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

Mikehit

EOS R6
Jul 28, 2015
3,357
561
Canon needs to upgrade all! The company needs to make up for lost time and begin innovating.

Since when has 'upgrade' become synonymous with 'innovation' ?
Has 'innovating' become the new word for 'I don't know what to say so I will thrown in a word that I have seen everyone else using'?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0

Ozarker

Love, joy, and peace to all of good will.
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,813
4,235
The Ozarks
Since when has 'upgrade' become synonymous with 'innovation' ?
Has 'innovating' become the new word for 'I don't know what to say so I will thrown in a word that I have seen everyone else using'?

Time for the Princess Bride /Montoya meme. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0

tron

EOS-1D X Mark III
CR Pro
Nov 8, 2011
5,138
1,514
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

  • 400DOII-at-night.jpg
    400DOII-at-night.jpg
    251.3 KB · Views: 311
Last edited:
Upvote 0

tron

EOS-1D X Mark III
CR Pro
Nov 8, 2011
5,138
1,514
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:
Upvote 0

RGF

How you relate to the issue, is the issue.
Jul 13, 2012
2,820
38
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.
 
Upvote 0

tron

EOS-1D X Mark III
CR Pro
Nov 8, 2011
5,138
1,514
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:
Upvote 0

RGF

How you relate to the issue, is the issue.
Jul 13, 2012
2,820
38
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
 
Upvote 0

tron

EOS-1D X Mark III
CR Pro
Nov 8, 2011
5,138
1,514
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 :)
 
Upvote 0

RGF

How you relate to the issue, is the issue.
Jul 13, 2012
2,820
38
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
 
Upvote 0

RGF

How you relate to the issue, is the issue.
Jul 13, 2012
2,820
38
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
 
Upvote 0

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,330
2,453
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.
 
Upvote 0