Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II field review

[yakim_peled1]

<p><a href="http://www.arihazeghiphotography.com/600II_review/index.html">Perfect</a>? Perhaps, but how many will be able to afford it?</p>

<p>:-(</p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<blockquote>

<p>Not all photographers can afford the cost. <br /><br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>A wonderful understatement! I would have written "very few can afford it".</p>

[ljwest]

<p>$12,000 is ridiculously expensive, I'll agree, but compared to a lot of other things we spend money on that are essentially throwaways, it's not all that bad. How may folks spend $300-$400 per month to lease a car for 39 months? That's about the same amount, and you turn the car in after the lease is up, and get another. Canon isn't likely to update this lens for another ten to twelve years, so it's not like you'd be scrambling to buy another very soon. So in 12 years, one could have spent 3 and a half times as much for basic transportation, but you'll still have the same lens!</p>

<p>I just wish I could get a long-term, low interest, secured loan from my Credit Union for one of those lenses. I don't suppose they'd think "Canon" was a new car company, eh? ;-)</p>

<p> </p>

[zml]

<p>More importantly, how many truly NEED it :-)<br>

I neither need nor want a lens like that, but after handling it for a few hours coupled with a 1D4, I must say that if you need one, this is THE 600 mm lens, way better in every respect than the Mk. I (not that the Mk. I is a bad lens, but the new one blows everything in this focal range off our planet...)<br>

Especially important considerations are that the lens is handholdable (not as much as the new 500 but still: the 600 mm Mk. I was a tripod/monopod affair only!) and that the IS allows for shutter speeds as low as 1/250 (with care but it does...) <br>

I'm more of a 400 mm guy and although the new 400 mm is way lighter and has a better IS system than the Mk. I, the IQ is not as dramatically better as on the 600 or 500 mm Mk. II lenses.</p>

[ljwest]

<p>Yeah, I don't really need the 600 Mk II... I'd "settle" for the 500 Mk II... 8-D</p>

<p>Birding showed me just how "short" 400mm is. Even on a 7D!</p>

[keith reeder]

<blockquote>

<p> I don't suppose they'd think "Canon" was a new car company, eh? ;-)</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>There is a <a href="http://motoburg.com/imgs/19613-volkswagen-eos-04.jpg.html">Volkswagen </a><em><a href="http://motoburg.com/imgs/19613-volkswagen-eos-04.jpg.html">Eos</a> - </em>they won't know the difference!</p>

<p>As to the review: I'm a fussy sod, I know - but I'm really not that impressed with Arash's examples in there...</p>

[nathangardner]

<p>Yes, it's expensive, but it's an investment. 5 years from now the lens will still be worth 90% of the original cost; maybe even more than original cost if Canon raises their prices as they do on a regular basis. It's not money down the drain.</p>

[don_baccus]

<p>To put the price into perspective, when I wrote the <a href="../equipment/canon/600">photo.net review</a> for the original, non-IS EF 600/4, I noted that I'd paid $7399 in 1994 for it.<br>

In inflation-adjusted dollars that's about $11.5K. But by July, 1996 the price had risen to $9199, or an inflation-adjusted $13.5K.<br>

Why had the price gone up so significantly? Rise in the yen vs. the dollar ...<br>

So from my perspective, the EF 600/4 IS II costs about the same in real dollars as my old EF 600/4 non-IS did when I bought it (which I intend to sell for a very reasonable price, wink wink, when I'm ready to upgrade). But it's 35% lighter (the first IS lens was a bit lighter than the older non-IS 600/4, the new one's 27% lighter than that), a bit sharper, and has 4-stop IS which I dearly miss not having.<br>

Hard to believe it was 16 years ago that I wrote that review for photo.net :)</p>

[don_baccus]

<p>Following up on my previous post, I just bought an EF 600/4 IS II used from a reputable dealer. Possibly the first offered used on the planet.</p>

<p>Thus far, I'd say it's worth the money. I've done some handheld testing and can meet my old EF 600/4's sharpness with reasonable shutter speeds, and it amazes me for two reasons - the lens is 35% lighter, and bettr balanced. Oh, and IS of course. Works very well. On my tripod, pretty much blows my older EF 600/4 away. Amazes me, given how sharp the old lens is.<br>

My old one's for sale, officially, as of today, for "low $4000s" (haven't quite figured out the right price). It's a great lens, as said in my previous post, I've had it for 19 years (it's now 2013). For the price, it's fantastic ... but of course, if you can afford the new lens, go for it.</p>