Searched for a good comparison review of these lenses six months ago, not a lot of information to be found, well done at last some good advice for potential buyers, I test both these lenses extensively before settling for the RF 400mm, both excellent and I would challenge anyone to fault either, the images produced by these both give the same smile factor, the reason for my choosing the 400mm was based on the artistic rendering and detail of the 400mm, filling the frame with close up garden birds resulted in 3D micro contrast like qualities on the 400mm, putting bird portraits together and asking other’s opinions they always choose the 400mm, no regrets choosing the 400mm, no noticeable differences while using the 1.4 extender, fantastic quality from a versatile magic lens. 😁
Thank you for the fantastic video! I primarily shoot birds and occasionally mammals. When it comes to bird photography, there's a tradeoff between these two lenses. Birds require more light (widest open aperture) and the ability to move the camera quickly, which gives the RF 400mm f/2.8 an advantage due to its lighter weight and better weight distribution. On the other hand, the RF 600mm f/4 offers the benefit of extra reach, which can be offset by using a 1.4x extender on the 400mm. The key comparison is between the 600mm and the 400mm with a 1.4x extender. Considering the flexibility and advantages of the 400mm, I'm willing to accept a slight (~10%) loss in image quality, which isn’t dramatic. Ultimately, I decided to go for the Canon RF 400mm f/2.8 along with a 1.4x extender for added versatility when needed
I think this is the approach that makes all the sense. It's better to have more flexibility than less. Better low light capabilities, better large-subject shooting too. IQ penalty isn't meaningfully big. *the loss of sharpness demonstrated in this video is quite noticeable and this ofc depends on the model of the lens/manufacturer, matching a TC maybe. His 600f4 performs clearly better w 2x than 400 does even w 1.4x but this is not necessarily consistent across brands/models/samples maybe even.
I own an RF600mm f4 and it's file are as good as it gets. Last year, I did a grizzly bear photo tour and in the low light of morning or evening it is the best!! But, now that I am aged 75, it is getting a bit heavy and I find I am using the monopod much of the time. For travel, its biggest drawback is its length. Canon took the previous EF 600mm f4 edition and simply added an RF flange and this extra inch or so of length is significant when you are trying to pack it into an "overhead" bag that meets airline requirements. For instance, it will not fit into my Think Tank 3.0 International. Because of its extra "flange length", to get it into a Mindshift 36 L backpack, you have to position it at an angle after removing some of the pack's internal dividers. Once you get this backpack loaded, it is VERY heavy. The RF 400 f2.8 would more easily fit most carry-ons and its lighter weight might be significant. A great review, thanks!!!!
Great info and all the right questions and answers. I had the same dilemma and I purchased the RF 600mm, very happy I did, most of my shots are cropping.
As always, a very thorough and informative review. My 400 prime is the last EF lens I need to change over to the RF mount. I currently use the 400 f4 DO which I find to be excellent for both my wildlife and my sports photography. For wildlife I also had the luxury of being able to use the EF 800 f5.6. However, that lens will no longer be available to me shortly. As cost is such a huge factor with the fast primes, and I have to have a fast 400 for my sport, it looks as though I will compromise and replace my 400 f4 with the 400 f2.8 and extenders. This will have to do the job of both my current 400 and 800. Best wishes.
Excellent video. I have both lenses and your conclusions directly align with my observations after using the lenses on my R5 and R3 for two years. Both outstanding lenses, but once you need extended range the 600 really stands alone.
You know you're at Dani's house when squirrels are randomly running around! 😆 Great video - the loss of sharpness with the 400mm and 2x tele is crazy. I stopped using the 2x completely. P.S. Nice hoodie ;)
Fabulous video ! I have a sigma 500f4 ef mounted on canon R5 , and works wonderful. The bit on the accompanying small lenses is like a god sent answer that I have been trying to get for long now - was really stuck between 70 -200 f2.8 / 100 -300 f2.8 . Pocket says one and heart says the other 🤷♀️
I shoot Nikon and I had the choice of the 600/f4 ($20,000 & 115oz) or the 800/f6.3 ($8,000 & 84oz.) … I bought the 800mm since it is so much lighter and cheaper. It is easy to carry, very light, and I use it handheld even with either TC …. The IBIS in the Z9 is amazing. The 800mm is my favourite wildlife prime.
I get more and more tired of big and heavy Lenses, I prefer compact and light weight Lenses, so now I only have the excellent Sigma 500mm 5.6 DG DN OS Sports Lens, which I can highly recommend.
The only thing that stops me from getting any of these is that canon just put the EF to RF converter on their EF version rather than making a RF version. Not sure if they are coming up a native RF version soon. Any ideas? Nikon has one with teleconverter built in. That lens seems quite awesome.
I agree. But the Canon lenses (EF III) where very new, so a redesign was not feasible I guess. At least the price didn’t increase when the announced the RF version! And here the Nikon 600mm supertele cost around 50% more
Surprised to see that the 400 actually is a bit soft, if I'm not mistaken, even without TC (at 8:17)....? I have the EF 200 f/2, and that one does not like TC's, I have to stop at least one stop down with my 2X TC, before it get okay sharp....;- /
If I "had to use" one of those big, heavy, non-versatile things, my vote would be on the 800 F5.6 :) In fairness, their are certainly times and places where a fast lens like those would be a plus. Right now I know of a little bird which just has to be shot from a terrible lighting angle. If I had such a lens, I'd just wait for a super cloudy day, or, right before sunrise, or right after sunset, and not worry about light angle. But of course this is an exception. Generally speaking, I believe I will get a lot more Nat Geo shots with a long zoom.
I can't afford either of these lenses (Nikon shooter so even more expensive) but this was a very interesting video! But got to be honest, the squirrel in the background stole the show a bit!
My thinking was yes with extender the quality is not as sharp on the 400mm but how about compensating with TOPAZ to get it a bit sharper? My thinking was 400mm 2.8 with extenders AND topaz is a more versatile than 600 F4.
Hi Fabian, thank you for the excellent review. What would your opinion be when pairing these two lenses with a crop sensor camera like the canon R7 which has a 1.6 crop factor? A 400mm with a 1.4x extender would give close to 900mm focal length on the R7. Do you think that a 400 F2.8 would be more viable because of the crop factor? Or do you think that you're better off just upgrading to a full frame with a 600mm. Regards Ian
400 f2.8 wide open has too shallow depth of field for small birds so 600 is better without a doubt, but it's also less versatile and sometimes that the difference between shooting a worse image quality picture and shooting nothing becasue your subject is too close. Last winter we rented a tugboat to shoot white-tailed eagles on the ice and they got really close to us, so i took a lot of great images with my 100-500 while my friend with his 600f4 could only take some portraits shots .
I owned the Nikon Z 400 mm F/2.8 with built in TC for a year. I kept ending up adding the 1.4 teleconverter for additional reach in addition to using the built in TC. I ended up selling the 400 mm and getting the Z 600 mm F/4.0 with built in TC and find I not like not having to add the TC but I think the pictures are a little clearer than the 400 with the added 1.4 TC. I shoot primary birds, as far as wildlife goes.
Thank you for a very good review ,my supertele today is Sigma 500mm f4 sports (EF mount)which I got in mint condition at very good price. It gives very good results with my full frame Canon R8 and crop sensor Sony a6700 with mc11 adapter. It works well also with Sigma 1401 extender. It is remarkable that AF and IS etc. works very good on Sony with MC11 ,no difference compared to Canon RF. So it is a viable low cost option for Sony shooters.
Very good video for reference. 600mm is for wildlife, 400mm is for soccer. TC is unnecessary, it decreases the IQ and AF speed. Anyway, it looks Canon designs TC based on 600mm/F4.
Thanks Fabian, you explained very well why unseren gemeinsamen freund Jan Wegener is dreaming of a possible 400-600/2.8-4 zoom lens 😛 As long as I intend to stay married, I should refrain from lenses more expensive than the 100-500, and my shoulders prefer as maximum the weight of the 200-800. Nevertheless, I truly enjoy watching this kind of videos from you !
The 1.4 extender doesn't really reduce the image quality by much even on my 200-800 F/6.3-9 lens. However the 2 times extender as it's nature is not that sharp. I know all extenders lose a bit of clarity in the image but the RF 1.4 extender is by far the best 1.4 extender I've ever used. I have tried various other brands and none of them can match that sharpness. On the other hand the RF 2x extender while it's good, it's not too much different than the other 2x extenders. I can not directly compare them however the image quality reduction I've got from the 2x + 200-800 was very similar to the image quality reduction I get with the sigma 150-600 + 2x viltrox extender. But honestly on the same distance, native 200-800 vs + 1.4x extender they are almost identical in terms of IQ. That may be the deciding factor on why you got such a soft image with the 2x extender on the 400mm lens. Great comparison btw. Thanks for the awesome work.
I think the way I see it, 400 f2.8 is sports and vehicles, maybe big animals. At 600mm it starts getting easier for me in wildlife when the conditions are unpredictable. Sometimes it is way too much work to get close, end up missing some photos just trying to get in a position where 400mm fills more of the frame.
Hi Fabian, thanks for the video. Would you be able to post a link on say Dropbox to be able to download your sample test files made for the sharpness comparisons? The differences are not very apparent when viewed on TH-cam.
@@FabianFoppNaturephotographyyes, the free plan I use is quite restrictive… maybe a google drive link then? Or something on your website? As someone making this decision currently, it would be useful knowledge to compare the 400 f2.8 cropped to a 600 f4 bare to know the quality differences in the cases where a crop would be required. Keep up the great work!
I picked the 600 F4 because reach was always more of an issue than light. I got rid of the Canon hood and use a Zemlin Photo travel hood, it's about half the length of the Canon and I can keep it on with the R3 and 1.4TC mounted and it fits into a Unistellar telescope backpack. This way I can just pull it out and ready to shoot and the backpack gives great support and padding.
Great review as always. Did you try stopping down the 400mm f2.8 + telwconverters down to f5.6or f8? I've heard it makes a considerable difference to the sharpness.
Normally, shutter speed is king when shooting wildlife, unless you are only interested in portraits. Most of the time, whatever lens you are using, it's wide open to maximize shutter speed. These expensive teles can handle that quite well.
Depends how much image quality you want to sacrifice 😉 the nikon lenses with the integrated extenders are awesome, but if you mostly need 600 or 840mm, the 600/4 TC still makes more sense
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography Yes, but your title and theme of this video is 400/f2.8 or 600/f4. The Z 400 f2.8 is both in one lens. If you wanted to consider 600 f4 or 800 f5.6, then the Z 600 f4 TC is the best choice. Canon and Sony can't compete with that either.
One of the recent Canon's patents shows an RF 400-600mm f/2.8-4 - that one could solve the dilemma :) However, I guess it would be havier and more expensive, than any of these two.
Great video. I have a trip for Costa Rica coming up next month and I was planning to rent one of these lenses for the trip. I also own a RF100-500 which I will take with me on this trip. What would you suggest to rent for the trip?
I used the RF600/4 for most of my photos in Costa Rica. Sometimes it was a bit long, but that’s where your RF100-500 comes in 😊 But I guess it also depends on the locations and style of shooting
Interesting results with the TC that are very important tests. I have heard the exact same results with Sony that the 400mm F2.8 loses more sharpness with a 1.4x than the 600mm f4 with a 1.4x. Also the new 300mm GM is sharper with a 2x than the 400mm 2.8 with 1.4x.
Yes, I heard similar things. And I felt like the Sony 400/2.8 had almost a bigger drop in quality with the extender than the Canon. But I did not do a side by side comparison, just my feelings
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography I can confirm! The 600 F4 takes both the extenders much better than the 400. But what is good news is that the new sony 300 f2.8 takes both extenders extremely well, even the 2x. So this is promising for the future and next generation 400 F2.8!
For me has to be the 400 Nikon built in tc that’s calibrated to each lens so got no worries there but basically gives you a 600mm f4 then a 2 x tc 800 5.6
Well, the Canon gives you also a 560mm f/4, just like the Nikon. The advantage of the Nikon is mainly that you are much quicker for changing back to 400mm. In terms of IQ I did not see big differences between the Nikon 600/4 and Canon 600/4. Unfortunately, I could never use the 400/2.8 from both companies next to each other (only with 1 months difference)
I'd rather be abit too wide than abit too tight. Having dead space allows for more freedom and artistic framing, I find tight shots get boring quite quickly if you do it alot, which is possible on both of these focal lengths. But given bird photography is quite a specialised genre of wildlife photography the 600 is the lens to go if that's what you shoot mostly
Yeah, if wildlife is your goal I can pretty much guarantee that if you have the 400 2.8 you are going to use it almost exclusively with a 1.4 teleconverter attached, and will be shooting an effective f4 anyway! So the 2.8 is not an advantage. (I know a couple of photographers who own the 400 2.8.)
Hi Fabian If you are in the condition of a young God, the large size and weight of these lenses is not a problem, but this is different if for whatever reason you are in less good condition. or because you simply do not want or cannot bear the heavy weight of the camera and large lens. anyway it's a good and informative video.
As a veteran of Afghanistan I absolutely see the necessity for small and lightweight gear. You cannot be adaptable and flexible when using such large setups especially with tripod and gimbal heads. Also doing baited hide photography for me isn't what wildlife photography is all about. This isn't a shot at the channel owner just my personal ethos.
I was at a baited hide twice in my life (appart from feeding some songbirds with seeds). Most of my work is completely wildlife and I almsot never use a tripod for the 600/4 (because of the loss of flexibility)
This becomes one of the best wildlife channels!
Thanks a lot for these nice words!
Even we've got lens envy watching this 😂
Haha, I hope you have even more options at your headquarters :-)
Searched for a good comparison review of these lenses six months ago, not a lot of information to be found, well done at last some good advice for potential buyers, I test both these lenses extensively before settling for the RF 400mm, both excellent and I would challenge anyone to fault either, the images produced by these both give the same smile factor, the reason for my choosing the 400mm was based on the artistic rendering and detail of the 400mm, filling the frame with close up garden birds resulted in 3D micro contrast like qualities on the 400mm, putting bird portraits together and asking other’s opinions they always choose the 400mm, no regrets choosing the 400mm, no noticeable differences while using the 1.4 extender, fantastic quality from a versatile magic lens. 😁
Nice, enjoy
Thank you for the fantastic video! I primarily shoot birds and occasionally mammals. When it comes to bird photography, there's a tradeoff between these two lenses. Birds require more light (widest open aperture) and the ability to move the camera quickly, which gives the RF 400mm f/2.8 an advantage due to its lighter weight and better weight distribution. On the other hand, the RF 600mm f/4 offers the benefit of extra reach, which can be offset by using a 1.4x extender on the 400mm. The key comparison is between the 600mm and the 400mm with a 1.4x extender. Considering the flexibility and advantages of the 400mm, I'm willing to accept a slight (~10%) loss in image quality, which isn’t dramatic. Ultimately, I decided to go for the Canon RF 400mm f/2.8 along with a 1.4x extender for added versatility when needed
I think this is the approach that makes all the sense. It's better to have more flexibility than less. Better low light capabilities, better large-subject shooting too. IQ penalty isn't meaningfully big.
*the loss of sharpness demonstrated in this video is quite noticeable and this ofc depends on the model of the lens/manufacturer, matching a TC maybe. His 600f4 performs clearly better w 2x than 400 does even w 1.4x but this is not necessarily consistent across brands/models/samples maybe even.
I own an RF600mm f4 and it's file are as good as it gets. Last year, I did a grizzly bear photo tour and in the low light of morning or evening it is the best!! But, now that I am aged 75, it is getting a bit heavy and I find I am using the monopod much of the time. For travel, its biggest drawback is its length. Canon took the previous EF 600mm f4 edition and simply added an RF flange and this extra inch or so of length is significant when you are trying to pack it into an "overhead" bag that meets airline requirements. For instance, it will not fit into my Think Tank 3.0 International. Because of its extra "flange length", to get it into a Mindshift 36 L backpack, you have to position it at an angle after removing some of the pack's internal dividers. Once you get this backpack loaded, it is VERY heavy. The RF 400 f2.8 would more easily fit most carry-ons and its lighter weight might be significant. A great review, thanks!!!!
Yes, for air travel the 400/2.8 has a big advantage
Great info and all the right questions and answers. I had the same dilemma and I purchased the RF 600mm, very happy I did, most of my shots are cropping.
Thanks
As always, a very thorough and informative review. My 400 prime is the last EF lens I need to change over to the RF mount. I currently use the 400 f4 DO which I find to be excellent for both my wildlife and my sports photography. For wildlife I also had the luxury of being able to use the EF 800 f5.6. However, that lens will no longer be available to me shortly. As cost is such a huge factor with the fast primes, and I have to have a fast 400 for my sport, it looks as though I will compromise and replace my 400 f4 with the 400 f2.8 and extenders.
This will have to do the job of both my current 400 and 800.
Best wishes.
I would like to see some DO lenses for the RF mount
@FabianFoppNaturephotography I would too. My age and health means it is becoming increasingly difficult to lug around big heavy gear.
Excellent video. I have both lenses and your conclusions directly align with my observations after using the lenses on my R5 and R3 for two years. Both outstanding lenses, but once you need extended range the 600 really stands alone.
Thanks!
You know you're at Dani's house when squirrels are randomly running around! 😆 Great video - the loss of sharpness with the 400mm and 2x tele is crazy. I stopped using the 2x completely. P.S. Nice hoodie ;)
Exactly :-)
Great video. I chose 600 based upon most of the reasons you mentioned about the 600 years ago. Newbies should take note.
Thanks
感谢你分享的宝贵经验，不是每个摄影人都会购买两只镜头，你身后的小松鼠太可爱了。
Fabulous video ! I have a sigma 500f4 ef mounted on canon R5 , and works wonderful. The bit on the accompanying small lenses is like a god sent answer that I have been trying to get for long now - was really stuck between 70 -200 f2.8 / 100 -300 f2.8 . Pocket says one and heart says the other 🤷♀️
I shoot Nikon and I had the choice of the 600/f4 ($20,000 & 115oz) or the 800/f6.3 ($8,000 & 84oz.) … I bought the 800mm since it is so much lighter and cheaper. It is easy to carry, very light, and I use it handheld even with either TC …. The IBIS in the Z9 is amazing. The 800mm is my favourite wildlife prime.
Patiently waiting for RF 200-500L F4 with built in extender
I hope it will come!
This is the video I'm looking for, thanks!!!
Happy to hear that
Exceptional, thank you so much, Fabian
Thanks
I get more and more tired of big and heavy Lenses, I prefer compact and light weight Lenses, so now I only have the excellent Sigma 500mm 5.6 DG DN OS Sports Lens, which I can highly recommend.
Enjoy
Switch to Nikon Z. 400mm2.8 with built in 1.4 TC is ideal and covers both. Cheers from Australia.
The only thing that stops me from getting any of these is that canon just put the EF to RF converter on their EF version rather than making a RF version. Not sure if they are coming up a native RF version soon. Any ideas? Nikon has one with teleconverter built in. That lens seems quite awesome.
I agree. But the Canon lenses (EF III) where very new, so a redesign was not feasible I guess. At least the price didn’t increase when the announced the RF version! And here the Nikon 600mm supertele cost around 50% more
Surprised to see that the 400 actually is a bit soft, if I'm not mistaken, even without TC (at 8:17)....?
I have the EF 200 f/2, and that one does not like TC's, I have to stop at least one stop down with my 2X TC, before it get okay sharp....;- /
Hmm, seems perfectly sharp without extenders to me 😊
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography probably a matter of relatively low-res TH-cam/end-user screen-unsharpness then....;- )
If I "had to use" one of those big, heavy, non-versatile things, my vote would be on the 800 F5.6 :) In fairness, their are certainly times and places where a fast lens like those would be a plus. Right now I know of a little bird which just has to be shot from a terrible lighting angle. If I had such a lens, I'd just wait for a super cloudy day, or, right before sunrise, or right after sunset, and not worry about light angle. But of course this is an exception. Generally speaking, I believe I will get a lot more Nat Geo shots with a long zoom.
Is the 800/5.6 so much sharper than the 400/2.8 + 2x? Because with the latter you would be much more flexible
I can't afford either of these lenses (Nikon shooter so even more expensive) but this was a very interesting video! But got to be honest, the squirrel in the background stole the show a bit!
Thanks! Haha, I knew this was a risk when shooting the video outdoor
My thinking was yes with extender the quality is not as sharp on the 400mm but how about compensating with TOPAZ to get it a bit sharper? My thinking was 400mm 2.8 with extenders AND topaz is a more versatile than 600 F4.
Hi Fabian, thank you for the excellent review.
What would your opinion be when pairing these two lenses with a crop sensor camera like the canon R7 which has a 1.6 crop factor? A 400mm with a 1.4x extender would give close to 900mm focal length on the R7.
Do you think that a 400 F2.8 would be more viable because of the crop factor? Or do you think that you're better off just upgrading to a full frame with a 600mm.
Regards
Ian
I would prefer full frame & 600/4 over aps-c with 400/2.8 (at least with canon). But if I had an R7 then yes, I would go for the 400/2.8
Extension tubes (the ones without glass) will reduce the minimum focus distance. How much ? Your guess is as good as mine.
400 f2.8 wide open has too shallow depth of field for small birds so 600 is better without a doubt, but it's also less versatile and sometimes that the difference between shooting a worse image quality picture and shooting nothing becasue your subject is too close.
Last winter we rented a tugboat to shoot white-tailed eagles on the ice and they got really close to us, so i took a lot of great images with my 100-500 while my friend with his 600f4 could only take some portraits shots .
I owned the Nikon Z 400 mm F/2.8 with built in TC for a year. I kept ending up adding the 1.4 teleconverter for additional reach in addition to using the built in TC. I ended up selling the 400 mm and getting the Z 600 mm F/4.0 with built in TC and find I not like not having to add the TC but I think the pictures are a little clearer than the 400 with the added 1.4 TC. I shoot primary birds, as far as wildlife goes.
Thanks for sharing
Thank you for a very good review ,my supertele today is Sigma 500mm f4 sports (EF mount)which I got in mint condition at very good price. It gives very good results with my full frame Canon R8 and crop sensor Sony a6700 with mc11 adapter. It works well also with Sigma 1401 extender.
It is remarkable that AF and IS etc. works very good on Sony with MC11 ,no difference compared to Canon RF. So it is a viable low cost option for Sony shooters.
Nice, thanks for sharing
Very good video for reference.
600mm is for wildlife, 400mm is for soccer.
TC is unnecessary, it decreases the IQ and AF speed.
Anyway, it looks Canon designs TC based on 600mm/F4.
This would be amazing
While both lenses are well beyond my $$$, it is always good to know about the high end lenses.
Thanks
Thanks Fabian, you explained very well why unseren gemeinsamen freund Jan Wegener is dreaming of a possible 400-600/2.8-4 zoom lens 😛
As long as I intend to stay married, I should refrain from lenses more expensive than the 100-500, and my shoulders prefer as maximum the weight of the 200-800. Nevertheless, I truly enjoy watching this kind of videos from you !
Thanks
Why not go with the 500mm F4?
There is no RF500/4 😕
The 1.4 extender doesn't really reduce the image quality by much even on my 200-800 F/6.3-9 lens. However the 2 times extender as it's nature is not that sharp. I know all extenders lose a bit of clarity in the image but the RF 1.4 extender is by far the best 1.4 extender I've ever used. I have tried various other brands and none of them can match that sharpness. On the other hand the RF 2x extender while it's good, it's not too much different than the other 2x extenders. I can not directly compare them however the image quality reduction I've got from the 2x + 200-800 was very similar to the image quality reduction I get with the sigma 150-600 + 2x viltrox extender. But honestly on the same distance, native 200-800 vs + 1.4x extender they are almost identical in terms of IQ. That may be the deciding factor on why you got such a soft image with the 2x extender on the 400mm lens. Great comparison btw. Thanks for the awesome work.
Thanks! I feel like the RF600/4 just takes the extender better than the RF400/2.8
I got serious and bought a small telephoto because I'm not pretending I am Animal Mother from full metal jacket 😂
😅
The Nikon 600 f/4 TC is absolutely insane quality. The Nikkor 600PF is so light and cheap.
Yes, from my experience the Nikon 600/4 TC is on par with the RF600/4. And I really like the 600/6.3 PF, but I find it too expensive
I think the way I see it, 400 f2.8 is sports and vehicles, maybe big animals. At 600mm it starts getting easier for me in wildlife when the conditions are unpredictable. Sometimes it is way too much work to get close, end up missing some photos just trying to get in a position where 400mm fills more of the frame.
Certainly depends on the subjects
Hi Fabian, thanks for the video. Would you be able to post a link on say Dropbox to be able to download your sample test files made for the sharpness comparisons? The differences are not very apparent when viewed on TH-cam.
I did that for a while, but my dropbox is full 😕
@@FabianFoppNaturephotographyyes, the free plan I use is quite restrictive… maybe a google drive link then? Or something on your website? As someone making this decision currently, it would be useful knowledge to compare the 400 f2.8 cropped to a 600 f4 bare to know the quality differences in the cases where a crop would be required. Keep up the great work!
I picked the 600 F4 because reach was always more of an issue than light.
I got rid of the Canon hood and use a Zemlin Photo travel hood, it's about half the length of the Canon and I can keep it on with the R3 and 1.4TC mounted and it fits into a Unistellar telescope backpack. This way I can just pull it out and ready to shoot and the backpack gives great support and padding.
On a slightly different note are you now using the mkii R5? I’m thinking of moving over to canon. Thanks
Yes, I switched to the R5 II 😊
Great review as always.
Did you try stopping down the 400mm f2.8 + telwconverters down to f5.6or f8? I've heard it makes a considerable difference to the sharpness.
Thanks! No, I shoot wide open most of the times to be honest
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography Yes that's the point of these lenses. You don't buy a expensive prime to stop it down.
Normally, shutter speed is king when shooting wildlife, unless you are only interested in portraits. Most of the time, whatever lens you are using, it's wide open to maximize shutter speed. These expensive teles can handle that quite well.
This is an easy one. You buy the Nikon Z 400 f2.8 with built in 1.4xTC and then you have both of these lenses. Canon and Sony, thank you for playing.
Depends how much image quality you want to sacrifice 😉 the nikon lenses with the integrated extenders are awesome, but if you mostly need 600 or 840mm, the 600/4 TC still makes more sense
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography Yes, but your title and theme of this video is 400/f2.8 or 600/f4. The Z 400 f2.8 is both in one lens. If you wanted to consider 600 f4 or 800 f5.6, then the Z 600 f4 TC is the best choice. Canon and Sony can't compete with that either.
One of the recent Canon's patents shows an RF 400-600mm f/2.8-4 - that one could solve the dilemma :) However, I guess it would be havier and more expensive, than any of these two.
Yes, I would be a bit afraid about the weight
Great video. I have a trip for Costa Rica coming up next month and I was planning to rent one of these lenses for the trip. I also own a RF100-500 which I will take with me on this trip. What would you suggest to rent for the trip?
I wouldn’t travel to CR with either. I’d take the 100-500. It’s a great lens.
I used the RF600/4 for most of my photos in Costa Rica. Sometimes it was a bit long, but that’s where your RF100-500 comes in 😊 But I guess it also depends on the locations and style of shooting
Interesting results with the TC that are very important tests. I have heard the exact same results with Sony that the 400mm F2.8 loses more sharpness with a 1.4x than the 600mm f4 with a 1.4x.
Also the new 300mm GM is sharper with a 2x than the 400mm 2.8 with 1.4x.
Yes, I heard similar things. And I felt like the Sony 400/2.8 had almost a bigger drop in quality with the extender than the Canon. But I did not do a side by side comparison, just my feelings
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography I can confirm! The 600 F4 takes both the extenders much better than the 400. But what is good news is that the new sony 300 f2.8 takes both extenders extremely well, even the 2x. So this is promising for the future and next generation 400 F2.8!
They're both massive, I'll take a 300 with 2x
Also an option 😊
For me has to be the 400 Nikon built in tc that’s calibrated to each lens so got no worries there but basically gives you a 600mm f4 then a 2 x tc 800 5.6
Well, the Canon gives you also a 560mm f/4, just like the Nikon. The advantage of the Nikon is mainly that you are much quicker for changing back to 400mm. In terms of IQ I did not see big differences between the Nikon 600/4 and Canon 600/4. Unfortunately, I could never use the 400/2.8 from both companies next to each other (only with 1 months difference)
How does the 600 f4 ii compare to the canon 200-800 image af and bokeh?
There is no comparison, it’s a massive difference
I’m assuming you favour the 600 then? I’m trying to decide whether the 500 f4 or 200-800 is the right choice.
I'd rather be abit too wide than abit too tight. Having dead space allows for more freedom and artistic framing, I find tight shots get boring quite quickly if you do it alot, which is possible on both of these focal lengths. But given bird photography is quite a specialised genre of wildlife photography the 600 is the lens to go if that's what you shoot mostly
Yes, I agree
How are you managing 840mm at f5? Do you mean f5.6?
Typo, sorry
Yeah, if wildlife is your goal I can pretty much guarantee that if you have the 400 2.8 you are going to use it almost exclusively with a 1.4 teleconverter attached, and will be shooting an effective f4 anyway! So the 2.8 is not an advantage. (I know a couple of photographers who own the 400 2.8.)
Thanks
Hi Fabian
If you are in the condition of a young God, the large size and weight of these lenses is not a problem, but this is different if for whatever reason you are in less good condition. or because you simply do not want or cannot bear the heavy weight of the camera and large lens. anyway it's a good and informative video.
As a veteran of Afghanistan I absolutely see the necessity for small and lightweight gear. You cannot be adaptable and flexible when using such large setups especially with tripod and gimbal heads. Also doing baited hide photography for me isn't what wildlife photography is all about. This isn't a shot at the channel owner just my personal ethos.
@ agree with you than you must buy an Om-system camera set up.
I was at a baited hide twice in my life (appart from feeding some songbirds with seeds). Most of my work is completely wildlife and I almsot never use a tripod for the 600/4 (because of the loss of flexibility)
@FabianFoppNaturephotography Yeah that's why I said it wasn't a shot at yourself more the typical owners of these lenses.
Canon 500mm f4L IS II USM na R7 ohišju 😀💪😁
Squirrel at 7:50 :)
🐿️
Was the squirrel just teasing you
Probably 😅
That's why I shoot a Sigma 500mm f4 sports.
I had a 500/4 before 😊
7:28
Yep, that was a typo. Should be f5.6
600 f4 and 300 2.8 best
Nice combination