Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II USM

L

lesliejmorris

Guest
I was able to talk with Gary Farber or rather email back and forth - wish I had ordered from him in the first place, he was very helpful and I will make sure to talk to him first next camera equipment order I have. But I am happy to say that the lens I ordered three months ago is FINALLY on its way. It will be here Wednesday...now to plan where to take it first.
 
Upvote 0
candyman said:
K-amps said:
Chenbro, the Egret shot is sublime!


+1
With excellent background color

Thanks! It was also the only one of those I posted that was hand-held (the cormorant and falcon were both car-door-assisted). The combination of the lens' lighter weight and incredible image stabilization is nothing short of amazing.
 
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,099
12,863
There's a small hit on sharpness, but it's not bad at all. Generally, the 600 II + 2xIII combo is excellent, IMO, as is the 1.4xIII. Obviously, you only have the central AF point(s) with the 2x, and that can make tracking birds in flight a challenge. Still...it's doable - the shot below is an American Bittern shot handheld, 1200mm, 1/1600 s, f/8, ISO 3200 (he was too far away even at 1200mm...).
 

Attachments

  • American Bittern.jpg
    American Bittern.jpg
    95.7 KB · Views: 3,987
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,099
12,863
dolina said:
With lens feet from Kirk, RRS, 4th Gen Design and others which one did you go for for your EF 600mm f/4L IS II USM and why?

The RRS foot, for better balance on a gimbal while retaining handle function. I eliminated the Wimberley replacement foot as it can't be used as a handle. I'd never heard of 4th Gen Design, but looking them up, I learned that's the maker of the Mongoose side gimbal, of which I've certainly heard. Although the pic is tiny, it looks much like the Wimberley 'foot' - too flat to be used as a handle. I believe that is a consequence of the Mongoose and Wimberley side gimbal designs. RRS doesn't have that issue, since their side mount gimbal (which I have) can be adjusted horizontally to center the lens, as opposed to the one-piece design of the others.

I'm not sure what Canon was thinking with the tripod collar on the 600 II, and the 500 II seems even worse. Basically, the Canon foot is too far forward. It's fine with just the body, but when you put a 1-series or gripped body with a 2x TC, the center of mass is right under or very slightly behind the mounting screws on the tripod collar. The problem is the Canon foot sweeps forward, and a Wimberley P-50 doesn't sit back far enough. The Kirk foot is designed just like the Canon foot, with the forward sweep. The RRS foot can be used as a handle, and actually extends slightly behind the mounting screws on the collar. With the 2xIII and 1D X, the back edge of the foot is flush with the back of the 80mm RRS clamp on the gimbal at the balance point. So, with the Kirk foot or a Wimberley P-50 plate on the Canon foot, the back edge of the foot/plate would be inside the clamp - probably still plenty stable, but I'd prefer to use the full extent of the clamping surface. Alternatively, with it flush the intrinsic tension/resistance of the head would probably compensate for it being slightly off-balance - but I'd prefer it to be properly balanced.

Probably more detail than you wanted... ;)
 
Upvote 0
Actually that's very useful assessment. Is this the foot you are using now? I have this on the 400 at the moment.

LCF53-top.png
 
Upvote 0
neuroanatomist said:
dolina said:
With lens feet from Kirk, RRS, 4th Gen Design and others which one did you go for for your EF 600mm f/4L IS II USM and why?

The RRS foot, for better balance on a gimbal while retaining handle function. I eliminated the Wimberley replacement foot as it can't be used as a handle. I'd never heard of 4th Gen Design, but looking them up, I learned that's the maker of the Mongoose side gimbal, of which I've certainly heard. Although the pic is tiny, it looks much like the Wimberley 'foot' - too flat to be used as a handle. I believe that is a consequence of the Mongoose and Wimberley side gimbal designs. RRS doesn't have that issue, since their side mount gimbal (which I have) can be adjusted horizontally to center the lens, as opposed to the one-piece design of the others.

I'm not sure what Canon was thinking with the tripod collar on the 600 II, and the 500 II seems even worse. Basically, the Canon foot is too far forward. It's fine with just the body, but when you put a 1-series or gripped body with a 2x TC, the center of mass is right under or very slightly behind the mounting screws on the tripod collar. The problem is the Canon foot sweeps forward, and a Wimberley P-50 doesn't sit back far enough. The Kirk foot is designed just like the Canon foot, with the forward sweep. The RRS foot can be used as a handle, and actually extends slightly behind the mounting screws on the collar. With the 2xIII and 1D X, the back edge of the foot is flush with the back of the 80mm RRS clamp on the gimbal at the balance point. So, with the Kirk foot or a Wimberley P-50 plate on the Canon foot, the back edge of the foot/plate would be inside the clamp - probably still plenty stable, but I'd prefer to use the full extent of the clamping surface. Alternatively, with it flush the intrinsic tension/resistance of the head would probably compensate for it being slightly off-balance - but I'd prefer it to be properly balanced.

Probably more detail than you wanted... ;)





This kind of Detail amazing, thank you for being that particular. perfect.
 
Upvote 0