Japan) but it presses tightly against the case. Would not want to check it that way as baggage. Frankly these days I travel more with the 600 than the 500. The 500 has been replaced for me by the 200-400.
For small and light (NZ) I used a 400 DO. Worked well particularly seeing it was mainly a landscape trip. The 400 DO gave me a reliable 560 and 800 in a pinch in a small light package for birds etc.
As to sharpness, I've never tried to compare 500 and 600 and will take your word for it.
p.2 #10 · Canon 600mm III IQ Worse than v. II (even with 1.4X TC attached)?
Having owned both lenses, there really is nothing to worry about in terms of sharpness between the two lenses, even with tcs. I am thrilled with the quality & I am very picky. The rumoured step backwards in IQ gave me pause before I eventually bought the 600 III. But in real world scenarios I do not see this at all.
The reduction in weight & rebalancing really is a significant improvement for my shooting.
