EF 600mm F4 DO

[djack41]

The 600mm F4 DO can help put Canon back in the game. Add a built in 1.4X tele, like the EF 200-400 F4, and the greatest sports and wildlife lens will be born.

 

[AdamBotond]

I don't think it is going to happen in the nearest future, not at F4 at least. I agree however, that primes with built-in 1,4x or even 2x extenders should be really considered by Canon. A 400mm 2.8 with built-in 1,4 and 2x would be a game changer for sports and wildlife.

 

[snoke]

The 600mm F4 DO can help put Canon back in the game. Add a built in 1.4X tele, like the EF 200-400 F4, and the greatest sports and wildlife lens will be born.

Greastest sports lens? For Who? What sport?
What sport you use 500mm or 600mm or 400, 500, 600 with 1x tele?
Show sample of your photo?

Wildlife, yes, good, but sport, you never make sport photo.

 

[djack41]

I don't think it is going to happen in the nearest future, not at F4 at least. I agree however, that primes with built-in 1,4x or even 2x extenders should be really considered by Canon. A 400mm 2.8 with built-in 1,4 and 2x would be a game changer for sports and wildlife.

A
Yes, a 400mm 2.8 with a integrated 1.4x would be nice. But Canon has been displaying a prototype EF 600mm F4 DO at the trade shows for more than a year. I own a EF 600mm F4 which is fantastic but quite heavy. The prototype EF 600mm DO is compact and very hand-holdable. An integrated 1.4x on a 600 DO would be over-the-top good.
I shoot mostly wildlife but the 600mm is also a great lens for many sports and Canon's 2nd most popular lens in its loaner program during the recent Olympics.

 

[Ozarker]

Back to reality, I've often wondered whether the existing 600 f/4L IS II would be much more bang for the buck than the awesome 400mm f/2.8L IS II. I used to have the 400 f/5.6L and it always seemed a little too short (birding) and dark for me. Birds aren't always out in the blazing sun. However, it is a real bargain and mine was very sharp.

I wouldn't be interested in the 500mm.

The tempting thing about the 400 is the f/2.8 and IS. Tempting on the 600 would be the IS and f/4 isn't a slouch either. The f/2.8 on the 400 is just so exotic.

A zoom wouldn't interest me either.

Then again, there's the price. I could buy a brand new Nissan Versa at that price, but the lens would last longer.

 

[AlanF]

The 600mm F4 DO can help put Canon back in the game. Add a built in 1.4X tele, like the EF 200-400 F4, and the greatest sports and wildlife lens will be born.

Canon is not out of the game with telephoto lenses! Even if I am tempted to go over to Nikon or Nikon, I just could not give up the 100-400mm II or the 400 DO II. A lightweight small 500 or 600mm would be nice, but it would not be a game changer. Canon rules the telephoto lenses.

 

[Ian_of_glos]

The 600mm F4 DO can help put Canon back in the game. Add a built in 1.4X tele, like the EF 200-400 F4, and the greatest sports and wildlife lens will be born.

Greastest sports lens? For Who? What sport?
What sport you use 500mm or 600mm or 400, 500, 600 with 1x tele?
Show sample of your photo?

Wildlife, yes, good, but sport, you never make sport photo.

Cricket. If you want to capture a decent shot of the bails flying off from the boundary then you need at least a 600mm lens.

 

[tron]

I don't think it is going to happen in the nearest future, not at F4 at least. I agree however, that primes with built-in 1,4x or even 2x extenders should be really considered by Canon. A 400mm 2.8 with built-in 1,4 and 2x would be a game changer for sports and wildlife.

A
Yes, a 400mm 2.8 with a integrated 1.4x would be nice. But Canon has been displaying a prototype EF 600mm F4 DO at the trade shows for more than a year. I own a EF 600mm F4 which is fantastic but quite heavy. The prototype EF 600mm DO is compact and very hand-holdable. An integrated 1.4x on a 600 DO would be over-the-top good.
I shoot mostly wildlife but the 600mm is also a great lens for many sports and Canon's 2nd most popular lens in its loaner program during the recent Olympics.

The prototype is compact and handholdable because it does NOT have an integrated 1.4x. 600mm 4 II weight is 3.9 and prototype weight is 3.2. Include permanently a 1.4X and the weight advantage goes away. The same (more or less) with size.

 

[Deleted member 91053]

The 600mm F4 DO can help put Canon back in the game. Add a built in 1.4X tele, like the EF 200-400 F4, and the greatest sports and wildlife lens will be born.

Interesting thoughts.
When considering lenses of this type my contention/experience is that Canon is already well ahead of the game! Note my primary lens is that Canon 800 F5.6 L IS (600 F4 L IS previously) + a 300 F2.8 L IS for closer/larger stuff. Only Nikon offers alternatives to the Canon SuperTeles and having used/tried everything from the 300 F2.8 Vr2 upwards - they are not getting my money.

Certainly Nikon and others make some excellent cameras, but I have been disappointed with the AF performance of the competition on lenses in this bracket.

Canon is already ahead in this area for my uses (and I am not even thinking of Canon's Mk2 SuperTeles) - a 600 F4 DO would only take them further ahead. Having said that I would rather like one............not sure I have enough Kidneys left though!

 

[aceflibble]

This guy keeps banging on about this 600mm f/4 DO in every damn subject, regardless of relevancy. He's either psychotically obsessed or a troll; leave it be.

 

[Roo]

The 600mm F4 DO can help put Canon back in the game. Add a built in 1.4X tele, like the EF 200-400 F4, and the greatest sports and wildlife lens will be born.

Greastest sports lens? For Who? What sport?
What sport you use 500mm or 600mm or 400, 500, 600 with 1x tele?
Show sample of your photo?

Wildlife, yes, good, but sport, you never make sport photo.

Surfing, cricket, motorsport, Red Bull air races...

 

[Don Haines]

I know that they had a prototype 600F4 DO lens, but honestly, I would have thought that the 800F5.6 DO would have come out first....

 

[Don Haines]

What sport you use 500mm or 600mm or 400, 500, 600 with 1x tele?

I assume that you mean a 1.4X tele......

and any sport that you are more than 50 meters from the athletes....

and skunk racing..... you REALLY want a long lens for skunk racing.....

 

[Orangutan]

What sport you use 500mm or 600mm or 400, 500, 600 with 1x tele?

you REALLY want a long lens for skunk racing.....

Don, I really wish CR could be one place to avoid discussion of politics.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Back to reality, I've often wondered whether the existing 600 f/4L IS II would be much more bang for the buck than the awesome 400mm f/2.8L IS II. I used to have the 400 f/5.6L and it always seemed a little too short (birding) and dark for me. Birds aren't always out in the blazing sun. However, it is a real bargain and mine was very sharp.

I wouldn't be interested in the 500mm.

The tempting thing about the 400 is the f/2.8 and IS. Tempting on the 600 would be the IS and f/4 isn't a slouch either. The f/2.8 on the 400 is just so exotic.

A zoom wouldn't interest me either.

Then again, there's the price. I could buy a brand new Nissan Versa at that price, but the lens would last longer.

The amazing thing about the 400mm f2.8 LIS II isn't just the f2.8 brightness. It's the way it handles teleconverters so well it makes this lens super versatile. The IQ when using a 2x TC is astonishing, using a 1.4x TC is nearly as good as native. Which is why you see so many second hand immaculate 400mm f2.8 LIS (mk I) lenses would pounded lens mounts. It makes a great 600mm / f4 (just under) and a 800mm f5.6 all in one lens.
Optically, the mkI was probably the best of all the big whites. The MkII is very similar and all the other mkII's have sort of come up to that level (or close). The 400 f2.8 LIS melts backgrounds a bit easier natively than other big whites but the DOF does get a little thinner.

As much as I'd love a mk II 400mm f2.8 LIS...all I'm paying for is a large reduction in weight as an upgrade.

 

[GoldWing]

The 600mm F4 DO can help put Canon back in the game. Add a built in 1.4X tele, like the EF 200-400 F4, and the greatest sports and wildlife lens will be born.

I really don't want a TC on my primes. I'll own one 200-400 with a 1.4 but that's it. I see the difference when using my primes and so do my editors. Why pay for great glass and dumb it down?

 

[Jopa]

The 600mm F4 DO can help put Canon back in the game. Add a built in 1.4X tele, like the EF 200-400 F4, and the greatest sports and wildlife lens will be born.

I really don't want a TC on my primes. I'll own one 200-400 with a 1.4 but that's it. I see the difference when using my primes and so do my editors. Why pay for great glass and dumb it down?

I wasn't aware that Canon is out of the game...

 

[GoldWing]

The 600mm F4 DO can help put Canon back in the game. Add a built in 1.4X tele, like the EF 200-400 F4, and the greatest sports and wildlife lens will be born.

I really don't want a TC on my primes. I'll own one 200-400 with a 1.4 but that's it. I see the difference when using my primes and so do my editors. Why pay for great glass and dumb it down?

I wasn't aware that Canon is out of the game...

Canon "IS the game". Everyone else plays catch-up. To keep it that way.... let us keep our amazing world class primes pure. I'd rather own a 2.8 300 & 400 "as I do" than throw a 1.4TC on my 300 for 420. I see the difference and anyone who matters to me professionally can see the difference too. This glass is an investment. If the glass is sold... it will still keep much of it's value. I like to 200-400 but IMHO my big white primes are superior. I'd rather soot with an f/4 600mm than my 200-400 with the 1.4 TC kicked in... Perhaps it's just me!

 

[edoorn]

Well my 500 II takes very sharp images with a 1.4... many pro’s use long white primes with a 1.4 and those images sell and win contests

 

[Deleted member 91053]

They certainly do! However the shots without an extender are better.
It is a credit to Canon that their "Big Whites" work so well with extenders, but I don't think any owner would disagree with the fact that extenders are a compromise. Often a very workable compromise - but a compromise nonetheless.

Just my 2p.