Best choice for first Canon 600 f/4?

I’m using an R5 and R7 with an RF 100-500 lens for bird photography. I’d like to try something like a 600 f/4 to see how that performs in comparison. The RF 600 f/4 would be ideal but for my stage in this journey I might be better off trying something that requires less of an upfront commitment in price. So I’m thinking of purchasing a slightly older EF lens as a first investment.

Does anyone have any recommendations on an EF 600 f/4 lens that hits the sweet spot as far as performance and price? I guess I might also consider an EF 500 f/4 as well.

Or does anyone think that I should just go with the RF 600 f/4?

One thing to consider is that while I have the EF adapter, I don’t have any EF extenders. I have the RF 1.4x and RF 2x which would be useless with an EF lens. But would be perfect with the RF 600 f/4.

Thanks.

jalessi wrote:

One thing to consider is that while I have the EF adapter, I don’t have any EF extenders.

You can always purchase an extender later.

Photos using a 600mm F/4 with a 1DX Mark ii.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4574916?page=4#forum-post-66438400

I sent a 600mm F/4 to MPB Camera they should receive it on the 28th. Keep checking their website to see when the have it available for sale.

The 600mm F/4 is a beast, a touch over 11lbs, to heavy for me at my age 85.

My hiking staff functions as a monopod.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/65838986

jalessi wrote:

Great pics! Maybe I should factor in the weight a bit more. I am going to use it with a gimbal, but still the RF is 4 lbs lighter which is a lot. Thanks.

Also factor in the price, a new Canon RF 600mm f/4 L IS USM Lens $12,999

I'm selling my EF 600mm f/4 for $2,350 so it should be around the $3,000 mark when they list it for sale.

I goofed big time, I'm selling the lens to KEH Camera not MPB Camera.

My excuse, I'm old 85 and forgetful,

If you don't already have the gimbal head check out the acratech long lens head and Panoramic head, the link is in my previous reply about my hiking staff as a monopod . those heads are only 1 lb.

Long Lens Head Tutorial.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_HWWa-fyow

If you can afford and can find one I would recommend going with the RF.

I sold my EF 600/4 IS II in the spring when I found the RF and the two TC's in stock at Canons online store. The EF worked fine with adapter but I took advantage of the market conditions to get a good price for my EF and two TC's and I knew I would never buy or use an EF body again.

The adapters work fine as long as you have them. I almost forgot to put them in my bag when I went on a trip in February so that's why I started looking into the RF just to eliminate one thing that I could forget or that could break.

jalessi wrote:

I’m using an R5 and R7 with an RF 100-500 lens for bird photography. I’d like to try something like a 600 f/4 to see how that performs in comparison. The RF 600 f/4 would be ideal but for my stage in this journey I might be better off trying something that requires less of an upfront commitment in price. So I’m thinking of purchasing a slightly older EF lens as a first investment.

Does anyone have any recommendations on an EF 600 f/4 lens that hits the sweet spot as far as performance and price? I guess I might also consider an EF 500 f/4 as well.

Or does anyone think that I should just go with the RF 600 f/4?

One thing to consider is that while I have the EF adapter, I don’t have any EF extenders. I have the RF 1.4x and RF 2x which would be useless with an EF lens. But would be perfect with the RF 600 f/4.

Thanks.

Budget and size 2 key issues - the 600 f/4 even the new ones are very large, even though weight has come down.

The 500mm f/4 II is a great lens and is nearly 2 stops brighter than your 100-500.  It takes a EF 1.4X III TC very nicely too.  Used copies with warranties out there and less recently discontinued so should be serviceable for a bit too.  If you shoot low light stuff and like shallow depth of field, would be a nice addition.  The 500mm works great with the R5 and R10 so assume it will with the R7 too.

nonproshooterdad wrote:

I just bought a 500/4L mark i. Reasons are:

I can only afford $3000-ish CAD.

It's lighter than 600/4. Don't feel much difference between 500 and 600.

It's same price as 100-500, but 1 and 2/3 stops brighter. I prefer under 1600 ISO, the brighter aperture will help on this. If I buy 100-500, I'll very often go 6400 even at day time, especially if I put any extender in behind.

And I have a lightweight tripod.

Last, I found a mint copy at low price. It said excellent condition in the ad, but I checked the ad photos, couldn't find any flaws on exterior. When you found a bargain, it will help for the decision.

Enjoy! - even the mark 1 a great lens! Sharp wide open without any teleconverter I found and still sharp at f/7.1 with a 1.4X TC at 700mm. My experience matches this old review here: https://www.juzaphoto.com/article.php?l=it&t=canon_500_f4ii_review

I have the EF Mark III version. I bought it when there was a deal on a refurbished one. If I were to turn back time and do it again, I'd consider the Mark II instead. Why? Because the lens has had issues with IS that is said to not be fixable given its design, although several firmware updates have helped. I've not really noticed an issue, but you might want to look into it.

Also, you may notice that the specs like the Mark I and Mark II as f/4.0 lenses and the Mark III as an f/4 lens. Why the change in precision? I quick glance at exiftool's output from a photo taken with this lens shows that the actual aperture is f/4.2. So it's lighter than the Mark III not just because most of the elements are closer to the camera, and new lighter glass was used, but also because the aperture is actually smaller. Also, the focal length is similarly exaggerated. It's just a hear less than 600mm (not sure about the other two).
Having said that, there's something to be said for its handholdability. It's the lightest of the three, and the bulk of the weight is closer to the camera, so it's easier to handhold.

BlueRay2 wr

https://www.juzaphoto.com/article.php?l=it&t=canon_500_f4ii_review

ote:

KevinRA wrote:

nonproshooterdad wrote:

I just bought a 500/4L mark i. Reasons are:

I can only afford $3000-ish CAD.

It's lighter than 600/4. Don't feel much difference between 500 and 600.

It's same price as 100-500, but 1 and 2/3 stops brighter. I prefer under 1600 ISO, the brighter aperture will help on this. If I buy 100-500, I'll very often go 6400 even at day time, especially if I put any extender in behind.

And I have a lightweight tripod.

Last, I found a mint copy at low price. It said excellent condition in the ad, but I checked the ad photos, couldn't find any flaws on exterior. When you found a bargain, it will help for the decision.

Enjoy! - even the mark 1 a great lens! Sharp wide open without any teleconverter I found and still sharp at f/7.1 with a 1.4X TC at 700mm. My experience matches this old review here:https://www.juzaphoto.com/article.php?l=it&t=canon_500_f4ii_review

that is a click-bait link.

??? How

Shows the mark1 in these tests performing as the mark2 wide open with TC's - and stopped down very competitive. Matches also my experience.

BlueRay2 wrote:

KevinRA wrote:

BlueRay2 wr

https://www.juzaphoto.com/article.php?l=it&t=canon_500_f4ii_review

ote:

KevinRA wrote:

nonproshooterdad wrote:

I just bought a 500/4L mark i. Reasons are:

I can only afford $3000-ish CAD.

It's lighter than 600/4. Don't feel much difference between 500 and 600.

It's same price as 100-500, but 1 and 2/3 stops brighter. I prefer under 1600 ISO, the brighter aperture will help on this. If I buy 100-500, I'll very often go 6400 even at day time, especially if I put any extender in behind.

And I have a lightweight tripod.

Last, I found a mint copy at low price. It said excellent condition in the ad, but I checked the ad photos, couldn't find any flaws on exterior. When you found a bargain, it will help for the decision.

Enjoy! - even the mark 1 a great lens! Sharp wide open without any teleconverter I found and still sharp at f/7.1 with a 1.4X TC at 700mm. My experience matches this old review here:https://www.juzaphoto.com/article.php?l=it&t=canon_500_f4ii_review

that is a click-bait link.

??? How

Shows the mark1 in these tests performing as the mark2 wide open with TC's - and stopped down very competitive. Matches also my experience.

i appreciate your comment about the lens but when you click on the link, many things come up and ask you to accept cookies...and god knows what else.

Google translate of message:

"JuzaPhoto uses technical cookies and third-party cookies to optimize navigation and to make it possible for most pages to function; for example, it is necessary to use cookies to register and log in (more information).

By continuing to browse, you confirm that you have read and accepted the Terms of Use and Privacy and have read the options for managing cookies.

OK I confirm

You can manage your cookie preferences at any time from the Cookie Preferences page, accessible from any page of the site via the link at the bottom of the page, or directly from here:"
That's standard fare these days, especially since such notices are required now on many places.