I have both RF 600 (may 21) and 800mm (nov21) lenses and primarily take photos of birds. After purchase of the 800mm I stopped using the 600mm as the reach and feel of the 800mm outperforms the 600mm. I have EOS R6 and in 4 1/2 months I have taken 12500 shots with both lenses. Before that 11000 shots with EOS RP and the RF 600mm.
That statement is a bit dated considering the evolution of cellphone cameras. Now it is more like "would this shot be worth getting out the real camera" 📷📱🤔😁
Its a perfect timing for this comparison. I was also thinking between 600 and 800 i decided I will go with 600 lens after your great usability examples
You made some compelling arguments for keeping the RF 600mm lens, Chris. I kept the 800mm plus 2x extender for viewing the moon and the planets and it does a nice job with them. One thing that really surprised me was that at F/22 the Canon R could still auto focus - which blew me away. Great filming to you, and thanks so much for your incredible reviews. :)
Hello Chris, Thanks for the comparison. I picked up my First RF lens this past weekend 100-400. I just got 600 today in the mail. I’ve had all EF lens up to this point. Going RF one lens at a time. I’m all about keeping my kit light and portable. I grab my camera (RP) every time I leave the house. Thanks again!
i picked up the 600mm after watching this video... thank you i love it. i also got the 50mm 1.8 when i was in the local camera store too... both lenses were only $898 together and i have been using them all week. thank you for all your great videos
It is all about how serious you are about photography... My 150-600 went EVERYWHERE with me. I even took it jogging and trailrunning a couple of times.
Yep. Birdwatcher here, and my 150-600 comes with me every walk. And it's not that much more expensive than the 800 here, so I think it's the better option.
For me it depends what else you have. If you already have a ef 100-400 or the new RF 100-500 then I would recommend the RF 800. If not the RF 600 is a good choice
I think the new RF 100-400 changes things here. For a daily carry, the 100-400 is such a great option. It's got very good optical quality and is extremely small and light, focuses extremely closely and is just exceptionally versatile. For times I really need reach, I'll grab the 800mm. And having both of those is the best of both worlds.
I'm not a Canon shooter, but my hope for the RF system is that they continue to develop and consider other engineering ideas such as the f/11 telephoto lenses. For example, if they could make a reasonably priced 600mm f/8 that comes in around the size of the 800mm f/11, I think that would be very popular. They could also take a page from Nikon's lens design book and make compact versions of 300mm and 500mm lenses, though maybe with slightly darker apertures to keep the size and price down.
They've also made a 1200mm f/11 now, which is the longest Canon tele lens ever since the EF 1200mm (of which only around 20 were made), and it's also the longest and darkest L lens they made. On the plus side, you get 1200mm in a package which a human can actually handle
I am using the RF600mm on the R6 and have already got some astonishing shots of birds in my local country parks . The lens is never going to be an all weather and low light model and I find an adapted EF100-400mm with teleconverter is a better all weather option .That said the performance, lightness and compact nature of the 600mm on brighter days is great fun and very easy to hand hold exploiting the technical advances of R6 in the Canon range especially the ISO flexibility combined with accurate auto focus and IBIS features. Canon designers clearly saw the opportunity to explore this lens option and should be applauded for introducing a new product that encourages the enthusiasm of users to get a shot at image making without spending thousands on lens options only previously available to professionals with big budgets . Like any new tool the fun is finding ways of capturing new photographic images that expand your joy of creative photography and maybe on occasions having a tool for the job that fills the frame when mobile . Thanks Christopher for your ever increasing output of fun photographic equipment that show the capability of modern gear in a straightforward and direct way.
Based on your comments, I also got the 600mm. I use it for birding (mostly small birds, and done while walking). When I was pairing it with an R6 (because the R7 wasn't out yet), I found I always wanted more reach; now that I have the crop-sensor R7, I find think I would find the 800mm too much for most scenarios. And the weight/size difference makes a ridiculously small package for the reach. I also have the Sigma 150-600 C, and I usually pick this if I'm doing "dedicated" birding due to the better f stops (particularly if it's just a little dark) and the ability to zoom out (often key when trying to frame a bird-in-flight). But 90% of the time I'm using the 600mm lens I don't wish for anything different.
I just took the 800mm to pair it with the EOS R7, I also own the Sigma 150-600 Sport almost always attached to the R6, but honestly the weight and bulk of the Sigma, made me decide to take this wonderful 800mm, which thanks to its lightness I almost always carry it with me!
I went for the 600mm with the R7, although found framing a challenge for a few mins, it became easy. 800 although a more desirable reach, just a bit too big in size for my needs, if I was full frame, I might have the 800 over the 600 and just deal with the physical difference. Both are fun to use which is why Canon chose to produce to them I guess
I'm honestly surprised anyone would go with the 600 over the 800. It's remarkable that the 800 is slightly better than the 100-500 with a 1.4x teleconverter (700 @f10), as determined by Whistling Wings. The logic you used suggests going with an Olympus micro 4/3's system for compactness.
I think I'll be going with the 600mm for most all of the same reasons you pointed out in the video. I just don't see myself hauling around the larger lens!
Yeah the 600 is nice. But My opinion is, if you're going to get crazy with a 600mm go all the way. 800mm is what I got. I made some videos with the 800mm check them out maybe they can help you make a more confident choice between the 600 and the 800. Oh and I also got the 2x converter and that turns it into a crazy insane 1600mm !!! Cheers from LA. Frank
Looking at these, it looks like they are built on the same lens, but the 800mm has the added length and maybe optics to make it 800mm. Everything from the control ring to the base looks identical. It's almost like they basically made one and went, "know what? If we slap a diff'rn't front end on that 'un, it'd be a whole other lens!" I don't know, I'm just playing around, but it does look like that to me. That being said, I'm not so against the F11 as much as others (well, not since I've seen that they do alright), but I would like to have seen the 600mm be a little faster at least. I know that would make it more costly, but I bet it could have been F8 and costed the same as the 800mm, and people would have a choice to make other than FL. But instead I feel like they went with easy manufacture instead, where they probably only have to make the base part and add on the front end that matches the lens. Which probably saves them even more money on cost.
Dear Christopher, thank you for your great and helpful reviews. I really love your style of factual and logic testing, paired with your British charm and jazzy musical accompaniment. Lots of love from Austria, Michael
@@airb1976 Nope, for Sony A mount users Minolta and Sony lenses were good in quality specially in middle frame and very good AF too! Though you still should have lived with those donut shape bokeh balls sometimes!
@@airb1976 Depends on the version - I'm somewhat of a collector of old mirror lenses and while a number of them are pretty terrible, the 'first party' offerings from Olympus and Nikon in particular are quite good optically. Obviously they still have the unavoidable drawbacks that all mirror lenses have (chiefly the 'donut' bokeh and low contrast), but even on modern sensors they can produce quite usable images.
I appreciate your reviews and this recommendation. I already have the 800mm. It is a big beast, but I'm getting used to it. I'm in that category of photographing birds every day; rarely are they too close. And my third attempt photographing the crescent moon and Jupiter-Saturn conjunction *hand-held* amazed me. But -- it is a big piece of kit. (I've paired it with the RP.)
Im planning to do the same, 800mm F11 for my RP. I bet the camera doesnt even feel as if its there anymore, its just the lens you are literally holding? I feel already like this with my EF 75-300mm IS USM and RF EF adapter... i basically carry around the lens, the camera is anyways lightweight. Its so annoying with 300mm and poor IQ which doesnt allow much crop, i cant wait to get my hands on a 800mm
Could you please tell me about the 800. The focus speed compared to other lenses or according to your opinion. And if the pictures come out sharp at distances of 100 meters. thanks
It is a simple choice for me. Bird (or wildlife) photography needs 800mm. If I needed 600mm I would have chosen tamron 150-600mm with the same price, more flexible, brighter with slightly disadvantage on weight and size.
Hi Christopher, I just bought an Canon R5 and the 800 mm. Already having a 600 f4 version 1 I have that base covered, but wanted something to carry around with a bit more reach. I took them out this weekend and slung the lens over my arm resting the camera in my hand and walked about 3.5 moles without even noticing the weight. My 7D mi 2 and 100-400 slung over my shoulder did make it's presence known. I only found a few times that I needed the closer focusing of the 100-400. The 800 does require a lot of light to counter the high ISO however, but I’m loving it already within it's limitations.
I tend to agree about choosing the 600 over the 800 for general use. I chose the 100-400 Sigma over the 150-600 for the same reason (plus it’s optically better). However, I will be going for the 800 to accompany my flask and anorak as an 800 would suit me better for jumping from my current max of 400 :-) Thanks for the intelligent review Chris. A happy Christmas to the Frost family.
800mm will be the best choice in my opinion. I did and I'm glad I went with the 800mm. I made some videos on my channel using the 800mm along with the 2x converter. maybe that can help you understand if that's the lens for you. Have fun with the lens when you get it!! Cheers from LA. Frank
If only the 600mm lens had f/8 instead of f/11. Add a 1.4x TC and it would basically make the 800mm obsolete. But if both lenses are f/11 then I'd rather pick the 800mm one.
Hi Chris, thanks! I‘d choose the 600 mm. It’s very lightweight and compact. It would be great if Canon launched a 400mm or 500mm with a slightly larger aperture. This means less diffraction than aperture 11. However on a Canon R6 with 20 megapixels (which is sufficient for me) this shouldn’t be such an issue. Best wishes Ralf
I think people have been waiting for a follow up to the venerable EF 400mm F5.6L USM for a long, long time. I have wanted an updated version with IS and better optics with the latest engineering since I replaced it with a 100-400mm IS II two years ago. I literally bought the much more expensive lens simply because it had the IS I really wanted for my 400mm. :( We never got it, but I think an RF model would kill it, especially if it were a 500mm.
thanks for the comparison. I would have hoped they would make the 600 mm with f8 instead of f11, using similar diameter front lense. That would have been a no brainer
I bought the 800mm and it is difficult to fit in a normal bag. I just used it for the first time to shoot surfing and I'm glad I picked the 800mm. I'm using the R5 and shot manual at 1/1000 sec shutter speed with auto ISO. Conditions were sunny and the highest ISO I saw was only 400. I was a little disappointed with the picture quality at first because I'm using the sharp RF f/2.8 lenses. After seeing shots from some professional photographers at the very same location, I think my shots turned out just as good or even better. I'll be shooting some video the next time a large swell arrives.
The 800m has a learning curve for sure. But I also am glad I went with the more extreme 800mm range. I would have regretted getting the 600mm. I've posted some videos on my channel on the lens. Plus I also got the 2x converter and that is when things get crazy! 1600mm!! LOL Cheers! have fun with your lens bro. Oh, I also have photographed surfers here in LA. Frank
Hey Chris, Sony shooter here (A7RII actually!). I've been looking at the two canon primes and wondering - for about £100 more than the 600mm, or actually a bit less than the 800mm, why wouldn't you get a 100-400 (specifically the Sigma DG DN OS) and just crop? Given the difference in brightness, the images post crop would probably be very comparable in terms of noise and DOF, plus you'd have the added flexibility of a zoom, and the size and weight falls somewhere between the two primes. And you wouldn't even have to buy a separate lens hood! I know that there's nothing like that Sigma for RF mount yet, but I just don't see why these lenses are compelling at this price point.
It's really easy. The RF 600mm is really small, even compared to the 100-400. It's also the better Option for Bird and Wildlife photography, the Zoom is better for Sports. Cropping to 600mm isnt comparable to Shooting at 600mm!!! You need to test it to understand, and its not about the field of View!
@@airb1976 I think the 600mm when compacted is only about 3cm shorter than the sigma, granted it's a few hundred grams lighter though. And what do you mean exactly by "cropping to 600mm isn't the same as shooting at 600mm"? I get that argument if the aperture is the same in both instances, but we're comparing f6.3 to f11, so bokeh would probably be compensated for on the shorter lens by the wider aperture, background compression is determined by distance from subject rather than focal length, the only other factor I can think of would be resolution from the lens as you'd be cropping on the sigma - but you'd be on a lower ISO so even then they would probably be comparable in most instances.
@@airb1976 agree, I even tried my 100-400mm with a 1.4 Extender on my R6 and also cropped by camera's 1.6 switch and was not very happy with those 896mm coming out of about 7MPix hand holded. Besides targeting (flying) birds with 800mm is not so easy, my 100-400 zoom is therefore much easier, even with the extender in full frame mode. I guess it is always better to find a way to get closer to wildlife, but I also get trapped by the illusion to compensate such skills by gear ;-)
I really enjoy my RF 600 mm. With bird photography, even with the 600 mm, I occasionally find myself having to take a step back to get them in focus, so I imagine trying to use the 800 mm with 1.5 m added to your minimum focusing distance must be a huge pain. Like Chris, I would recommend the RF 600 mm unless you know for sure that you don't mind sacrificing minimum focussing distance for a little extra reach.
The super telephoto lens before are just ridiculously big, heavy and expensive that most people will never even think about them (most retailer don't even have them). Canon brings super telephoto lenses to less than 1/10 the price. This is something we might actually consider purchasing, you have to give them that.
I do do astrophotography. Based on your 2 reviews and this opinion piece, I think I will buy both eventually. The 600mm for wildlife and interesting composition, it will be in my day to day photo bag. While the 800mm will remain home and be use almost exclusively for astrophotography, I might take it out sometimes to try some wildlife or maybe some insane compression shot with the moon though. Love your videos
"While the 800mm will remain home and be use almost exclusively for astrophotography" For real? How does this work with F11? And how does the lens perform for astrophotography? I got a 750mm newton 2nd hand for under 500$ on motorized EQ mount, invested some hundreds additionally for autoguiding and so over PC and little bit tweaking and small parts... its just awesome. It costed in overall as much as the 800mm F11 brand new, but maaaan.... F5 isnt even a big aperture yet (modern 750mm newtons are F4 already) and here its already hard to keep exposure times under 2 minutes. What exposure times you use with the 800mm F11? And what are the targets? I could not imagine using a basic supertele, not even a higher end model with F4 or so. For AP nothing goes about APO refractors made for AP! And for more focal range... 6-8" newtonians are nice and affordable. For the "big boys"... schmitt cassegrains and some other special types of reflector telescopes are the way to go (if you can afford^^, Celestron C8 for example)
i got the 800 because having the 100-500 and a 2x, makes the 600 superfluous really, a 600x2 is just 200mm more than the 500 with a 2x, but an 800 plus a 2x is an eye watering 1600mm.
@Christopher, will you also be reviewing Canon RF 100 - 500 mm lens? It is a bit more expensive and heavier, but to an untrained eye appears a lot more practical. It would be nice to compare it using consistent methodology to the other ones, hence my suggestion.
Your proposal for the 600mm over the 800mm is reasonable, but they're both f/11, and you'll get better bokeh and subject separation with the 800mm. If lower price and extra portability are more important, then the 600mm makes sense.
These remind me of those wacky mirror lenses you used to be able to get for old SLRs. Super long focal length and one fixed aperture. But these have much better optical quality, of course. I've been considering that Sigma 150-600mm for bird photography, but now I want that 600mm in stead. I've realised that I'm much more likely to go out and shoot with a lighter, compact kit.
Are you talking about the mirror lenses with the hole in the middle? Yeah those are wacky. I made some videos on my channel about the 800mm along with the 2x converter, maybe that can help you make the right choice of lense. I recommend the 800mm totally, but thats my opinion. Hope you get the lens soon! Cheers from LA Frank.
The EF 70 200 f2.8 by far and away is the largest lens I've ever used. Looking at it side by side (5:24) with the twin rather startled me. The dark colour and rather long look of it when extendeded really do fool my eyes.
At the very least the 600mm probably could have been F8 and still been an affordable lens. Might have made it the same price as the 800mm, which would give people a choice beyond FL and overall size.
If you want shoot with 600mm or 800mm than normally you have to consider to carry a tripod or at least a Monopod with you. The weight difference between these two lenses compared with a 150-600mm lens is less important than the losses of flexibility and aperture.
I’m shooting 600 and 560 on a crop body so for a FF the 800 is a no brainer. Especially as I have to crop anyway. And I’m shooting f/8 for DoF so F11 isn’t that obscene. Still I would have preferred them if they were f/8 but at this price and dimensions nothing comes near. I also have other lenses so minimum focus distance not a big issue. The 800 is only to be used when wildlife is far. If I’m just going around I can have my 100-400 on the body.
I wonder how much bigger they would have been had they been f/8 lenses. At f/8 I think these would be a no brainer. I would use them for birding and f/11 is very limiting at times where and how I shoot. Thanks so much for the great video as always.
When you actually use them, you would be surprised how well they perform in lower light. Especially on the R6 (and probably R5 body, I've not tried it)
Since I also need a camera I think I will choose the RX10m4, at the long end its a full frame equivalent of 600mm f/10.9. Canon RP+600mm f/11=$1700, RX10m4 $1600; I predict their respective outputs would be indistinguishable.
Unless your subjects are very small at greater distances the 600mm would be my choice, probably even more so as since this video was released a capable APS-C body is available - an effective FOV of 960mm on an R7 is, I suspect, enough for most people. The format of the videos on this site is 1st class, not too long and straight to the point which is 'will the shots I take be of decent enough quality'.
I really enjoy your reviews, but in this case there is no winner. Also you haven't considered many points. I think that it is much easier to achieve 600mm with some teleconverter. Also both lenses can be used with a teleconverter. 600 X 2 = 1200mm 800 X 2 = 1600mm. You gain extra 400mm. I am not a big teleconverter supporter, but there are some rare birds and animals which require a huge focal length to capture.
It should be good to point out that 800mm and up are essentially telescopes. Might be better just getting a t-mount adapter and connecting your camera to an actual telescope at that point.
I'd think I would prefer the versatility and wider aperture of the Sigma, but only because I am shooting with the R7 where I'd like to try to keep my ISO around 3200max.
I have the 800mm and I have to disagree. It is easy to carry on the camera, I get focus no problem and I would not get enough reach from a shorter focal length for wildlife, especially for birds. It fits in my backpack but stays on the camera as it needs to be ready, while shorter lenses are for landscapes and can be carried in my bag.
To me these lenses kind of represent a middle ground to get a lens with some reach. On the low end, I've tried a $100 vintage reflex mirror lens with a teleconverter. I found it very difficult to focus, and even when focused properly it was not very sharp. On the other end you have the $17,000 800mm L-glass lens, and it is still only f/5.6. It is simply out of the question. I've only had time to take a few test shots with my new 800mm f/11, and the sharpness is let's say OK. This lens is not everything I want, but it is a practical path to do some photography with this range of focal length.
Just Accept this that Canon did it right with this unusual Lens. All reviews are showing that. Canon is Always planning for years ahead. They expect that Sensor Tech will increase further so it is /will be no problem to shoot with at higher ISO. I dont See any Problem with this high portable lens
I think I would lean towards the 800mm... as I see the f11 at 800 as better.... mostly would want it for portraits of lions etc at the zoo... my 70-200 doesn’t get close enough
wow that was fast. Concise and precise. Thanks for your video. But in your opinion the focus speed between the lenses. Are they both fast or is the 800 slow and unpleasant? Thanks
I have to disagree with you as you said the 600mm is better for astrophotography. Its also F11... thats a NoGo for astrophotography. Its already hard to work with 300mm APO astrographs with F8 around, let alone 600mm at F11. For serious astrophotography a 2nd hand 750mm F4 or F5 newton on motorized EQ mount is the way to go (and cheaper). If you can afford a more modern 600mm F4 newton (much more useful and suited for AP from the beginning!) i would go this way! 600mm is really a sweet spot for astrophotography, if you want to go beyond 600mm, you better go 1500mm or even 2000mm+ because 99% of the targets beyond 600mm field of view are very very small. Even with a 600mm you are already limited by the sheer size of some interesting deep sky objects
Eh? It may be the answer, but to the wrong question. Your suggestion: £2199 retail in the uk + extender at £424 + ef-rf converter £99. Total over £2700 v £749 for rf 600 or £200 more for the 800mm
@@desohare8683 thats true. It won't suit everyone. But suggesting rf600f11 is a lot more versatile than rf800f11 is a bit like Audi TT laughs at Mazda MX5 for its small boot and 100-400 is the van
Hi Christopher. I had the same conclusion : 600mm is a better choice. But I am still hesitating : I have the 70-200RF and I use mostly for nature shots (be a bit of portraits). I have downloaded some samples but I still can decide myself. I am afraid to be disappointed by sharpness with time going on. The RF lenses are so sharp (I own the 85 and the 70-200). What is your opinion about sharpness on the R5?
Great video as always. Thanks. Could you please tell us how the image quality of those two compares to the Sigma 150-600 (which i own too) ? If i buy one of those it would probably be the 800mm as i already have the reach of 600mm with the Sigma, of which i don't mind the size and weight actually...
A quick comparison is the the 100-500mm is sharper overall, and a faster lens, both in focus and aperture. But is also I think 3 times the price at least. The DO optics vs an L class lens just don't hold up, but people still seem to do well with the 600mm and 800mm. Something to consider is if using an R5, the effects of diffraction set in faster than on a better DLA camera. But then, I don't have any of them, so I really can't do anything :( My R5 sits in the bag, waiting for a real challenge.
Considering the same scene (daylight or night time), I wonder how a Sony RX10 IV at 600m would compare against the Canon R5 with the STM 600mm f/11 lens in terms of image quality and high ISO performance. Also, would it be possible to review the Sony RX10 IV some day?
Seriously, I've been having a blast with the 800mm and the 2x converter. The first video I made of using the lens I realized how difficult it was to control the extreme 800mm range. With time I'm learning how to use it and now I'm convinced that the 800mm was the correct lens for me. Cheers From LA. Frank
Would be interesting to see a comparison of this 600mm against, say, the long end of the Lumix 100-300mm. Is there an actual full frame advantage here?
Mostly either: - better high ISO performance, because on full frame the physical pixels are bigger and can thus absorb more light or - higher resolution on full frame when the pixel size is identical
A 1.4x teleconverter with either the RF100-400 or RF100-500 would seem to make more sense than either of these lenses, but I don't know how any detriment to IQ from using the tc on the zooms would compare to the primes.
Well... I am a member of the 10% minority. In my opinion 600mm f11 makes little sense. If I am in for extreme portability for comparable price I'd rather take Sony rx10 IV which give me 600mm f10.8 FF equivalent but with great body and 24-599mm lens built-in. Or a Lumix 100-300 II, Leica 100-400, Olympus 100-400 on some m43 camera. These lenses are all about acceptable portability and extreme reach on a FF body. They are supposed to be special. And only one of them is truely special, beacauce in terms of equivalent reach only 800mm f11 gives you something you cannot beat black and blue with many m43 options. Those lenses are not good for casual shooter. In a sense they are specialty wildlife tools as a complement to big heavy 600mm f4s or xx-600 f4.5-6.6 zooms. Those are unbearable lenses. These 600/800mm f11 are for those wildlife occassions when your main lens in just too big. And anyone who shoot wildlife knows it is all about the reach after all.
IMO the value is really bad. A lot less glass and complexity than a 150-600, lower image quality, lower aperture, no aperture control, and all that for the same price as a Tamron 150-600... At half the price it would have been a good value for money, but it's not. Now that's a great option for those searching for a light and small telephoto lens
The 600mm has a better Image quality than a Tamron 150-600, I tested this. When shooting birds I am using an aperture of f8 to f10 about 40% of my time, so no problem with f11. Dont know where you are getting the prices but the RF 600mm is about 15% cheaper than the tamron
@@airb1976 well 15% difference, it's the same price range for me. For image quality I didn't test myself, but on the-digital-picture, we can see it's very close. Okay I exagerated, but at least the zoom is as good at the Canon, which is inexcusable at this price and considering the simplicity of the lens design. Sigma seem even sharper for cheaper, but I'm not sure because the camera used for the test has a lower resolution so comparison is unfair
I have both RF 600 (may 21) and 800mm (nov21) lenses and primarily take photos of birds. After purchase of the 800mm I stopped using the 600mm as the reach and feel of the 800mm outperforms the 600mm.
I have EOS R6 and in 4 1/2 months I have taken 12500 shots with both lenses. Before that 11000 shots with EOS RP and the RF 600mm.
I get 960 mm on RF 600 with my R100 and you get 800 mm with your full frame.
@@B1_Anton I get 1260mm with the RF 800 on my R10.
@@hovercroft that’s a good reach + can be cropped our of 32,5 mpix
"The best camera is the one you have with you"
This statement will forever remain true
Great comparison
That statement is a bit dated considering the evolution of cellphone cameras. Now it is more like "would this shot be worth getting out the real camera" 📷📱🤔😁
Pro trick : watch series at Kaldrostream. Me and my gf have been using them for watching a lot of movies recently.
@Emerson Tristen yea, I have been watching on kaldrostream for years myself :D
Its a perfect timing for this comparison. I was also thinking between 600 and 800 i decided I will go with 600 lens after your great usability examples
I dont use canon, yet still watch this awesome content
Same
😂😂
You made some compelling arguments for keeping the RF 600mm lens, Chris. I kept the 800mm plus 2x extender for viewing the moon and the planets and it does a nice job with them. One thing that really surprised me was that at F/22 the Canon R could still auto focus - which blew me away. Great filming to you, and thanks so much for your incredible reviews. :)
You and I live in the same world. I also bought the 800 along with the converter. I feel like a god at 1600mm. LOL :D I love your channel by the way.
@@nuclear64_ Thanks so much! And congrats on your mega-zoom also - it's an incredible combo :)
Hello Chris,
Thanks for the comparison. I picked up my First RF lens this past weekend 100-400. I just got 600 today in the mail. I’ve had all EF lens up to this point. Going RF one lens at a time.
I’m all about keeping my kit light and portable. I grab my camera (RP) every time I leave the house.
Thanks again!
i picked up the 600mm after watching this video... thank you i love it. i also got the 50mm 1.8 when i was in the local camera store too... both lenses were only $898 together and i have been using them all week. thank you for all your great videos
It is all about how serious you are about photography... My 150-600 went EVERYWHERE with me. I even took it jogging and trailrunning a couple of times.
Yep. Birdwatcher here, and my 150-600 comes with me every walk. And it's not that much more expensive than the 800 here, so I think it's the better option.
For me it depends what else you have. If you already have a ef 100-400 or the new RF 100-500 then I would recommend the RF 800. If not the RF 600 is a good choice
I think the new RF 100-400 changes things here. For a daily carry, the 100-400 is such a great option. It's got very good optical quality and is extremely small and light, focuses extremely closely and is just exceptionally versatile. For times I really need reach, I'll grab the 800mm. And having both of those is the best of both worlds.
I'm not a Canon shooter, but my hope for the RF system is that they continue to develop and consider other engineering ideas such as the f/11 telephoto lenses. For example, if they could make a reasonably priced 600mm f/8 that comes in around the size of the 800mm f/11, I think that would be very popular. They could also take a page from Nikon's lens design book and make compact versions of 300mm and 500mm lenses, though maybe with slightly darker apertures to keep the size and price down.
Yes f/8 600mm is what we want
They've also made a 1200mm f/11 now, which is the longest Canon tele lens ever since the EF 1200mm (of which only around 20 were made), and it's also the longest and darkest L lens they made. On the plus side, you get 1200mm in a package which a human can actually handle
I am using the RF600mm on the R6 and have already got some astonishing shots of birds in my local country parks . The lens is never going to be an all weather and low light model and I find an adapted EF100-400mm with teleconverter is a better all weather option .That said the performance, lightness and compact nature of the 600mm on brighter days is great fun and very easy to hand hold exploiting the technical advances of R6 in the Canon range especially the ISO flexibility combined with accurate auto focus and IBIS features. Canon designers clearly saw the opportunity to explore this lens option and should be applauded for introducing a new product that encourages the enthusiasm of users to get a shot at image making without spending thousands on lens options only previously available to professionals with big budgets . Like any new tool the fun is finding ways of capturing new photographic images that expand your joy of creative photography and maybe on occasions having a tool for the job that fills the frame when mobile . Thanks Christopher for your ever increasing output of fun photographic equipment that show the capability of modern gear in a straightforward and direct way.
Based on your comments, I also got the 600mm. I use it for birding (mostly small birds, and done while walking). When I was pairing it with an R6 (because the R7 wasn't out yet), I found I always wanted more reach; now that I have the crop-sensor R7, I find think I would find the 800mm too much for most scenarios. And the weight/size difference makes a ridiculously small package for the reach. I also have the Sigma 150-600 C, and I usually pick this if I'm doing "dedicated" birding due to the better f stops (particularly if it's just a little dark) and the ability to zoom out (often key when trying to frame a bird-in-flight). But 90% of the time I'm using the 600mm lens I don't wish for anything different.
I just took the 800mm to pair it with the EOS R7, I also own the Sigma 150-600 Sport almost always attached to the R6, but honestly the weight and bulk of the Sigma, made me decide to take this wonderful 800mm, which thanks to its lightness I almost always carry it with me!
I went for the 600mm with the R7, although found framing a challenge for a few mins, it became easy. 800 although a more desirable reach, just a bit too big in size for my needs, if I was full frame, I might have the 800 over the 600 and just deal with the physical difference. Both are fun to use which is why Canon chose to produce to them I guess
@@mvp_kryptonite Since I can already reach 600mm with the Sigma (960mm on the R7), I wanted to get a longer length. ;)
@@mauriziocascone makes sense. My zoom is the mighty 70-200 2.8ii and I have a 400 5.6, so 600 was a natural step
With the upcoming R7 crp sensor, 600 mm is a clear winner, which's equivalent to 960mm in a small convenient size.
I have the 400mm 5.6 so the 800mm f11 was an easy choice for me. Also, I like bird and astrophotography. I’m loving this lens.
Yeah I totally agree.
I'm probably going to go with the 800mm after the first of the year.
800mm for my astro and the 600 for anything else as you mentioned Chris. Great bits of kit
I'm honestly surprised anyone would go with the 600 over the 800. It's remarkable that the 800 is slightly better than the 100-500 with a 1.4x teleconverter (700 @f10), as determined by Whistling Wings. The logic you used suggests going with an Olympus micro 4/3's system for compactness.
If was was starting fresh knowing what I know now yes I would, but I bought the train ticket of Canon full frame.
I think I'll be going with the 600mm for most all of the same reasons you pointed out in the video. I just don't see myself hauling around the larger lens!
Yeah the 600 is nice. But My opinion is, if you're going to get crazy with a 600mm go all the way. 800mm is what I got. I made some videos with the 800mm check them out maybe they can help you make a more confident choice between the 600 and the 800. Oh and I also got the 2x converter and that turns it into a crazy insane 1600mm !!! Cheers from LA. Frank
Looking at these, it looks like they are built on the same lens, but the 800mm has the added length and maybe optics to make it 800mm. Everything from the control ring to the base looks identical. It's almost like they basically made one and went, "know what? If we slap a diff'rn't front end on that 'un, it'd be a whole other lens!" I don't know, I'm just playing around, but it does look like that to me. That being said, I'm not so against the F11 as much as others (well, not since I've seen that they do alright), but I would like to have seen the 600mm be a little faster at least. I know that would make it more costly, but I bet it could have been F8 and costed the same as the 800mm, and people would have a choice to make other than FL. But instead I feel like they went with easy manufacture instead, where they probably only have to make the base part and add on the front end that matches the lens. Which probably saves them even more money on cost.
Dear Christopher, thank you for your great and helpful reviews.
I really love your style of factual and logic testing, paired with your British charm and jazzy musical accompaniment.
Lots of love from Austria,
Michael
Back in the day the affordable telephoto lens was the 500mm F/8 mirror lens
Which had terrible Image quality
@@airb1976 Nope, for Sony A mount users Minolta and Sony lenses were good in quality specially in middle frame and very good AF too! Though you still should have lived with those donut shape bokeh balls sometimes!
@@airb1976 Depends on the version - I'm somewhat of a collector of old mirror lenses and while a number of them are pretty terrible, the 'first party' offerings from Olympus and Nikon in particular are quite good optically. Obviously they still have the unavoidable drawbacks that all mirror lenses have (chiefly the 'donut' bokeh and low contrast), but even on modern sensors they can produce quite usable images.
I appreciate your reviews and this recommendation. I already have the 800mm. It is a big beast, but I'm getting used to it. I'm in that category of photographing birds every day; rarely are they too close. And my third attempt photographing the crescent moon and Jupiter-Saturn conjunction *hand-held* amazed me. But -- it is a big piece of kit. (I've paired it with the RP.)
Im planning to do the same, 800mm F11 for my RP.
I bet the camera doesnt even feel as if its there anymore, its just the lens you are literally holding?
I feel already like this with my EF 75-300mm IS USM and RF EF adapter... i basically carry around the lens, the camera is anyways lightweight.
Its so annoying with 300mm and poor IQ which doesnt allow much crop, i cant wait to get my hands on a 800mm
Could you please tell me about the 800. The focus speed compared to other lenses or according to your opinion. And if the pictures come out sharp at distances of 100 meters. thanks
It is a simple choice for me. Bird (or wildlife) photography needs 800mm. If I needed 600mm I would have chosen tamron 150-600mm with the same price, more flexible, brighter with slightly disadvantage on weight and size.
Hi Christopher, I just bought an Canon R5 and the 800 mm. Already having a 600 f4 version 1 I have that base covered, but wanted something to carry around with a bit more reach. I took them out this weekend and slung the lens over my arm resting the camera in my hand and walked about 3.5 moles without even noticing the weight. My 7D mi 2 and 100-400 slung over my shoulder did make it's presence known. I only found a few times that I needed the closer focusing of the 100-400. The 800 does require a lot of light to counter the high ISO however, but I’m loving it already within it's limitations.
Perfect explanation of which lens is suitable.
Thanks again Chris, you’ve solved my dilemma. Great review as always.
Dude I love your reviews! I have learned so much from you. God bless brother. Cheers from LA. Frank
I tend to agree about choosing the 600 over the 800 for general use. I chose the 100-400 Sigma over the 150-600 for the same reason (plus it’s optically better). However, I will be going for the 800 to accompany my flask and anorak as an 800 would suit me better for jumping from my current max of 400 :-) Thanks for the intelligent review Chris. A happy Christmas to the Frost family.
800mm will be the best choice in my opinion. I did and I'm glad I went with the 800mm. I made some videos on my channel using the 800mm along with the 2x converter. maybe that can help you understand if that's the lens for you. Have fun with the lens when you get it!! Cheers from LA. Frank
I bought my 800mm mainly to do lunar photography, but I think you make excellent points about the 600mm being more practical for general use.
If only the 600mm lens had f/8 instead of f/11. Add a 1.4x TC and it would basically make the 800mm obsolete. But if both lenses are f/11 then I'd rather pick the 800mm one.
True, f/8 was what we required, not f11
@@aceflibble a 600mm f/8 would be considerably bigger and more expensive. They wanted to keep size and price down.
I use R6+ rf800mm for bird photography.
This lens is light and handy. no tripod needed. :)
Hi Chris, thanks! I‘d choose the 600 mm. It’s very lightweight and compact. It would be great if Canon launched a 400mm or 500mm with a slightly larger aperture. This means less diffraction than aperture 11. However on a Canon R6 with 20 megapixels (which is sufficient for me) this shouldn’t be such an issue. Best wishes Ralf
I think people have been waiting for a follow up to the venerable EF 400mm F5.6L USM for a long, long time. I have wanted an updated version with IS and better optics with the latest engineering since I replaced it with a 100-400mm IS II two years ago. I literally bought the much more expensive lens simply because it had the IS I really wanted for my 400mm. :( We never got it, but I think an RF model would kill it, especially if it were a 500mm.
Completely agree with your conclusion, awaiting delivery of my 600mm RF lens
thanks for the comparison. I would have hoped they would make the 600 mm with f8 instead of f11, using similar diameter front lense. That would have been a no brainer
I bought the 800mm and it is difficult to fit in a normal bag. I just used it for the first time to shoot surfing and I'm glad I picked the 800mm. I'm using the R5 and shot manual at 1/1000 sec shutter speed with auto ISO. Conditions were sunny and the highest ISO I saw was only 400. I was a little disappointed with the picture quality at first because I'm using the sharp RF f/2.8 lenses. After seeing shots from some professional photographers at the very same location, I think my shots turned out just as good or even better. I'll be shooting some video the next time a large swell arrives.
The 800m has a learning curve for sure. But I also am glad I went with the more extreme 800mm range. I would have regretted getting the 600mm. I've posted some videos on my channel on the lens. Plus I also got the 2x converter and that is when things get crazy! 1600mm!! LOL Cheers! have fun with your lens bro. Oh, I also have photographed surfers here in LA. Frank
Hey Chris, Sony shooter here (A7RII actually!). I've been looking at the two canon primes and wondering - for about £100 more than the 600mm, or actually a bit less than the 800mm, why wouldn't you get a 100-400 (specifically the Sigma DG DN OS) and just crop? Given the difference in brightness, the images post crop would probably be very comparable in terms of noise and DOF, plus you'd have the added flexibility of a zoom, and the size and weight falls somewhere between the two primes. And you wouldn't even have to buy a separate lens hood! I know that there's nothing like that Sigma for RF mount yet, but I just don't see why these lenses are compelling at this price point.
It's really easy. The RF 600mm is really small, even compared to the 100-400. It's also the better Option for Bird and Wildlife photography, the Zoom is better for Sports. Cropping to 600mm isnt comparable to Shooting at 600mm!!! You need to test it to understand, and its not about the field of View!
@@airb1976 I think the 600mm when compacted is only about 3cm shorter than the sigma, granted it's a few hundred grams lighter though. And what do you mean exactly by "cropping to 600mm isn't the same as shooting at 600mm"? I get that argument if the aperture is the same in both instances, but we're comparing f6.3 to f11, so bokeh would probably be compensated for on the shorter lens by the wider aperture, background compression is determined by distance from subject rather than focal length, the only other factor I can think of would be resolution from the lens as you'd be cropping on the sigma - but you'd be on a lower ISO so even then they would probably be comparable in most instances.
@@airb1976 *correction, the two lenses are the same length and there's 200g between them
@@airb1976 agree, I even tried my 100-400mm with a 1.4 Extender on my R6 and also cropped by camera's 1.6 switch and was not very happy with those 896mm coming out of about 7MPix hand holded. Besides targeting (flying) birds with 800mm is not so easy, my 100-400 zoom is therefore much easier, even with the extender in full frame mode. I guess it is always better to find a way to get closer to wildlife, but I also get trapped by the illusion to compensate such skills by gear ;-)
@@peterhirzel 😁💪
I really enjoy my RF 600 mm. With bird photography, even with the 600 mm, I occasionally find myself having to take a step back to get them in focus, so I imagine trying to use the 800 mm with 1.5 m added to your minimum focusing distance must be a huge pain. Like Chris, I would recommend the RF 600 mm unless you know for sure that you don't mind sacrificing minimum focussing distance for a little extra reach.
The super telephoto lens before are just ridiculously big, heavy and expensive that most people will never even think about them (most retailer don't even have them). Canon brings super telephoto lenses to less than 1/10 the price. This is something we might actually consider purchasing, you have to give them that.
I picked the 600 because it fits in my bag lol
Ditto hehe
Any updates on Sony?
I do do astrophotography. Based on your 2 reviews and this opinion piece, I think I will buy both eventually. The 600mm for wildlife and interesting composition, it will be in my day to day photo bag. While the 800mm will remain home and be use almost exclusively for astrophotography, I might take it out sometimes to try some wildlife or maybe some insane compression shot with the moon though. Love your videos
"While the 800mm will remain home and be use almost exclusively for astrophotography"
For real? How does this work with F11? And how does the lens perform for astrophotography?
I got a 750mm newton 2nd hand for under 500$ on motorized EQ mount, invested some hundreds additionally for autoguiding and so over PC and little bit tweaking and small parts... its just awesome. It costed in overall as much as the 800mm F11 brand new, but maaaan.... F5 isnt even a big aperture yet (modern 750mm newtons are F4 already) and here its already hard to keep exposure times under 2 minutes.
What exposure times you use with the 800mm F11? And what are the targets? I could not imagine using a basic supertele, not even a higher end model with F4 or so. For AP nothing goes about APO refractors made for AP! And for more focal range... 6-8" newtonians are nice and affordable. For the "big boys"... schmitt cassegrains and some other special types of reflector telescopes are the way to go (if you can afford^^, Celestron C8 for example)
i got the 800 because having the 100-500 and a 2x, makes the 600 superfluous really, a 600x2 is just 200mm more than the 500 with a 2x, but an 800 plus a 2x is an eye watering 1600mm.
@Christopher, will you also be reviewing Canon RF 100 - 500 mm lens? It is a bit more expensive and heavier, but to an untrained eye appears a lot more practical. It would be nice to compare it using consistent methodology to the other ones, hence my suggestion.
A review is coming
Your proposal for the 600mm over the 800mm is reasonable, but they're both f/11, and you'll get better bokeh and subject separation with the 800mm. If lower price and extra portability are more important, then the 600mm makes sense.
These remind me of those wacky mirror lenses you used to be able to get for old SLRs. Super long focal length and one fixed aperture. But these have much better optical quality, of course.
I've been considering that Sigma 150-600mm for bird photography, but now I want that 600mm in stead. I've realised that I'm much more likely to go out and shoot with a lighter, compact kit.
Are you talking about the mirror lenses with the hole in the middle? Yeah those are wacky. I made some videos on my channel about the 800mm along with the 2x converter, maybe that can help you make the right choice of lense. I recommend the 800mm totally, but thats my opinion. Hope you get the lens soon! Cheers from LA Frank.
@@nuclear64_ Thanks, will check it out :-) Yeah those wacky ones with the hole in the middle. Fun for crazy looking background blur, though!
Merry Christmas, mate! And a happy new year with lots of beautiful images!
The EF 70 200 f2.8 by far and away is the largest lens I've ever used. Looking at it side by side (5:24) with the twin rather startled me. The dark colour and rather long look of it when extendeded really do fool my eyes.
I wish these 600mm and 800mm lenses would have both been f8. That would have cleared up alot of that diffraction and not increased the size too much.
But massively increased the price!
At the very least the 600mm probably could have been F8 and still been an affordable lens. Might have made it the same price as the 800mm, which would give people a choice beyond FL and overall size.
Yes f8 means less diffraction & f11 is not a great aperture
You nailed it. Right on. This is exactly the thought process I just did.
If you want shoot with 600mm or 800mm than normally you have to consider to carry a tripod or at least a Monopod with you. The weight difference between these two lenses compared with a 150-600mm lens is less important than the losses of flexibility and aperture.
I’m shooting 600 and 560 on a crop body so for a FF the 800 is a no brainer. Especially as I have to crop anyway. And I’m shooting f/8 for DoF so F11 isn’t that obscene. Still I would have preferred them if they were f/8 but at this price and dimensions nothing comes near. I also have other lenses so minimum focus distance not a big issue. The 800 is only to be used when wildlife is far. If I’m just going around I can have my 100-400 on the body.
What if you decide to get the RF 100-500mm, would you still suggest getting the RF 600mm or the 800mm? Do you plan on reviewing RF 100-500mm?
Neither. You just add the 1.4x TC at that point. The RF 100-500 is so compact that it makes these two primes redundant if you have it.
I wonder how much bigger they would have been had they been f/8 lenses. At f/8 I think these would be a no brainer. I would use them for birding and f/11 is very limiting at times where and how I shoot. Thanks so much for the great video as always.
When you actually use them, you would be surprised how well they perform in lower light. Especially on the R6 (and probably R5 body, I've not tried it)
Since I also need a camera I think I will choose the RX10m4, at the long end its a full frame equivalent of 600mm f/10.9. Canon RP+600mm f/11=$1700, RX10m4 $1600; I predict their respective outputs would be indistinguishable.
Unless your subjects are very small at greater distances the 600mm would be my choice, probably even more so as since this video was released a capable APS-C body is available - an effective FOV of 960mm on an R7 is, I suspect, enough for most people. The format of the videos on this site is 1st class, not too long and straight to the point which is 'will the shots I take be of decent enough quality'.
I agree. If i ever can afford one, it will be the 600mm.
I really enjoy your reviews, but in this case there is no winner. Also you haven't considered many points. I think that it is much easier to achieve 600mm with some teleconverter. Also both lenses can be used with a teleconverter. 600 X 2 = 1200mm 800 X 2 = 1600mm. You gain extra 400mm. I am not a big teleconverter supporter, but there are some rare birds and animals which require a huge focal length to capture.
I would choose the 600 mm, not because of the price, because of the size.
You simply don't have enough subscribers. Exceptional again! Thank you.
It should be good to point out that 800mm and up are essentially telescopes. Might be better just getting a t-mount adapter and connecting your camera to an actual telescope at that point.
No, because this lens has AF and Teleskope dont
I'd think I would prefer the versatility and wider aperture of the Sigma, but only because I am shooting with the R7 where I'd like to try to keep my ISO around 3200max.
I'm a Sony shooter but I'd definitely pick up the 600mm version if it or a similar lens was offered on the E-mount system.
I have the 800mm and I have to disagree. It is easy to carry on the camera, I get focus no problem and I would not get enough reach from a shorter focal length for wildlife, especially for birds. It fits in my backpack but stays on the camera as it needs to be ready, while shorter lenses are for landscapes and can be carried in my bag.
To me these lenses kind of represent a middle ground to get a lens with some reach. On the low end, I've tried a $100 vintage reflex mirror lens with a teleconverter. I found it very difficult to focus, and even when focused properly it was not very sharp. On the other end you have the $17,000 800mm L-glass lens, and it is still only f/5.6. It is simply out of the question. I've only had time to take a few test shots with my new 800mm f/11, and the sharpness is let's say OK. This lens is not everything I want, but it is a practical path to do some photography with this range of focal length.
You should review these again on aps-c cameras
Still there is nice place for 600/8 adn 800/8 on the market. Those could be still affordable yet provide much more light.. .
It's Just 1 Stop more light
@@airb1976 I wonder when people say only one stop! Look how different f4 and f2.8 lenses are priced and used! That's only 1stop!
@@airb1976 Using 1/400 or 1/200 with 800mm lens is HUGE difference
Agree, 600/8 & 800/8 should have been made instead of f/11
Just Accept this that Canon did it right with this unusual Lens. All reviews are showing that. Canon is Always planning for years ahead. They expect that Sensor Tech will increase further so it is /will be no problem to shoot with at higher ISO. I dont See any Problem with this high portable lens
I think I would lean towards the 800mm... as I see the f11 at 800 as better.... mostly would want it for portraits of lions etc at the zoo... my 70-200 doesn’t get close enough
Very interesting points... might just get the 600mm with 2x if i needed that reach....
wow that was fast. Concise and precise. Thanks for your video. But in your opinion the focus speed between the lenses. Are they both fast or is the 800 slow and unpleasant? Thanks
I have to disagree with you as you said the 600mm is better for astrophotography. Its also F11... thats a NoGo for astrophotography. Its already hard to work with 300mm APO astrographs with F8 around, let alone 600mm at F11.
For serious astrophotography a 2nd hand 750mm F4 or F5 newton on motorized EQ mount is the way to go (and cheaper).
If you can afford a more modern 600mm F4 newton (much more useful and suited for AP from the beginning!) i would go this way! 600mm is really a sweet spot for astrophotography, if you want to go beyond 600mm, you better go 1500mm or even 2000mm+ because 99% of the targets beyond 600mm field of view are very very small. Even with a 600mm you are already limited by the sheer size of some interesting deep sky objects
100-400L II plus 2x is my answer. Bird popping into frame? 100-400 got you covered.
Eh? It may be the answer, but to the wrong question. Your suggestion: £2199 retail in the uk + extender at £424 + ef-rf converter £99. Total over £2700 v £749 for rf 600 or £200 more for the 800mm
@@desohare8683 thats true. It won't suit everyone. But suggesting rf600f11 is a lot more versatile than rf800f11 is a bit like Audi TT laughs at Mazda MX5 for its small boot and 100-400 is the van
Well you helped me off of the fence, again. Little birds = 800. Thanks
Is neither an option here?
But seriously, it is funny hearing someone saying that RF 800 F11 is big.
Great video as always👍 👍
I would love to see a review about camera's
So you're now a camera and lens review on youtube
Hi Christopher. I had the same conclusion : 600mm is a better choice.
But I am still hesitating : I have the 70-200RF and I use mostly for nature shots (be a bit of portraits). I have downloaded some samples but I still can decide myself. I am afraid to be disappointed by sharpness with time going on. The RF lenses are so sharp (I own the 85 and the 70-200). What is your opinion about sharpness on the R5?
"Let me know what you think in the description below"
Hehe :)
i'd love to see the rf 85mm f2 macro tested!
For myself, their was never a question. 800mm is often not enough. So 600 was not even a question.
Thank you for your awesome reviews. Can you please review the RF 85mm f/2 macro? Thank you 🙏
I have one in my office now, and I'm putting it through its paces
@@christopherfrost I’m a fellow believer in Christ from El Paso, TX. Greetings!
Great video as always. Thanks.
Could you please tell us how the image quality of those two compares to the Sigma 150-600 (which i own too) ?
If i buy one of those it would probably be the 800mm as i already have the reach of 600mm with the Sigma, of which i don't mind the size and weight actually...
I got the 600 it’s great.
I prefer zooms for super telephoto
always on point man
Hello Christopher..
I would love to have a comparison between the rf600 vs the 100-500mm....
A quick comparison is the the 100-500mm is sharper overall, and a faster lens, both in focus and aperture. But is also I think 3 times the price at least. The DO optics vs an L class lens just don't hold up, but people still seem to do well with the 600mm and 800mm. Something to consider is if using an R5, the effects of diffraction set in faster than on a better DLA camera. But then, I don't have any of them, so I really can't do anything :( My R5 sits in the bag, waiting for a real challenge.
Considering the same scene (daylight or night time), I wonder how a Sony RX10 IV at 600m would compare against the Canon R5 with the STM 600mm f/11 lens in terms of image quality and high ISO performance.
Also, would it be possible to review the Sony RX10 IV some day?
No surprise
Seriously, I've been having a blast with the 800mm and the 2x converter. The first video I made of using the lens I realized how difficult it was to control the extreme 800mm range. With time I'm learning how to use it and now I'm convinced that the 800mm was the correct lens for me. Cheers From LA. Frank
Would be interesting to see a comparison of this 600mm against, say, the long end of the Lumix 100-300mm. Is there an actual full frame advantage here?
Yes. Trained biceps.
Mostly either:
- better high ISO performance, because on full frame the physical pixels are bigger and can thus absorb more light or
- higher resolution on full frame when the pixel size is identical
Hey chris can you review the canon 55-250mm stm and test it with your canon eos r5 is this lens relevant today
Thanks for tis comparo.
200 600 with teleconverter, you get 1200mm at f12
Pergear 12mm f2 pleaseeee
Or just get the 100-500 with a tc so you can have it all
Go for the more extreme one!
LOL YES!
Hi Is the 600mm lens compatible with the Canon 600d
No!
The RF 600 and the RF 800 only work with the mirrorless R-System-Cameras.
A 1.4x teleconverter with either the RF100-400 or RF100-500 would seem to make more sense than either of these lenses, but I don't know how any detriment to IQ from using the tc on the zooms would compare to the primes.
Quick question: RF600 f11 for FF vs. Sony 70-350 f4.5-6.3 for APS-C?
Well... I am a member of the 10% minority. In my opinion 600mm f11 makes little sense. If I am in for extreme portability for comparable price I'd rather take Sony rx10 IV which give me 600mm f10.8 FF equivalent but with great body and 24-599mm lens built-in. Or a Lumix 100-300 II, Leica 100-400, Olympus 100-400 on some m43 camera. These lenses are all about acceptable portability and extreme reach on a FF body. They are supposed to be special. And only one of them is truely special, beacauce in terms of equivalent reach only 800mm f11 gives you something you cannot beat black and blue with many m43 options. Those lenses are not good for casual shooter. In a sense they are specialty wildlife tools as a complement to big heavy 600mm f4s or xx-600 f4.5-6.6 zooms. Those are unbearable lenses. These 600/800mm f11 are for those wildlife occassions when your main lens in just too big. And anyone who shoot wildlife knows it is all about the reach after all.
Another advantage of the 600mm: You can always crop to 800mm FOV, but if you are using the 800mm you can never "uncrop" to match the 600mm FOV.
In fairness, I don't really recall a lot of times when I was too close to wildlife.
The small AF box would be less of an issue too
IMO the value is really bad. A lot less glass and complexity than a 150-600, lower image quality, lower aperture, no aperture control, and all that for the same price as a Tamron 150-600...
At half the price it would have been a good value for money, but it's not.
Now that's a great option for those searching for a light and small telephoto lens
The 600mm has a better Image quality than a Tamron 150-600, I tested this. When shooting birds I am using an aperture of f8 to f10 about 40% of my time, so no problem with f11. Dont know where you are getting the prices but the RF 600mm is about 15% cheaper than the tamron
@@airb1976 well 15% difference, it's the same price range for me.
For image quality I didn't test myself, but on the-digital-picture, we can see it's very close. Okay I exagerated, but at least the zoom is as good at the Canon, which is inexcusable at this price and considering the simplicity of the lens design.
Sigma seem even sharper for cheaper, but I'm not sure because the camera used for the test has a lower resolution so comparison is unfair
@@PAD32 15% difference is a lot, when you put in your Design Argument.