p.1 #1 · Moving from ef 500 f/4 L IS II to RF 600 f/4
Hello everyone,
I have been taking pictures with a Canon EF 500 II mounted on a Canon R5 for almost three years and I am very satisfied with it. Some time ago, however, I had the opportunity to try out the RF600 for a while and I must honestly say that I was blown away by it. I did not have time to test the image output in detail, but the perceived lightness compared to my 500 was amazing. The same was true of the stabilizer, autofocus consistency or the silence of the stabilizer. However, I started looking for experiences of EF 600 III and RF 600 owners on various forums and was often surprised by occasional complaints about the image quality of the latest iteration of this glass compared to the EF 600 II. I was also surprised by the not-so-successful performance of the RF 600 in combination with TC1.4. In the case of the EF 500II in combination with TC1.4III, I do not observe practically any image degradation (and I am quite a pixelpeeper). I would expect uncompromising quality for a $14k lens. However, according to https://www.the-digital-picture.com/ I have to say that my current 500mm lens does a better job in terms of IQ. Many thanks for you opinions.
p.1 #2 · Moving from ef 500 f/4 L IS II to RF 600 f/4
I've used multiple copies of the 500/4 IS II and a few of the RF 600/4. IQ of both is exceptional; without any TC you won't see it at 45MP. The 500/4 IS II was one of Canon's best ever lenses and the 600/4 RF is a remounted 600/4 IS III designed to be about as good optically as the IS II lenses (400/2.8 and 600/4) at reduced weight. Some people feel the IS II lenses were better.
The 500/4 IS II is really good with the 1.4x III as is the RF 600/4 with its 1.4x. The RF 2x is probably better but you are fighting air quality there. I stick to the 1.4x TCs.
I eventually returned to the 500/4 IS II because it fit better in the FL range I needed (companion to the 100-500) and also because it works well with a TC+extension tubes. The RF 1.4x TC is very close to the sensor and the geometry with extension tubes degrades the IQ as I learned the hard way with a 30mm tube on the RF 1.4x and 600/4. The RF 600/4 is due for replacement, being a 2018 design for SLRs. But if you need 600/4 and 840/5.6 now in Canon that's the best available.
The weight with the hood on is actually nearly identical (not including any EF-RF adapter). I suppose if you hand hold and have long arms then maybe the 600 seems easier due to weight distribution, but neither are fun to hold for any length of time. I mostly use a tripod, but not always.
Of ~six 500/4 IS II copies I have owned or used only one was less that near perfect, and that was a rental. Maybe it had been knocked around, IDK.
p.1 #3 · Moving from ef 500 f/4 L IS II to RF 600 f/4
I have heard reports that the RF600 (and EF600III) is a little disappointing compared to the EF600II. I'm sure the RF600 is still sharp, but there appears to be a noticeable difference. The RF and EFIII are amazingly light, though.
The EF400/2.8 IS II is also better than the III (and RF), but unlike the 600s, there is a negligible difference.
p.1 #4 · Moving from ef 500 f/4 L IS II to RF 600 f/4
EBH brings up an interesting point about close focusing distances. I recently used an RF 600/4 for a weekend of motorcycle racing and also briefly had access to the RF 800/5.6. I was surprised that the 600 was 4.5m MFD while the 800 was only 2.6m. Given the 800 is a derivative design of the 400/2.8, which is 2.5m MFD, this makes sense. If close focusing is important, then you won't gain anything with the 600 as both it and the 500 are 0.15x at MFD.
I used it on an R5II and thought overall performance was very good. Certainly sharper than my 200-400 with 1.4x TC engaged, which obviously is not surprising. And it was hand holdable and not overly front heavy due to the EF v3 redesign, which is how I used it while in the pits picking off candids of drivers. But it also kind of felt like an EF lens in respect to AF and IS performance. While AF was fast and definitely fast enough to get very high keeper rates of bikes approaching 150km/h straight at the camera at frame-filling distances (even my now ancient 200-400 can do this), it didn't feel as instantaneous as the 100-300 (based on my experience with it at other venues), which is a ground-up RF design. Quite often I noticed the first or first and second frames of a burst were slightly mis-focused if there wasn't time to acquire AF and track the subject a second or two before it came within optimum range. I don't know if this is the lens or the camera as I don't remember seeing this with the R1 when I used one last year at the same venue, but with my 200-400 rather than the RF 600. Unfortunately I was not able to get a 1.4x TC from CPS (they were all loaned out) so had to 'settle' for the 2x. It worked fine. AF was good and images were as sharp as one would expect with a 2x (some noticeable degradation compared to bare). As EBH suggested, the primary challenge with using the 2x on the 600 was atmospheric distortion. At the race track it simply became unusable after about 9:30 am because too much heat radiated off the track and ground. But even the 600 was suboptimal in a number of reach-limited situations when moving closer would have been the only option to reduce atmospheric interference.
IS felt like it needed a moment to properly 'spin up.' I mostly used IS for static hand-held compositions. If not given this time, I noticed IS-induced image drift in the EVF while shooting bursts, which surprised me because the camera was 100% of the time in e-shutter and there was no shutter shock to affect IS. It was a CPS loaner lens so I am not sure it was in 100% prime condition. For example, both its lens hood and the 800's hood were skewed when mounted because they were each separating from their mounting ring. I had to use a mallet on both to properly reseat the mounting ring (on a side note, it appears the mounting ring is attached to the body of the hood with double-sided tape ). I haven't read complaints about this happening with the hoods here on the boards, so can only imagine these lenses have received some rough handling.
I have not tried the Nikon or Sony 600'4s so can't compare but the Canon RF 600 does not feel, performance-wise, like a ground-up RF design like most of the native RF lenses I own or have used. That's not to say it won't do the job. It certainly did covering the motorcycle races. Just that it felt like there was room for improvement.
I'm not sure how easy it would be to do in Germany but I think the only way you can determine if the RF 600 will be a suitable improvement over the 500 IS v2 is to compare them side by side for at least a few days. In the US there are rental options, same with Canada. But in Germany? It might be worth a shot to reach out to Canon Europe CPS to ask if it's possible to evaluate the lens for a week...
p.1 #5 · Moving from ef 500 f/4 L IS II to RF 600 f/4
I don't have the first hand experience to compare the two, but here's my two cents. The Version II lenses were the best optically designed lenses, but the V3 / RF made a small compromise to optics to shift the weight closer to the camera body.
From all of the different posts, reviews, etc it seems like the vast majority don't see a big difference in real world images, but the weight difference between the 600 II and 600 III makes a massive difference in usability. It's really easy to focus on and worry about pixel peeping, but first you have to be there and have the lens aimed at the subject you want it focused on.
So the EF 500 II vs RF 600 I is definitely a debate. The 600 is actually 100 grams lighter, and as you mentioned feels lighter because of the weight distribution. The biggest downside to the 600 is that it's 3" longer. For getting in and out of vehicles it may be a bit harder to work with if your use case involves a lot of travel. If you are going to put it onto a tripod and stay stationary then that shouldn't be a big concern.
IQ: I think rscheffler's point about atmospherics is key. In a lot of cases you may be limited by the environment, so it won't actually matter which lens you have as neither are going to be able to deliver their full image quality if the conditions won't let them. They are also both F4 lenses so it's not going to make a big difference for low light. Where I think the 600 is going to pull out ahead is when you are say 50' feet from your subject and you aren't able to fill the frame with 500mm, then 600mm is going to provide a better image.
500mm / F4 @ 50'
FoV (US) 3' 7.20" W x 2' 4.80" H
DoF 8.21"
600mm / F4 @ 50'
FoV (US) 3' 0.00" W x 2' 0.00" H
DoF 5.66"
The 600's image will be about 7" more narrow, and depth of field about 2.5" more shallow. You have to factor that into how you're using the lens because the 600 will require better technique to get the most of it. Issues you can get away with on the 500 will show up on the 600. Subjects moving across the frame will require a higher shutter speed to stop the action in the same manner.
One other point that afaik the test charts fill the frame for each lens when tested. So in an apples / apples comparison the 600 would be placed further away from the chart than the 500 would be. In that case I do expect the 500mm to have better image quality every time, and I think the 500 II is the sharpest lens when the frame is filled. But I think the 600 II is actually a bit better than the 500 when you can't get the frame filled, so the 600 III / RF is probably as good or better than the 500 II in that scenario. It's going to have it's own advantages and tradeoffs, and you will be operating in a narrow window between diffraction, atmospherics, composition, stance, and settings. If you get all of those things right I think the RF 600 will outperform any combination, but if you get it wrong it might not help or actually be slightly worse depending upon what wasn't optimal.
p.1 #6 · Moving from ef 500 f/4 L IS II to RF 600 f/4
I have the EF600III and when I handheld the 500II it felt much heavier because it is front heavy and the 600III isn't. The difference was huge. So the 600III is much easier to use without support. Note that the RF600, while being the same lens, it has a welded adaptor that affects its weight distribution to some degree.
IQ wise the 600 will be more or less on par with your 500, including TC's. Test it, if possible. I did tested it along a 600II, but not for long and didn't find any difference.
p.1 #7 · Moving from ef 500 f/4 L IS II to RF 600 f/4
Uarctos wrote:
Note that the RF600, while being the same lens, it has a welded adaptor that affects its weight distribution to some degree.
I'd guess all combinations balance almost identical. The main thing to remember is that because the two lenses are identical optics, they will produce the same image circle facing the image sensor. Because the image sensor is the same size for all combinations, the distance to that sensor has to be the same. So in effect it doesn't matter if it's an EF or an RF lens, all of the optics will be positioned so they are the same distance from the sensor. The primary difference is what is taking up that space.
DSLR: Distance to the sensor is taken up by the camera body, and if you look down inside with the mirror up you'll notice the image sensor is all the way to the back of the camera body
mirrorless + EF adapter: The adapter ring adds the spacing required, and if you look down the adapter you'll notice that the distance to the sensor is the same as the DSLR.
Mirrorless: The sensor is much closer to the mount, so the lens is longer to accommodate for this. One interesting point is that on a camera with IBIS the sensor is actually in the front half of the body versus buried in the back like most DSLRs. I'd guess on small cameras like the R100 the sensor is much closer to the back of the body because it doesn't need additional room for the IBIS, so the depth of the camera is less.
If you have an R5 II the EF and RF lenses would end up being the same length overall. The R5 II versus a 5DSr the R5 II is actually a touch longer combination. But it's not because of EF versus RF, it's actually because of the position of the sensor in the body to accommodate the IBIS. So the R5 II has more camera hanging behind the sensor. But the R5 II is lighter than a DSLR, so I would guess it ends up being a wash.
p.1 #8 · Moving from ef 500 f/4 L IS II to RF 600 f/4
I stay away from the 600 lens no matter what version. To bulky for me. A pain in the neck.. I can put the 500 in a small backpack and off I go. Throw it in the over head in small commuter flights no problem.
p.1 #9 · Moving from ef 500 f/4 L IS II to RF 600 f/4
Many thanks for your thoughts and experience! IŽve ordered the lens from our local store. IŽll definitely make some comparison and weŽll see, whether IŽll keep it and sell the 500 or whether IŽll return it within 14 day period...
p.1 #11 · Moving from ef 500 f/4 L IS II to RF 600 f/4
MSB84 wrote:
Many thanks for your thoughts and experience! IŽve ordered the lens from our local store. IŽll definitely make some comparison and weŽll see, whether IŽll keep it and sell the 500 or whether IŽll return it within 14 day period...
If you can, unbox it in the store and do a full inspection, especially the front element. There was a report from one member a couple years ago of abnormally high amounts of dust behind the front element of a couple copies he received, but I have not heard anything recently.
Also, please be careful with cleaning the front element. As you may know, it has a fluorine coating to repel water and oil, just like your 500/4 v2. This coating is not the most durable (based on some threads here and comments by Roger Cicala from Lens Rentals many years ago). If by chance you nick the front element leaving a pinpoint mark in the coating, resist the urge to 'clean' it off. There was another thread here where a member ended up accidentally removing a significant portion of the fluorine coating off the front element and had to have it replaced (the front element) by Canon. This coating has become fairly common on Canon's higher-end lenses and is a definite tradeoff. From my experience using these lenses in bad weather (snow storms, heavy rain, of course with a rain cover) is that the front element remain surprisingly unaffected (clean). But the tradeoff is they can be sensitive to cleaning. So far I've usually only dry cleaned them because the fluorine coating doesn't hold onto oils and debris the way non-fluorine-coated lenses can. I'd be cautious about using liquids.
p.1 #12 · Moving from ef 500 f/4 L IS II to RF 600 f/4
gkinard1952 wrote:
I stay away from the 600 lens no matter what version. To bulky for me. A pain in the neck.. I can put the 500 in a small backpack and off I go. Throw it in the over head in small commuter flights no problem.
The RF 600/4 is especially huge, being longer than any of the other 600/4s in production and equal in length to the 600/4 IS III+RF-EF adapter. The Nikkor 600/4 Z is smaller even with the 1.4x TC. I find that the RF lens length is practically busting the seams of the Gumba Gears Elite 32L.
p.1 #13 · Moving from ef 500 f/4 L IS II to RF 600 f/4
Thank you for the information!
Aug 29, 2025 at 12:20 AM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.1 #14 · Moving from ef 500 f/4 L IS II to RF 600 f/4
It tends be annoying reading about the Rf 600/4 on here. People have a hard time comprehending you can drop the same optics in 2 different mounts which doesn't mean it's an older lens.
Of course Canon put it in 2 mounts since EF current in 2018. They innovated , 1st <7lb 600/4. Literally about half the weight of the old ones
p.1 #16 · Moving from ef 500 f/4 L IS II to RF 600 f/4
I'm skeptical about such a filter in part because of how apparently susceptible long telephoto lenses are to image degradation caused by substandard filters. Not saying it's the case here but I would really like to see a well done review before committing (or at least have a good return option if it's necessary to evaluate in person).
p.1 #17 · Moving from ef 500 f/4 L IS II to RF 600 f/4
Oh that old chestnut, who cares if canon innovated in 2018.
Its more than legit for people about to spend over 10k on a lens to be cautious considering what else is in the market.
Personally if i really needed a 600f4 I would go for a second hand EF at this stage but i would find it hard to spend 5k over my current setup to get 100mm more.
A 400+tc or a 600+tc would be a completely different story
AmbientMike wrote:
It tends be annoying reading about the Rf 600/4 on here. People have a hard time comprehending you can drop the same optics in 2 different mounts which doesn't mean it's an older lens.
Of course Canon put it in 2 mounts since EF current in 2018. They innovated , 1st <7lb 600/4. Literally about half the weight of the old ones
p.1 #18 · Moving from ef 500 f/4 L IS II to RF 600 f/4
I'm a big filter person, but I wouldn't put that Kase UV on a big white either. The large lenses have huge rubber rings on the front of them, so it's quite a bit harder to get things down into the front element. Also, it's far less likely you'll have little finger prints because the working distance is much farther away. (I far prefer unscrewing a filter to clean the marks off under a light)
But honestly the biggest reason why I wouldn't recommend it, is simply because it's going to change the balance of the lens. The old EF V1s had a protective element before the front glass, and they removed it to save a bunch of weight and help change the balance of the lens. They don't list a weight, but it wouldn't surprise me that a 150mm element weighs half a pound, and you're mounting it almost a foot in front of the tripod foot. It's probably going to be noticeable when using the lens.
If you were expecting a harsh environment then I can definitely understand the logic of it, but I would guess there will be tradeoffs.
p.1 #19 · Moving from ef 500 f/4 L IS II to RF 600 f/4
The filter on the original 500/4 IS was not so heavy. It's only a small amount of the weight difference from the 500/4 IS II and the differnces were not so large like the 400/2.8 IS and 600/4 IS changes to IS II. That filter was a slightly meniscus shape designed along with the other elements of the 500/4 IS to avoid sensor reflections since Canon was thinking ahead to the digital era.
However, I'd not add a 3rd party setup just for a front filter unless there is a hazardous condition. The filter has to be very, very flat, seriously multicoated and well aligned in order not to degrade the image. In hazardous conditions I'd consider an alternative lens and remote rig if possible.
p.1 #20 · Moving from ef 500 f/4 L IS II to RF 600 f/4
EB-1 wrote:
The filter on the original 500/4 IS was not so heavy. It's only a small amount of the weight difference from the 500/4 IS II and the differnces were not so large like the 400/2.8 IS and 600/4 IS changes to IS II. That filter was a slightly meniscus shape designed along with the other elements of the 500/4 IS to avoid sensor reflections since Canon was thinking ahead to the digital era.
However, I'd not add a 3rd party setup just for a front filter unless there is a hazardous condition. The filter has to be very, very flat, seriously multicoated and well aligned in order not to degrade the image. In hazardous conditions I'd consider an alternative lens and remote rig if possible.
Good point about the slightly meniscus shape of the digital-era super-teles that still had the front protective element. Of course the optical formula of the lens was designed with this in mind. Therefore the Kase filter would have to be flat, and as you suggested, could potentially cause internal reflection issues because of light reflecting off the sensor being reflected back at the sensor by the flat filter, rather than directed away from it by the meniscus shape of a front protective element integral to the optical design.
). I haven't read complaints about this happening with the hoods here on the boards, so can only imagine these lenses have received some rough handling.