Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS III coming ahead of Photokina [CR3]

tron

EOS 5D SR
Nov 8, 2011
3,832
183
Hi Tron

I would like to see a comparison. But tell me, when do you see the green halo? A star? The moon? or perhaps a flood light in the distance. Since I don't have a DO right now I can not test. Hopefully the 600 DO will be released soon. If it is as good as the 400 DO II I'll sell my 600 F4 and buy the 600 DO.
You really do not have to worry. I photographed an ancient temple from afar. The halo was around a powerful light that was one of the two that were enough to lit it fully at night. So it was an extreme situation (not so real life). It is just that when I do this with my 500mm f/4L IS II there is no halo. I have attached a composite:
A part of the full picture over a part of a 100% magnification of the picture to see what I mean.
 

Attachments

Last edited:

tron

EOS 5D SR
Nov 8, 2011
3,832
183
But on second thought it had to be the way it was turned because 500 produced less halo but not zero:
So you really do not have to worry. Just my opinion. The attachment is a screenshot of a shot taken with the 500 at 100%.
 

Attachments

tron

EOS 5D SR
Nov 8, 2011
3,832
183
An 600 DO will be worth a lot although I would still need to use it from the inside of my car or on a tripod (the way I use my 500).
 

RGF

How you relate to the issue, is the issue.
Jul 13, 2012
2,814
34
But on second thought it had to be the way it was turned because 500 produced less halo but not zero:
So you really do not have to worry. Just my opinion. The attachment is a screenshot of a shot taken with the 500 at 100%.
I see the green halo. Wonder what causes it.
 

tron

EOS 5D SR
Nov 8, 2011
3,832
183
I see the green halo. Wonder what causes it.
Partly it's because the light is very bright. The color of the halo is due to the light not being white. It exists slightly on the shot with 500 too. I remembered that the temple was not shown lit with white color at its left side. When I was close, it looked as lit with blue/green light. So there is at least an explanation for the color. The difference with the 500 is just a little more halo compared with it. I haven't photographed the moon with the 400 though so I cannot comment on that. The moon shot with the 500 is excellent of course!
 
Last edited:

RGF

How you relate to the issue, is the issue.
Jul 13, 2012
2,814
34
Partly it's because the light is very bright. The color of the halo is due to the light not being white. It exists slightly on the shot with 500 too. I remembered that the temple was not shown lit with white color at its left side. When I was close, it looked as lit with blue/green light. So there is at least an explanation for the color. The difference with the 500 is just a little more halo compared with it. I haven't photographed the moon with the 400 though so I cannot comment on that. The moon shot with the 500 is excellent of course!
Thanks

I know fluorescent lights have a strong green component. I presume that the bright light in your image is from a halogen light.

I have shot the moon w/ my old 500 F4 (version 1) and don't remember seeing a green halo.
 

tron

EOS 5D SR
Nov 8, 2011
3,832
183
Thanks

I know fluorescent lights have a strong green component. I presume that the bright light in your image is from a halogen light.

I have shot the moon w/ my old 500 F4 (version 1) and don't remember seeing a green halo.
Of course not. It is undoubtely a nice lens. Neither my 500 version 2 has any real issue. I use this lens to shoot the moon and it's excellent at it. I will have to find a chance to shoot the moon with the 400DOII to see the result. But since I use the 400DOII as a portable lens for birding (and excells at it) I am more than satisfied with it.
 
Last edited:

RGF

How you relate to the issue, is the issue.
Jul 13, 2012
2,814
34
Of course not. It is undoubtely a nice lens. Neither my 500 version 2 has any real issue. I use this lens to shoot the moon and it's excellent at it. I will have to find a chance to shoot the moon with the 400DOII to see the result. But since I use the 400DOII as a portable lens for birding (and excells at it) I am more than satisfied with it.
Birding w/ a 600 DO would be even nicer, that is if the weight does not become an issue
 

tron

EOS 5D SR
Nov 8, 2011
3,832
183
Birding w/ a 600 DO would be even nicer, that is if the weight does not become an issue
I Completely agree. Even the fact that a DO lens is shorter so held closer to the body helps. But weight is very important too. But It seems that my limit is a 400DOII + tele.
So I would hold a 600DO 5.6 but I am not sure I would manage a 600DO 4. I will have to think about it more however only If Canon makes one :)
 

RGF

How you relate to the issue, is the issue.
Jul 13, 2012
2,814
34
I Completely agree. Even the fact that a DO lens is shorter so held closer to the body helps. But weight is very important too. But It seems that my limit is a 400DOII + tele.
So I would hold a 600DO 5.6 but I am not sure I would manage a 600DO 4. I will have to think about it more however only If Canon makes one :)
For a short while I can hold a 200-400 but it is not easy nor very long (short while). A few pounds lighter would be very helpful. Given that the 400 F2.8 weighs 8.5 pounds and the 600 F4 weighs 8.6, I would expect that ther 400 DO and 600 D0 would be similar weight. Perhaps the 600 DO would be lighter but then again Canon decide to save the lighter materials /methods for the next version of both lenses. Sorry if I seems cynical
 

tron

EOS 5D SR
Nov 8, 2011
3,832
183
400 is f/2.8 and 600 is f/4. But 400DOII is f/4 and 600DO is rumored to be f/4 too. So not the same situation. But if 600 were to be f/5.6 yes I agree with you.
 

RGF

How you relate to the issue, is the issue.
Jul 13, 2012
2,814
34
400 is f/2.8 and 600 is f/4. But 400DOII is f/4 and 600DO is rumored to be f/4 too. So not the same situation. But if 600 were to be f/5.6 yes I agree with you.
Of course, for the 400 DO and 600 DO to be the same weight the 600 DO would need to be F5.6. My error
 

tron

EOS 5D SR
Nov 8, 2011
3,832
183
Of course, for the 400 DO and 600 DO to be the same weight the 600 DO would need to be F5.6. My error
That's OK. I only imagine how flexible would be a 600DO 5.6. We would be able to carry it and walk all day (Just like I do with my 400DOII f/4). It would be a super birding lens.
 

RGF

How you relate to the issue, is the issue.
Jul 13, 2012
2,814
34
That's OK. I only imagine how flexible would be a 600DO 5.6. We would be able to carry it and walk all day (Just like I do with my 400DOII f/4). It would be a super birding lens.
compare the 400 DO F4 + TC1.4 vs 600 DO F5.6. 400/TC combo would be a bit heavier but more flexible. At 560 may not be as sharp as the 600 and the 600 could extended to 840 w/ TC 1.4

Now if Canon made at 7D Mark III with the AF of the then current 1Dx
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
423
147
Thanks

I know fluorescent lights have a strong green component. I presume that the bright light in your image is from a halogen light.

I have shot the moon w/ my old 500 F4 (version 1) and don't remember seeing a green halo.
(Over)Expose the moon bright enough and you'll get a halo with any lens. That's not to say that a halo from a DO lens will be exactly the same as a halo from a non-DO lens. It will vary for any two disparate lens designs.