Original 600mm F4 (non-IS)

dgumshu wrote:

BirdShooter7 wrote:

dgumshu wrote:

I've seen that too, However, from what I've read, V3 isn't as sharp as V2 with extenders.

Brian, from the Digital Picture tested threes of these v3's. Consequently, I have no desire to upgrade (or downgrade :-)) to V3. I'll wait for the 2nd wave of RF600 F4 reviews before upgrading. The current RF 600 F4 is merely a 600 V3 with an attached adapter.

All that aside, the one I'm really looking forward to is the RF 500 F4.

I just so happed to have an opportunity to do use the mk2 and mk3 side by side on a R5.

We didn’t have any TC’s handy at the time but at least for the bear lenses we really struggled to see any difference in quality between the two.

Yes, I haven't seen any complaints about the bare lens. The IQ issue is with TC's. Due to the fact that a 1.4 lives on all of my Tele's, that's a big one for me... and a deciding factor.

I can't recall the last time I used my 600 F4 ll bare.

This was a very informal test out in nature, certainly not a controlled test in a lab and certainly not the last word. It did satisfy any doubts I might have had about the optical quality of the mk3. The weight difference is very noticeable and in my opinion a big benefit of the new model. I always had doubts about the digital picture results anyway so I’m sure that made it even easier for me to accept the results of our informal test on actual birds.

Im also very interested in the RF 500mm f/4. I don’t plan on buying any 600mm f/4 so I’m not really invested either way in which one is sharpest though my friends who own the two lenses were.

We did try out the 1.4x iii and it held up well enough that you’d have to look really hard at 100% to find any difference.

With all the complaints out there, I can wait for the RF... especially the 500mm. Hoping those are as good as EF ll's

Yeah, the RF 600 has the same optical design so I guess that’ll save a lot of money for the doubters.  Wonder if the 500 won’t get the same treatment.