rscheffler
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.1 #11 · Buy used RF 600mm f4 now or wait | |
bart0505 wrote:
Hi all, very avid wildlife and bird shooter here. I have an R5I and an R5II and the RF100-500 lens, which I love, but I have been badly wanting to get a 600mm f4. I'm reluctant to get the EF version as I think I will regret that. So my question is, should I try to buy a used RF600f4 now or should I wait, in the hope that Canon will put out a new version with a built in TC which will in turn lower prices on used original RF600f4s?? As you know, right now used RF600f4 lenses are quite rare. Thanks....Show more →
A next generation super-tele with possibly a built-in TC will just be another opportunity for Canon to reset market pricing. Along with tariffs, etc., I would be extremely surprised if the new lens sells at close to the same price as the current model.
As prices for new models increase, resale value for previous generations will not drop as significantly as they did when replacements were at price points similar to previous models. At least not until they are near end of support from Canon, which is roughly 5 years from discontinuation.
I'd get a used RF now and enjoy it, if you can find one. If you really need the new TC model when it's released, you can sell the one you have, perhaps at some loss. But in the meantime you'll have used it, hopefully for some meaningful images you weren't otherwise able to create. Whatever the loss, it's likely to be less than having rented the lens a couple weeks. In other words, YOLO. Don't wait too long. 
---------------------------------------------
EB-1 wrote:
I'm still awaiting the 200-500/4 with the 1.4x internal TC. 
Yeah, me too...
---------------------------------------------
EB-1 wrote:
If you have used both lenses like I have, they are the same optically except for the TCs, that it excellent.
However, the RF TCs are better except for the extension tube problem. Since one of the main reasons to get a 600/4 is to use it as an 840/5.6 then I'd go for the RF every time. If you rarely or never use a TC then the EF IS III is fine, but it will run out of service date sooner so should be significantly cheaper.
EBH
I was recently able to borrow the RF 600/4 and RF 800/5.6 for motorsports evaluation. I was surprised that the 600 was larger, particularly in diameter and slightly longer, than the 800. I've previously owned EF 400/2.8 and 600/4 lenses and other than length, didn't think they were that much different. I have also used the EF 800 from time to time, and it was long and heavy. Therefore the RF 800 was a bit of a surprise in comparison. As we know the 800 is basically a 400/2.8 with an internal 2x TC and its MFD is something like 2.4m, whereas the 600's is around 4m. For my uses that wasn't really a factor, but for someone doing small critters, etc., I could see the limitations of the 600's MFD coming into play, given there aren't OEM RF extension tubes available (but perhaps third party?). If I was in the market for a 600, I'd be pretty tempted to look at the RF 400/2.8 instead and just use TCs with it. I will say it was pretty cool to fill the frame with a motorcycle at 1200mm (2x on the 600), but after about 9:30 am on sunny days, atmospherics pretty much killed any chance of getting sharp on-track images at those distances.
If OP is considering the 600, there must be reach limitations a play. But based on what I've seen from @RobAmy here over the years, who has owned the RF 400, 600 and 800, I think it says something that he has narrowed it down from those three to the 400 & TCs (plus the 100-300). IMO the 400 offers a lot of flexibility. Bare, it's nearly 3 stops faster than the 100-500 and takes the TCs very well, by all accounts. 800/5.6 provides a fair amount of reach advantage over the 100-500 while still being 2/3 stop faster. Meanwhile it's smaller than the 600 and in some respects more flexible because it does 400 and you can use the two TCs to cover what you'll likely mostly do with the 600 (how often will you use 2x on the 600?). And potentially benefit from the shorter MFD.
|
