I sold my 400mm f/2.8 lens for a 600mm f/4 for Wildlife (Canon RF 600mm F4 Review)

[@HuFilms]

I think you’re right to get the RF. And totally right about not using the tc. This lens is on my radar too. Nothing really compares to the quality you get. If you use a 100-500 you’ll always be wishing you had that f4 and 600.

[@marksuchomelsr6698]

Syler, I have a 600 version 1 and love it to death, but moving it around can be a struggle. I use it more when I am mostly stationary. I'm looking at the RF version for the future and look forward to being able to carry it around or with a monopod rather than having to have a tripod all the time.

[@davepastern]

is that the original without IS or mark 1 with IS?

[@jerjaws]

Add Topaz photo AI to your process.

[@PancakeSerenade]

Why?

[@VinceMaidens]

Don't discount the RF tc's, both the 1.4 and 2x are brilliant. I have negligible IQ impact and speed is great. Good choice in going RF for all the rationalisation you state

[@sylerpr]

How do they compare to the version III ef tc? I haven’t used the rf 1.4 yet.

[@VinceMaidens]

@@sylerpr I'd describe the EF as hot garbage and the RF as close to perfect as you'll get. If you don't get the 1.4 you'll kick yourself. With the R5's I almost always have a 1.4 on the 600's and if i have the 400 on it'll have the 2x usually...unless I need speed. Also, get yourself a Whistling Wings Speedshooter for yourself, game changer

[@nimuil]

TC worsens the superb IQ of RF600/F4 noticeably. Reduce its AF speed dramatically (half at least as Canon claimed). Guys, forgot the TC.

[@VinceMaidens]

@@nimuil have you ever shot it?? Not even remotely correct. Anyone who actually has one will state what I say as fact. Absolute nonsense the RF TC are steps ahead of the EF

[@nimuil]

@VinceMaidens then who am I? Do you have both version of EF and RF TC? Had you really tried TC on your RF600/F4?

[@alexabadi7458]

I don't have a 400mm f/2.8 anymore (Nikon) but I use now the 500mm f/4, the 600mm f/4 and the 200-400mm f/4 VR. I had the 400mm f/2.8 for several years, but always found it to short and to heavy to be use by hands. So now I use the 200-400mm f/4 VR by hands and the others telephotos lenses with a monopod. The D850 give me very nice ISO settings up to 800.

[@ghlocal1]

I actually own and love both lenses……..but the low light and image quality of the 400mm f/2.8 makes it the best wildlife lens I’ve ever owned!!

[@sylerpr]

Very cool that you have both. That would be the most ideal situation! I agree with you on the low light performance of the 400, but I just don't find it easy to get close enough for that lens most of the time in this ecosystem. In other places I could definitely see it being more useful though.

[@Samlol23_drrich]

@@sylerprhe didn’t mention that he shoots in a ZOO

[@BobMechanic]

400mm 2.8 is a compromised. I owned the FD version starting in 1983 when it was introduced. Canon had no 600 4.0 so it was a no brainer purchase. I shot a lot of college/pro sports, nature, and auto racing. In shooting it, I always liked having the ability to gain that extra stop if needed, however I shot it primarily with the 1.4x most of the time as well. The 400mm focal length overall I found was just too short for most things. It was “ok” for auto racing, but short for nearly all field sports, and too long most of the time for indoor sports. Specifically for wildlife (I documented the regrowth of Yellowstone for Newsweek in 1989) it’s again too short IMHO large animals where your safety requires distance. I would recommend a two lens solution instead. Buy a 600 4.0 and a 300 2.8. The 600 is what you’re wanting to achieve in reach and if you’re needing something smaller and lighter with less reach you’ll be quite happy with the 300 2.8 due to its focal length being closer to 400mm. The desperation in focal length between 600 and 300 makes them the ideal pairing in terms of the various in light, length, and image capture. I realize their are many variables and personal choices that come into play when choosing ones kit. All three lenses mentioned here (600, 400, 300) will never disappoint on image quality.

[@dougsturgess2651]

Hey Syler. Thanks for this informative video. Just what I needed to hear. Are you aware if Canon ever discounts the 600 f/4 during their biannual sales?

[@photoapeal]

Good to know, I was thinking maybe I should have purchased the EF400 f2.8 instead of the EF 600 f/4 II, Looks like I made the right decision. My main subjects are birds, ducks etc. in flight.

[@OhhhhhhhBugger]

I mean, I think the best solution would be to just buy an R7 to compliment your FF. With the R7, your 400mm would become an effective 640mm. The actually has very good and comparable IQ to the R5 imo. I have both.

[@robertlawrence7958]

When I was starting out in photography back in the early 80s I was told never to use extenders unless absolutely necessary. If i was constantly finding a need to use an extender then I was using the wrong lens. Even though technological advances have greatly improved the quality of extenders I still hold true to that advice.

[@WritabanDeb]

i categorize it like if someone is more into birding they should get the 600 and for mammals 400 , another aspect for consideration what type of photo i prefer , does the subject is the only thing i want to show or do i want to show both the subject and the surrounding its in.

[@OhhhhhhhBugger]

I am also very certain that the IQ of the 600 mm mkiii is inferior to the 500mm mkii. Look at those MTF charts! I noticed very little IQ degradation with the extenders mkiii extenders.

[@Jessehermansonphotography]

The interesting thing to me about Sony, Canon and Nikon moving the lens elements to the back of the lens is that those special elements are much smaller. Being so much smaller they should be significantly cheaper to make. (Which they are) Amazingly the build quality is similar, the the cost of production has dropped significantly, yet the price has increased. The good part of that complaint is that the used lenses from EF and F mount are still amazing. (Canon version 2 and 3 and Nikon E)

[@jfphotography69]

Nikon has the Z 400mm f2.8 with built in 1.4x TC and the Z 600mm f4 with the built in1.4x TC. But you will have to sell a kidney or two to purchase either one.

[@Chris_Wolfgram]

All you "typical" photographers kill me. I wish I could get by with measley 600mm ! I mostly shoot small to tiny birds from 25 to 30 ft, with the RF 800 F11 + Canon R7, for an equivalent focal length of 1280mm. This feels completely normal to me, after taking 130K shots with this combo in the last year. I'll be the first to admit that my camera body has some downsides and my lens should be at least an F8, but I still manage to produce a lot of really nice, sharp shots, even in lowish light. Always on a tripod of course. I suppose one could use this 600 F4 + a 2 X's TC on the soon to be released R5 Mk II, but even Syler said he has never been happy with the 2 X's TC. As I say, for something in the range of 1200mm, there are just not a lot of great choices.

[@hawaiifreespeechnews]

If you only go with one prime lens in your life, make it the RF 400mm f/2.8, it's sharper, more versatile, easier to capture the surrounding environment of your subject, easier to follow your subject because the 600mm is often too tight especially if your animal is running out of the frame

[@photographerimages]

Sokd the RF 600 f/4 to keep the 500 f/4 ii Yep too tight sometimes and a 500 with 1.4 is nice if needed. So do you think thats a good choice?

[@justmethenetherlands2218]

The importance of lenses is becoming less important with the arrival of better cameras and better software. Cameras and software that can handle higher ISOs much better, software that can select and blur well, ensure that the usefulness of expensive lenses has become a lot less. Lenses must now be easy to carry. And they should be easier to handle for long periods of time without a tripod.

[@randomstuff53078]

Wrong , good glass will always win

[@gregoryrogalsky6937]

The lens you really need is the 800 5.6

[@davepastern]

imho, you should have went with a EF 600f4 II - it's optically superior to both the 600f4 III EF and RF 600f4. Yes, the IS is better with the III or RF [than the II] and the AF is superior on the RF (slightly superior on the III vs II, but not by a whole lot). I use a very old mark 1 500f4 EF prime with a mark 3 1.4x TC and to be honest, IQ drop is almost negligible vs the bare 500mm prime. Just my honest thoughts.

[@fredlar9421]

600mm/4 is the king of wildlife, especially for bird photography. It's the most i used among 400/800. 400 is not long enough for small and skittish birds. 800 is difficult to find birds smaller than pigeons in flight.

[@ruudvoest1038]

Nice video, thanks for weighing in on the RF lens. But @ 4:56 : Why would you invest $12.000 and share your expensive content on social media??? This doesn't make sense to me. There is no free loading of professional images as far as I am concerned :-)

[@WilliamJohnston]

Your images are INCREDIBLE! Thanks for the review, I have the 400 IS II just now and considering upgrading to a 600 for the exact reasons you mention, the one thing swaying me to the 600 IS II is that older lenses have lost the majority of their depreciated value already, so financially slightly better, if okay with staying a generation or two behind, which I may need to consider as a new dad and not someone who makes much money from wildlife photography. My wedding photography will need to pay for a luxury lens like this, but at least it's tax deductible!

[@snappycanon]

Hi Syler, I'm waiting for the R5 Mk II, as the R5 is never going to power the extra motor I don't see the point in me paying an extra £4,000 for the same piece of glass. In the UK right now the RF is £14,179.00 ( $ 17,882.00 as of 21/2/2024) all the company's here in the UK , have got a price fix going on. I have found the EF as low as £9,999.00 new ( $ 12,609.00 ) we really are paying through the nose in the UK I'm just a amateur wildlife photographer so I have no chance of ever making money on my photos. so cost is a big thing. Great information and images and a good review thank you. 👍(451)

[@texmex9721]

Great video. 400 f2.8 and 600mm F4 are both fantastic lenses for sports or for wildlife. In my opinion the 400 is the better choice for field sports, and the 600 is better for wildlife. I shoot both and have owned both in a few versions, so far all EF. Right now I have the EF 600mm f4 IS II, which is known for being very sharp with both the 1.4 and 2.0X extenders vIII. That has been my experience, though I shoot an R3 so fewer MP.

[@Chrispitchwildlife]

Nice video. I hope to find the same lens abandoned by a photographer fleeing a bear someday. Great pictures too. CHeers! 😀

[@colintraveller]

When you say your a Professional . Are you self employed , Work freelance or employed by a Local or natiional publication and where can your published images be viewed . Also be fortunate you have the money to afford an Expensive lense . I still can't afford a 2nd hand ef600 . And am just a hobbyist

[@MrDaveB123]

Im not into photography for connivence, I want the best images I can possible create. I don't have a 600 F4 yet but there's no denying it, Prime lenses have a quality that can't be denied. If money was no issue and they're physically capable to handle it there wouldn't be a wildlife photographer on the planet that wouldn't own one.

[@blueskysmile777]

Hey Syler, absolutely loved your video! You explained the comparison lenses well and gave me a lot to think about. I just bought the Canon R6 with adapter for my good ole EF400mm and was curious to hear about the RF600 which a bit out of my league pricewise right now, but it's always good to dream, haha, or should I say, create goals. I'm happy to know you lead wildlife expeditions and have added that to my goal list and will need to look into renting the RF600F4. BTW, stunning images! Thank you, again! Happy shooting :)

[@MichaelF1026]

Thank you for this great review. I'm headed to the Tetons or Yellowstone in May to back pack and hopefully see some nice wildlife. I have the 100-500 right now, but I def want this 600.

[@tonysphotographycorner]

Hello nice lens I bought a nikkor f4 500mm in 2008 ish AFS it was about £5000 pretty sure no more than £6000 Its worth about £1000 I guess thats not too bad after all this time but wish more lol ive rarely used it and set my new channel to try to encourage me to use it 😅 the new ones so expensive now Good luck with channel

[@ajss3756]

400 2.8 is the best lens both from auto focus and light without a doubt. If youre really into wildlife, you would own both 400 and 600. No one lens is perfect for all

[@smurgy99]

I use 400/F2.8 III in Africa. The reasons being: reach is enough, better in low light, much easier to travel with. But I use 600/F4 II at home for birds, otters, etc.

[@tamiboelter5491]

Syler the secret is making money. I wasn’t able to and therefore am now a hobbyist.

[@vanjogrobljar191]

I use ef 500 f4 mk2 and rf 800 f11 with rf 1.4x ! Also tested rf 600 f4 but that lens no make me happy !

[@AndrzejZalewskiYT]

waiting for this new 3in1 TC from Canon, I hope they'll make it ;)

[@LivPoxleitner]

great shots! i like the natural colors in the photos. somthing im trying to do. im more into videography

[@hadhramyusa]

Good contents. but I think you need to invest in a good studio lighting...!

[@attiksystem]

Excellent considerations! I especially like when you tell us about "ethics" @ 7:15 . I own a 500 f4 and I'm not quite sure what lens would be "ideal" for me. I have a few questions: how do you travel with such a big lens? Do you have a backpack that is big enough? And aren't you sometimes "too close" from a subject with 600mm? Have you ever done "panorama-like" shots in this situation? Final question: do you miss sometimes this extra light stop you had with your 400mm f 2.8, in low-light situations?

[@sylerpr]

Travel can be a challenge for sure. I have a Shimoda 70 pack with the largest insert and it fits perfectly in that. It is slightly bigger than carry-on size but by such a small amount I’ve never had an issue so far. There are times when 600 is too much lens and in those moments I have a 100-500 that I use. The biggest downside of the 600 in my opinion is that the minimum focus distance is farther than the 400 with a tc. Not a huge deal but sometimes curious wildlife will approach me too close to focus. I definitely miss the 400 on occasion in low light but the extra reach is worth it to me. If I had infinite funds I’d just have both but in only having one the 600 was a better fit… If I wasn’t a Canon shooter though I would seriously consider the Nikon 400 2.8 that has a built-in 1.4 tc since you’d have the best of both worlds and without the image degradation of a typical tc.

[@dicekolev5360]

Both are too big, too overpriced. Currently own Nikon z800mm and it's amazing for its price, size and capabilities. Too poor for lens double the price which is also shorter ;D

[@sylerpr]

That’s a great lens. Canon has nothing equivalent.

[@pattithomack2739]

I have this lens and wonder if you love the foot replacement? Is that the Wim AP600? Do you recommend?

[@sylerpr]

It is the wimberly foot! I like it for its compact size but holding onto it to carry the lens is a bit tight at times with gloves on.

[@mell5193]

Have you used the Nikon 400 f2.8 or 600 f4 with the built in 1.4x teleconverters?

[@sylerpr]

I haven’t. Would love to test them out but I shoot canon, so I don’t have a body to test them on. I do wish canon would come out with that. I think a built-in tc might change the thought process since it wouldn’t slow the camera or degrade image quality as much

[@MrLataille]

Why is this video so dark? As a photographer, it's very surprising. Your photos are beautiful.

[@sylerpr]

I’m having an export issue where video files were suddenly exporting darker than in the editor. Will be fixed in the next one but I sadly figured out the issue after uploading this one. Thanks for bearing with me!

[@aarong2374]

great video! In the situation where I'm trying to decide between the two. Really wish they had a rf with builtin TC

[@sylerpr]

Couldn’t agree more. I wish Canon would get on that!

[@CuylePhoto]

Great video. Mind me asking, What tripod foot extensions do you have on your lenses?

[@sylerpr]

I use the wimberly foot!

[@ScreenFiends]

Awesome vid, a little dark though bud. But great content.

[@sylerpr]

Thanks! Agreed about the brightness. It looked fine in my editing software but came through a bit darker than expected on export…

[@worldpeace1822]

The price is a bit pricy 😅

[@zundapp529able]

The only backdraw of buy the RF version for me is that the RF version is slightly less sharp then the EF600 mk2 version which i own. I saw that again in the video from Jan Wagener who did a comparison on both. But the weight is a big plus. still in a dilemma..

[@sylerpr]

For sure a dilemma, but the biggest hit to sharpness is camera shake, so for me having better hand-holdability will give me a higher rate of sharper shots than a heavier but ever so slightly sharper lens would.

[@zundapp529able]

@@sylerpr Thx, are u using the RF600 or not? I want t buy the RF600 tomorrow and sell my 600mk2.

[@JACKnJESUS]

As I have never had a problem getting close to wildlife...I don't need anything past my 300mm f/2.8. Makes life easier out there.

[@sylerpr]

Are you on a crop sensor?

[@JACKnJESUS]

@@sylerpr NO...A7RIV. Apply the correct methodology...it all opens up.

[@michael_sterling]

My RF 600 f/4 with an R7 is what I use almost 100 percent of the time for birds. The crop on the R7 gives me 960mm at f/4. Unfortunately, he R7 suffers from some pretty bad rolling shutter so I have to use first curtain electronic shutter.

[@colintraveller]

Rolling shutter aka AF issues .

[@michael_sterling]

@@colintraveller AF’s been pretty great, actually.

[@zegzbrutal]

⁠they are different things

[@johnvanderploeg]

600 f4 would be my first choice as well! Just wondering if you think the 400 2.8 or the 600 f4 has better bokeh. A quick look at a hyperfocal chart would suggest that the 600 f4 actually creates more bokeh (not necessarily better) as it’s hyperfocal distance at f4 is about 4000 ft further than a 400 2.8 @2.8. Just wondering what you opinion is as you’ve shot both, thanks!

[@sylerpr]

From a technical perspective, I think you are correct about the bokeh from the 600. In the real world I find them to be nearly identical. Maybe a slight edge to the 600 but not by much.

[@johnvanderploeg]

@@sylerpr thanks that’s what I figured!

[@F1OCU]

Hi Syler I have now purchased the RF600 on your recommendations and now subscribe to your channel. Out off intrest what camera foot is that on your 600 please. Keep the wonderful images coming a pleasure to view. Paul in sunny Staffordshire. England.

[@sylerpr]

www.pictureline.com/products/wimberley-ap-600-replacement-foot-for-canon-ef-600mm-f-4l-is-iii-usm-and-600-rf-f-4-0-is-lenses?_pos=1&_sid=14038153d&_ss=r

[@sylerpr]

The above link is for the foot. It is made by Wimberly. There are lots of similar foots (most of them will say they are made for the EF version III but they work on the RF version too). Enjoy your new lens! It's a beauty!

[@F1OCU]

@@sylerpr Thanks Syler 👍

[@earlxx]

Buy the 400 with a build in TC

[@sylerpr]

Canon doesn’t offer that option

[@PierrickMLR]

I have a 400 prime and thinking of sold it for the 600 prime 🥹

[@nidheesh.k.b6105]

Pls don't 400 is a monster I would sell 600 f4 for 400 2.8 if I have the lens 😅

[@PierrickMLR]

@@nidheesh.k.b6105 really ? Even if it for wildlife photography ?

[@nidheesh.k.b6105]

@@PierrickMLR ohh yes

[@mr.vishnuprasad.k]

​@@PierrickMLRof course. Dnt sell 400. Put a tc and u r good to go RF tc are awesome

[@PierrickMLR]

@@mr.vishnuprasad.k i have Sony 400 gm

[@kilohotel6750]

I sold my EF 600 II about a year and a half ago to get the RF and no regrets. The weight difference was noticeable and the IS is much quieter on the RF lens. I think the 400 2.8 would be the better option if you were only shooting larger mammals in Africa where you can get really close and need that 2.8 early and late in the day. I was amazed I was able to get frame filling shots of a leopard with the 24-105. Been using the 600 and 100-500 for a couple years with the R5 and R3 and it is a great combo for wildlife. With the two RF teleconverters I’ve got a lot of range covered. Bookmarking your site, my trip this fall got canceled but I’ll be out there next year and would to book a trip to try and find Great Grey owl, I’ve never had luck with them.

[@sylerpr]

Thanks for your input. Definitely agree with you about Africa! If only it was easy to have both a 400 and 600!

[@sylerpr]

Would love to help you find some cool wildlife in this area if you’re ever visiting!

[@zundapp529able]

@kilohotel6750 Thanks, i was looking for this. I want to trade in my 600ii tomorrow for the RF version. So you did not regred it? How is the AF speed on the RF600 with the R5??

[@forgewire]

You can add 1.4 teleconverter to 400/2.8 and get similar range and faster lens than 600/4

[@kilik92]

Do you know if the DOF is shallower on the 600 f4 ? If we consider filling the frame equally on both lenses. Where the 400 is obviously closer to get the subject the same in the frame.

[@sylerpr]

I’m not positive on a super technical level but in my experience it’s pretty much equivalent. The longer focal length makes the dof similar to what I got on my 400 even though it’s at f4.

[@snapsnap1]

Did you shoot the 400 +1.4 handheld mostly or with a tripod. And what about now with the RF 600f4 handheld or tripod. I think eventually you will also shoot the 600+1.4 as u now have more reach and can make shots you didn't think could before; especially small birds. I wanted to get the RF 100300f2.8 + 2x to essentially get 200600 but just couldn't live with having a 2x on all the time like ur 400+1.4 or 2X. Canon really needs a 200600 lens!

[@sylerpr]

Yes, I shoot mostly handheld with both setups but needed a monopod or tripod a lot more often on the 400 with or without the TC. I still use a monopod sometimes with the 600 for things like owls that are more still and in dark places but I like to shoot low to the ground for other wildlife so I tend to use my knee as a rest for my left arm when hand holding and sitting/laying on the ground.

[@sylerpr]

Agreed about a 200-600!