AmbientMike wrote:
This is a parallel universe thread. You wonder where people get ideas like Canon doesn't have teles, isn't innovating in teles, R5 II isn't high enough resolution (guess you're not going Nikon, even 60mp Sony isn't that much higher,) etc
molson wrote:
What so many people fail to comprehend is that Canon is a company that is in business to return a profit for their shareholders. Catering to a handful of bored rich people on some internet forum is hardly a sound business practice.
And why exactly should we care when the much smaller Nikon was able to release in less than 2 years a full line up of super télés fine tuned for birders? Is Canon working for themselves or for us the photographers? Do we owe the all mighty Canon anything that prevents us from daring to expect them to listen to our modest needs?
Back in early 2022 Dpreview ranked the Z9 with fm 1.0 as better focusing overall than R3 and a1. At that time its bird AF was not great. Since then Nikon has focused most of their improvements on bird AF to the extend that Steve Perry now ranks it as the best camera for birds with fm5.0. The progress is larger than what many brands deliver btwn generations of cameras. And if rumors are true fm6.0 is about to be released. But this one may be more about sports, we will see. The point being they are still trying to maximize value for photographers at zero cost.
Has the profit focused Canon shown a similar urge to support the needs of birders? Sure they had less progress to make in this area but aren’t the trends very obvious?
Sure, just like Toyota released with the Yaris GR a 35,000 US$ rally car (now gen 2 with an automatic gear box btw) that is probably one of 3 most fun cars to drive on the market under the 100,000 US$ mark, Canon may decide at some point to consider birding important. But what are the odds? The Toyota former CEO went public daring to say “petrol cars are fun, I love driving”. Have we seen a Canon CEO in the mud shooting birds? What are the reasons to believe that things may change for the better?
Toyota is a company whose very top is deeply aware of their responsibility towards their clients. The very limited interactions I’ve had with Canon camera division in Japan conveyed an unmistakable sense of arrogance. I wouldn’t think much of it weren’t their attitude as a company consistently showing the same trend.
rscheffler wrote:
So while I agree that the lack of an internal TC was a missed opportunity by Canon if indeed they rushed these lenses out, and the lack of mid-tier long primes is discouraging for bird/wildlife photographers, I'm not convinced there is an AF performance penalty afflicting the 400/2.8 and 600/4 RF versions on R cameras. It seems more like the continued parroting of something someone claimed way back when these were released (just rehoused EF lenses). Has someone shown that the RF versions of these lenses aren't up to the task? From the birding photos I've seen with the 400 on the R3 in other threads here, there doesn't seem to be a problem focusing on small birds, such as swallows in flight. Or flying owls at dusk. Maybe @RobAmy@ or @stanj@ could comment? ...Show more →
I experienced the EF 400/2.8 III on the R5 and R3, and now I own the RF version. To me, they feel & work exactly the same. Not better, not worse. Fro's original review of the R3 shows him using the R3 and RF 400 combo and the EVF recording clearly shows a (Hand)+ symbol, which no amount of official firmware updating of both camera and lens has brought forward, indicating that he was using an internal, experimental version of the R3 and/or RF 400 firmware that then for whatever reason wasn't released to the public. Thus, to me, as disappointed as I may be, the EF and RF are exactly the same, except I don't have to fiddle with an adapter.
Yes, I wish the 400 had an internal TC, that's the one thing I'm jealous of with the Nikon. But then I'd have to have a Z9. Owls are impossible to track even with the R3.
cjacques wrote:
I was under the impression that the Ef 600 mark ii was sharper than the new mark iii version. I assumed that the sharpness of the RF 600 was the same as the mark iii.
One person (Bryan Carnathan) found their EF 600L III to be less sharp than their version II, and that has become internet gospel. Considering those were DSLR lenses, and the inherent challenges of proper micro-adjustment of DSLR cameras and lenses, Bryan's findings may or may not have been representative of other copies of those lenses. I certainly haven't seen any other actual test results that corroborate the version II being sharper than version III.
molson wrote:
One person (Bryan Carnathan) found their EF 600L III to be less sharp than their version II, and that has become internet gospel. Considering those were DSLR lenses, and the inherent challenges of proper micro-adjustment of DSLR cameras and lenses, Bryan's findings may or may not have been representative of other copies of those lenses. I certainly haven't seen any other actual test results that corroborate the version II being sharper than version III.
thanks Cliff! Yes I remember the micro-adjustment pain, especially when trying to do it with the 1.4x and then, the micro-adjustment nightmare with the 2x Glad this is something no longer required with the mirrorless. A while back I tested the RF 600 with the R3 and liked it. However, I also tested at the same time the R3 with my EF lenses and the results were so close. I assumed that perhaps the R3 more than the RF lens was responsible for the results and decided not to splurge on the RF 600 as I was not going to get the R3 anyway, preferring the 45 MP of the R5. I think I will just wait for my R5 mark ii and my puffy jacket to arrive , then contact CPS to loan me a RF 400 and a RF 600 with the 1.4x and 2x, re-do the exercise with a R5 mark ii and then see where this exercise in my brand new outfit leads me.
I've tested my 600mm f4 III against a 600mm f4 II and found the new lens sharper. The other guy was surprised to see that. Of course we were pixel peeping with bare lenses. Lens is very sharp with TC's, also.
I had the original 500mm f4 IS a lens that appears soft on TDP's charts. Softer than a bunch of other lenses. Far from the actual truth. So, I always take these tests with a grain of salt.
I don't think there can be a significant improvement on optics. Maybe they can still shed some weight or add some new functions/options.
In my opinion, this thread is replete with dogmatic statements, making it difficult to take seriously. I find the practice of presenting personal opinions as irrefutable facts particularly irksome. With a modest exertion of effort, these opinions masquerading as facts could be transformed into thought-provoking conversation starters.
I've observed an increasing trend toward dichotomous viewpoints in discussions. The prevailing sentiment often categorizes (insert brand #1) as subpar while positioning (insert brand #2) as superior. The expression of dissenting views is frequently met with derision, thus diminishing engagement.
For nearly two decades, I have chosen Canon as my preferred brand. I acknowledge the appeal of alternative manufacturers, but I have observed that conversations often revolve solely around technical specifications. What appears to be lacking is a comprehensive assessment of how the advancements offered by competitors translate into tangible enhancements in photographic output. There are, however, notable exceptions to this trend; for instance, the development of lighter telephoto prime lenses addresses the need for continued accessibility as the population ages.
Canon offers the F11 600mm and 800mm lenses, which in my opinion are not as unusable as I had expected initially. However, I think there is room for Canon to take a page from Nikon and offer some competition to their 6.3 primes.
Nikon has recently really stepped up their game, a development that I believe will foster healthy competition amongst the major players.
I maintain the view that there is nothing so revolutionary from Sony and or Nikon that it renders my Canon equipment obsolete.
So, while it appears not to be the popular opinion on this Canon forum, I pre-ordered the R5II and am looking forward to using it alongside my R3 and R6II.
molson wrote:
One person (Bryan Carnathan) found their EF 600L III to be less sharp than their version II, and that has become internet gospel. Considering those were DSLR lenses, and the inherent challenges of proper micro-adjustment of DSLR cameras and lenses, Bryan's findings may or may not have been representative of other copies of those lenses. I certainly haven't seen any other actual test results that corroborate the version II being sharper than version III.
I got the RF 600 in April and have been thrilled with it and would never want to go back to the version II. The optics are the same as the EFIII, but other things and the extenders were changed for the RF version. I don't understand the original poster's aversion to the lens, it's fantastic. Experience has shown me not to take too much stock in everything you read on TDP. You have to use something under the the conditions you use them in and see for yourself. I've never seen sharper photos with a 2x on a 600 than the RF600 f4 and the RF2x using an R5. Bryan Carnathan says it's not good, but it sure looks great to me for my use on small songbirds at fairly close range. On the other side of the coin I also have a lot of disagreements with his opinions on wide angles. He never mentions one critical aspect of them : field curvature, which to me has a bigger impact on my use of them than many of the other things he talks about. I would advise the original poster here to at least try the RF 600 before making the very costly move of switching systems and abandoning Canon, he may actually like it.
R Royse wrote:
I got the RF 600 in April and have been thrilled with it and would never want to go back to the version II. The optics are the same as the EFIII, but other things and the extenders were changed for the RF version. I don't understand the original poster's aversion to the lens, it's fantastic. Experience has shown me not to take too much stock in everything you read on TDP. You have to use something under the the conditions you use them in and see for yourself. I've never seen sharper photos with a 2x on a 600 than the RF600 f4 and the RF2x using an R5. Bryan Carnathan says it's not good, but it sure looks great to me for my use on small songbirds at fairly close range. On the other side of the coin I also have a lot of disagreements with his opinions on wide angles. He never mentions one critical aspect of them : field curvature, which to me has a bigger impact on my use of them than many of the other things he talks about. I would advise the original poster here to at least try the RF 600 before making the very costly move of switching systems and abandoning Canon, he may actually like it....Show more →
Ive had every Canon600mmF4 ever made and the RF version is the best yet. Performance with teleconverters unmatched IMO
R Royse wrote:
I don't understand the original poster's aversion to the lens, it's fantastic.
Perhaps his point isn’t about a specific lens but more broadly about his perceived lack of focus of Canon on birding?
If I am not mistaken his disappointment with the RF 600mm f4 is first and foremost the lack of built-in TC, isn’t it?
Could it be that, as a pro, he has to get the shot in a limited amount of time and thinks that a built-in TC helps in that regard? That would certainly echo my own experience.
Canon shooters I know seem very happy about the built-in TC in their 200-400mm f4.
To me the biggest issue with the RF600 is the length makes it difficult to carry-on for air travel. Technically it should fit most airlines but it will not fit in carry-on approved bags (that I am aware of). The EF versions you can just pop the adapter off and they fit nicely. Also, the lack of internal TC just proves it was a rushed product. Maybe the next version will address these issues. Until then my EF version seems like a better option to me at this point but that Nikon 600TC has neither of those issues giving some of us a wondering eye.
It’s a great lens but it was not designed or engineered for the RF mount. The additional length is essential the welded on adapter, and the lens is a bit front heavy compared to the Nikon Z or Sony versions. Again not that it’s bad, but it’s not a lens that was developed from the ground up like the 28-70mm f/2.0 or 100-300mm f/2.8 was.
R Royse wrote:
I got the RF 600 in April and have been thrilled with it and would never want to go back to the version II. The optics are the same as the EFIII, but other things and the extenders were changed for the RF version. I don't understand the original poster's aversion to the lens, it's fantastic. Experience has shown me not to take too much stock in everything you read on TDP. You have to use something under the the conditions you use them in and see for yourself. I've never seen sharper photos with a 2x on a 600 than the RF600 f4 and the RF2x using an R5. Bryan Carnathan says it's not good, but it sure looks great to me for my use on small songbirds at fairly close range. On the other side of the coin I also have a lot of disagreements with his opinions on wide angles. He never mentions one critical aspect of them : field curvature, which to me has a bigger impact on my use of them than many of the other things he talks about. I would advise the original poster here to at least try the RF 600 before making the very costly move of switching systems and abandoning Canon, he may actually like it....Show more →
While it was tempting not to reply to your soliloquy, I simply couldn't resist. You're premises are largely correct and for whatever reasons, Canon has not viewed the WL shooter as a core segment of its market. They are committed to video, sports, fashion, etc. and have produced products which perform very well for those genres. The R3 appears to be a heck of a camera for the professional sports shooter, and the R5II will likely yield excellent results for other photographers too. About a year and a half ago, I left Canon not because of the bodies - both the predecessors (R3, R5) are excellent cameras - rather the lack of newer design, long telephotos was the deciding factor. My 600 f/4 II broke and Canon wouldn't repair it, my 500 f/4 II was aging, and while I liked the 100-500 for its size and IQ, the wonky TC issue bothered me. Meanwhile, Nikon produced the 400 f/4.5, 800 PF, 180-600, 600 PF, and importantly 400 f/2.8 and 600 f/4's with built in TC's. All of these lenses are super and I simply was tired of waiting for Canon to produce anything of value for my segment. In spite of switching, it hasn't been smooth sailing and quite candidly, the Z8, while it is an excellent camera, can't match the r5's (and likely R5II) AF for WL and is a notch below with respect to eye focus for people. Sony beats Nikon in the AF department and has some pretty high octane though more traditional lenses (300 f/2.8, 600 f/4) etc. Unfortunately, one cannot use a Nikon lens on a Sony (or Canon) as it would be really cool to pair some of them on a Sony body.
ramage wrote:
In my opinion, this thread is replete with dogmatic statements, making it difficult to take seriously. I find the practice of presenting personal opinions as irrefutable facts particularly irksome. With a modest exertion of effort, these opinions masquerading as facts could be transformed into thought-provoking conversation starters.
I've observed an increasing trend toward dichotomous viewpoints in discussions.
It seems that the vast majority of humans like to reduce everything to binary choices, and not deal with shades of gray. The fact that practically everything in life is replete with many shades of gray doesn't seem to affect that "need" to see things as binary.
robert_in_ca wrote:
It’s a great lens but it was not designed or engineered for the RF mount. The additional length is essential the welded on adapter, and the lens is a bit front heavy compared to the Nikon Z or Sony versions. Again not that it’s bad, but it’s not a lens that was developed from the ground up like the 28-70mm f/2.0 or 100-300mm f/2.8 was.
I don't agree that the RF600mm handles any different than the Sony 600mm. Used them side by side by side, seemed identical to me. Not sure about the Nikon 600mm F4 with TC. Never had a chance to use one. Think the RF600 is the lightest of the 3 however...
Glad this is something no longer required with the mirrorless. A while back I tested the RF 600 with the R3 and liked it. However, I also tested at the same time the R3 with my EF lenses and the results were so close. I assumed that perhaps the R3 more than the RF lens was responsible for the results and decided not to splurge on the RF 600 as I was not going to get the R3 anyway, preferring the 45 MP of the R5. I think I will just wait for my R5 mark ii and my puffy jacket to arrive 