First shot with 600 F4 RF

[sasan nejadi]

I think this lens is great. With two new focus motors and a new processor, focusing speed and accuracy are superb, The focus speed and accuracy of this lens is not comparable with 600ii and it’s much better.


Canon EOS-R5
RF EF600mm f/4L IS USM
f/5.6
1/3200 seconds
600 mm
ISO 640
Manual exposure
Manual
Pattern Metering mode

[arash_hazeghi]

nice frame Sassan, beautiful BG but the near wing is not ideal, it holds this image back. Did you get a frame with a better near wing ?

I am afraid you have been fooled by the seller of the lens, the RF 600 is exactly the same as the old EF 600 f/4 MK III that came out a while back. It only has an adaptor attached to, it . It has nothing new according to Canon.

good luck

[sasan nejadi]

nice frame Sassan, beautiful BG but the near wing is not ideal, it holds this image back. Did you get a frame with a better near wing ?

I am afraid you have been fooled by the seller of the lens, the RF 600 is exactly the same as the old EF 600 f/4 MK III that came out a while back. It only has an adaptor attached to, it . It has nothing new according to Canon.

good luck

Do not read my posts carefully! I compared it to the 600 Type 2 and knew it was the same type 3 lens. In general, it does not matter, this lens is extremely fast and reliable, and of course, it will definitely not reach the lens of your 600 Sony G master.

[arash_hazeghi]

Do not read my posts carefully! I compared it to the 600 Type 2 and knew it was the same type 3 lens. In general, it does not matter, this lens is extremely fast and reliable, and of course, it will definitely not reach the lens of your 600 Sony G master.

Hi Sasan

the RF and the EF 600 MKIII have the same ring-type USM motor as the the old 600 MKII from 2012. The main difference between MKII and MKIII is the weight. These are all very sharp lenses, just like the Nikon and the Sony 600mm f/4 lenses. The difference between these lenses comes down to weight (Nikon is significantly heavier), performance with TC and the AF technology

best

[Arthur Morris]

Arash nailed the important points on the RF 600. It is the exact same lens as the 600 III with an adapter stuck on the end permanently ... Canon should be ashamed. On the other hand, if they designed a use RF lens designed for mirrorless it would have cost $17 or &18 K USD. I Leo the sharp eye, the stare, the sweet light, and the oof yellow grasses at the bottom of the frame. Like Arash, I am not a fan of the near wing.

And with all due respect to the Canon folks, including Sump Scores, the R5 is no match for the a1.

respectfully with love, artie

[sasan nejadi]

Let's not give wrong information to the viewer, the difference between Mark 2 and Mark 3 is definitely not only in weight, and it turns out by testing these two lenses together, I think it is useless to discuss this issue in this forum.

[arash_hazeghi]

Let's not give wrong information to the viewer, the difference between Mark 2 and Mark 3 is definitely not only in weight, and it turns out by testing these two lenses together, I think it is useless to discuss this issue in this forum.

I don't understand your statement, what does " turns out by testing lenses together" mean ? I don't follow.

What are the other differences between MK II and MK III besides weight and what is the reference for it ? (I owned both of these lenses by the way).

best

[Daniel Cadieux]

Sweet golden light, super details, and appealing far wing position. Near wing not so much. Beautiful BG too. If you are happy with the gear then that is all that you need to know. Go out there and have fun!

[dankearl]

BG is nice , wing not great, gear discussions are sort of worthless, I see crappy shots from Sony and Canon and Nikon. If you own the best gear so what?
There are so many good photographers using all kinds of gear, saying you have the A1, means nothing to me, I look at gear last after I looking at images and pay little attention.
Art and Arash images looked just as good with Canon, Nikon, whatever…most really good Instagram stuff they never say what they use, I have no idea.

[arash_hazeghi]

BG is nice , wing not great, gear discussions are sort of worthless, I see crappy shots from Sony and Canon and Nikon. If you own the best gear so what?
There are so many good photographers using all kinds of gear, saying you have the A1, means nothing to me, I look at gear last after I looking at images and pay little attention.
Art and Arash images looked just as good with Canon, Nikon, whatever…most really good Instagram stuff they never say what they use, I have no idea.

Hi Dan, partly agree but partly disagree, gear is important too, it's one of the many factors. and no, I could not get the same shots I get with the Sony with Nikon and Canon, it was possible but quite unlikely. It took one million tries and would end up with a half *** wing position most of the time. If you like to view images on a cell phone app like Instagram 5" across and 600 pixels wide then yeah everything looks good even OOF shots, in fact you don't need a camera at all, can just use a phone.... not my cup of tea.... I use my cell phone for making phone calls and getting directions, not much more than that :)

[sasan nejadi]

Sweet golden light, super details, and appealing far wing position. Near wing not so much. Beautiful BG too. If you are happy with the gear then that is all that you need to know. Go out there and have fun!

(((if you are happy with the gear then that is all that you need to know. Go out there and have fun!))) I do agree with you ,

[Volkan Akgul]

hi,

good photo.

[Dorian Anderson]

The lighting is beautiful and the details are fantastic, so that's great. I second the comments on the near wing, and I'd like to the head separated from the right/rear wing (i.e against the sky). But that's pretty minor.

While good photographers can make excellent images with any gear, they are going to make many more excellent images with top-of-the-line gear. It's really that simple. So yeah, gear matters, especially for birds in flight because those subjects ask more of one's gear than any other sort of photography on Earth. Tracking a small, fast flying bird is a huge technological ask for an AF system (and the photographer!)

FWIW, I own the EF 600 II and will be staying put with that lens until Canon releases a true RF lens. I cannot justify the $$$ to upgrade to either the EF 600 III or RF 600 (basically the same lens) to save 2.5 pounds. From what many have reported, the II takes the TC better than the III anyway. So, I'll suffer sore arms until 1) I make more money and/or 2) Canon releases something like a super-light RF 500/4.

[Arthur Morris]

The lighting is beautiful and the details are fantastic, so that's great. I second the comments on the near wing, and I'd like to the head separated from the right/rear wing (i.e against the sky). But that's pretty minor.

While good photographers can make excellent images with any gear, they are going to make many more excellent images with top-of-the-line gear. It's really that simple. So yeah, gear matters, especially for birds in flight because those subjects ask more of one's gear than any other sort of photography on Earth. Tracking a small, fast flying bird is a huge technological ask for an AF system (and the photographer!)

FWIW, I own the EF 600 II and will be staying put with that lens until Canon releases a true RF lens. I cannot justify the $$$ to upgrade to either the EF 600 III or RF 600 (basically the same lens) to save 2.5 pounds. From what many have reported, the II takes the TC better than the III anyway. So, I'll suffer sore arms until 1) I make more money and/or 2) Canon releases something like a super-light RF 500/4.

FWIW if Canon does make a use RF 600 f/4 it will cost more than $18K :)

with love, artie