The Canon 600mm F4 III: The HOLY GRAIL of WILDLIFE - Is it WORTH the Price???

[@kurtdewittphoto]

When I win the lottery I'll buy one.

[@ladydara7446]

When I win the lottery I'll buy the RF600mm f4:-)

[@BASKPhotography]

Her her ! 🤞

[@nonamenogame121]

Me to brother

[@AaaA-my1ud]

You win¿

[@AdventuresinNature]

I would love the benefits of this lens's lowlight capability and extra bokeh separation, but I don't think I could ever choose it over my RF 100-500 as I love that I can hike with ease with my R5 and the 100-500 and the zoom range is so useful.

[@tomaskoeck]

Having portability is a huge advantage!

[@glennschiffer1742]

for sure but 840mm at 5.6 is just too good@@tomaskoeck

[@cablaza]

video is lookin CLEAANN bro. love it. 0:43 - slams huge bag on table, thinks nothing of it. 1:11 - realizes thats the lens... mentally freaking out... i hope the lens is ok, it must be, he kept making the video.

[@tomaskoeck]

Glad to hear it man!!

[@kevindiaz3459]

I felt the same, but that bump on the table is nothing compared to what this lens is built to endure. Top of the top quality, probably the only lens that rivals it is the 400mm F2.8.

[@cablaza]

@@kevindiaz3459 Oh yea def! wasn't actually worried, especially with the lens hood attached. Just a small moment of panic haha. great review!

[@kevindiaz3459]

@@cablaza I hear ya buddy, cheers!

[@sicr626]

@@kevindiaz3459 there is a sigma 600mm f2.8

[@no1alanis]

I have had 600f4 version 3 from they came out and it is my go to lens, with the 1DX3 and the R5 superb lens

[@natalierjunior]

Does the lens work flawlessly with your r5?

[@schiltz371]

The scariest part I can think of is is how do you travel with this gear? I imagine you wouldn’t be able carry it all on the plane as carry-on. What kind of insurance do you use to cover your gear going missing or damaged? Stupid questions, but curious how this works given the questionable reliability of the airlines.

[@amangill1983]

Ain’t stupid at all. Always keep me thinking the same whenever I travel.

[@marioslrzn]

You can carry on

[@DeputyNordburg]

I travel with a giant lens all the time, a 400mm f2.8 IS. I put the lens in a rolling piece of luggage, usually surrounded by soft clothing. Obviously I treat the luggage very carefully and always take it as a carry on. My cameras and smaller lenses go in a smaller bag that fits under the seat in front of me. The only problem is regional flights on the tiny jets or propeller planes.

[@frenzy8539]

@@DeputyNordburg but how do you manage to stay under the weight limit?

[@DeputyNordburg]

@@frenzy8539 I work out, I avoid carbs.

[@tomaskoeck]

So…. What did you guys think? Is this lens worth the price tag? Edit: The stat I had at the beginning is wrong for the filter size! Filter is explained later in the video at 10:25

[@mikkelstormhansen9733]

If you need the best of the best, absolutely. If you’re still just dipping your toes in photography or just an enthusiast, definite no. The 100-400 would do amazing and leave you enough money to buy a car

[@Tainted-Soul]

Im just loving the RF100-500 I cant see me every getting the 600 F4 my pockets are not that deep . if I wanted it for a shoot I would just have to rent it for 3 days . and the R5 was the best upgrade ever

[@highwayman1224]

Just got my Panasonic Leica 100-400mm in the mail today which is equal to 200-800 on a micro four thirds camera and I love it! It only cost $1,500. I couldn't imagine spending more than that for a lens but it does look like a great lens. 👍👍

[@Jason45G]

I also shoot m 4/3 and so glad I do. The size weight and cost of FF is just stupid crazy. I'd love the new Olympus 150-400 pro and in comparison it's affordable. But $7500 is still too much for me.

[@tomaskoeck]

Very nice!

[@bushguidebaz6540]

@@Jason45G Yes the same. came from Canon 7D mk ii to Gh5 and pano 100 - 300 for wildlife. Superbly sharp. Am staying with MF3

[@porkster5924]

I recently purchased a Nikon 400mm f2.8 VR and I’m no paid professional. I’m just in a position where I could afford one and use it frequently and it gives me outstanding results IF I do my bit. Of course I could get good results from day the 200-500 BUT I wanted the best and so I took the plunge. It’s a hobby so enjoy it 👍

[@remycloyd9508]

I just bought this for the eclipse over Texas, and I’m going to take it to the F1 Grand Prix this weekend. So far so good, the size makes it kind of difficult to catch flying birds, unless they’re sufficiently far away and slow moving. Also, those buttons aren’t programmable. You can just hold them down to pause your auto focus in place, very useful when working in servo mode.

[@tomdoolin2415]

Thanks for such an excellent review

[@JGZphotography]

I use my Canon 400mm 2.8 V2 with the 1.4x TC III with great images (microfocus adjusted in-camera 1DX2) for 560mm at f/4 when needed. OK, I lose out on 40mm or 6% but the saving is huge!

[@erniehuang5763]

if you use 1.4x extender with the 600mm, that is 840mm, so the difference is not 40mm

[@angelmartinez6166]

@@erniehuang5763he meant the 560 compared to 600 without the extender

[@ghlocal1]

There are very few reviews of this lens so I thank you for posting this Tomas! I have the RF version on order and I’m sure I won’t be disappointed!!

[@davidjayamazingkitesurferp3819]

Can i ask where you ordered?

[@ghlocal1]

From B&H. I placed my order at the end of April but it sounds like I could be waiting a while!

[@davidjayamazingkitesurferp3819]

@@ghlocal1 if you look on B & h or adorama theirs no stock. its like the lens do not really exists.

[@davidjayamazingkitesurferp3819]

Abes of maine or someone has to have demos or stock?

[@michaelsterling365]

I was lucky enough to get an RF about 2 weeks ago. You are going to be very pleased.

[@Photoshopuzr]

You're the man. big thanks for the information, you laced it out very clean and professional. One day ill like to get one of these.

[@johnkantar3082]

Just curious this combo 600 + r5 do you use a 1.4x or just crop.im also a fan of pixel peeping

[@zielscheibchen7773]

3:57 where do you put that 77mm filter? Canon states "52mm drop-in filter"!

[@KGsPhotography]

Great advice Tomas, I have been looking at both the 600 F4 and the 400 f2.8. I currently shoot Canon R5 with 100-400 but would just love that ability to get the extra light. Cheers Keith

[@davepastern]

My honest advice - go with the 600mm. Unless you really need that min aperture of f2.8 in very low light situations, the 600mm will be a better option imho. Wide open at f2.8, the lens won't be as sharp as stopped down at f8, so you're losing that advantage of a wide open lens anyway (the same is true of the 600mm too). The 400mm lacks reach imho for birding (at least, from my limited experience). With a 1.4x TC, it's 560mm f4. I'd rather go with a 500mm f4 native as there's no optical degradation or AF degradation via the TC.

[@unwoke1652]

Wrong. He obviously never tried to shoot with a bad camera. He is too young & privileged to know, and as he can pronounce neither Canon (kan-oh) nor Nikon (knee-koh), why should I even trust his mere opinion?

[@irfanrahat]

Man, I love the video shoot of yours, such a nice location and perfect lightings

[@GerhardBothaWFF]

I operate at a lower budget - EF 100-400 ii and EF 500 is i on R7. I only use the big lens for pre-meditated purposes, the zoom is that good that you don’t get additional IQ from the prime when the same settings are possible. One day I plan to go RF of course. I think the RF 100-500 L and this RF 600 F4 L is the way to go.

[@kimmokyla-laaso4443]

I wish I could one day have this beast. But as an amateur I'm happy with my 500mm f4 Mk1.

[@GapBahnDirk]

a great review. I am very happy with my Canon 90D and 400mm DOII combination, for wildlife photography.

[@mikkelstormhansen9733]

Seems like a dream portable setup

[@emix1010]

@D R - My current setup is a 90D and a R6. I’ll keep on using the 90D with longer lenses, with its APS-C crop factor, an EF 70-200 f/4 to lug around and the EF 100-400 mkII for the longest reach. And I figured the 1.4x extender was designed for these lenses. The mirrorless full frame camera got the 24-105 f/4 and 14-35 native RF lenses, one before its price hike, the other while 400$ off. Still expensive, but that’ll make up the core of my retiree photo kit. When I retire. Still some years ahead. But now, the 600mm has never seemed so amazingly desirable… The 400mm DO is a superb option, one I’ve been contemplating as more within the bounds of reason.

[@takechannel2325]

The sound is very good, what is the microphone used for?

[@doughagenphoto5072]

If there are any raised eyebrows... tomas has always seemed pretty damn honest in his reviews.

[@pinakiray2005]

VEry well presented

[@ramymoulefera3784]

Ohh nice… thanks for this video… thanks from Algeria!!!

[@lenividivici9123]

I thought the footage at 6:50 was just a photo you were panning over until the owl turned its head. Nice stuff.

[@dockbc]

Very nice lens. Photos are super clear and crisp. I currently have to EF 100 - 400mm and it gets clear and crisp photos. Thanks for sharing 🙂

[@eliadallari]

why mark 3 and not rf ?? you use mirrorless

[@texmex9721]

Probably because this video is older than that RF lens.

[@ericeric5123]

i've read 600mm usm V2 is sharper than the V3, i've used 500mm V1 on R5 and it's extremly fast, i don't see any interest of getting the RF version...

[@naatuporagallu]

Bro This lens can I use canon 77d working or not

[@vitaminb4869]

In good conditions you're not going to see any significant image quality difference vs something like a 100-400 II (which is a great lens to begin with too). Signficant difference will come from that F4 under less than ideal conditions, when light is dim. So instead of shooting the 100-400 at F8 (with a 1.4x tele), you are shooting at F4, giving you 2 extra stops of light. That is a difference between ISO 4000 and 1000, which is going to make a big difference in sharpness and cleanliness. But for a typical amateur, that isn't worth enough to pay the arm and a leg price tag of that lens. Just pick better conditions to shoot under.

[@davepastern]

modern AI based software such as DXO Pure RAW 2 and Topaz Denoise AI clean up files very very nicely from my personal experiences.

[@vitaminb4869]

@@davepastern Noise brings more than just noise itself. It reduces dynamic range and adds muddiness. No software is going to fix that.

[@davepastern]

@@vitaminb4869 This is partly true - exposing to the Right really helps. it's when you have underexposed and pull the exposure in PP that noise becomes bad and hard to manage and really harms DR and softness. I'm shooting at ISO 3200 on my ancient 60D, which is probably 2-3 stops worse than a R6 and getting fine results.

[@HuFilms]

Super video! Right now the Sigma 500mm F4 is probably the best entry point for those who are a bit more cost concious.

[@anthonyclements6020]

I agree as an entry point since "entry point" indicates just starting out and not knowing how far you are going to go with the hobby. That classification might mean using a 150 - 600mm first... especially if 7.5 lbs. of lens is an issue. . If bought used there should be little financial risk in getting a Sigma 500 and upgrading later or if your enthusiasm wanes.

[@garymann499]

Hi. Who is the manufacturer of the bag you were carrying the lens in? I looking for a bag for my Canon 500MM F4 lens. Thanks.

[@tomaskoeck]

It’s a canon bag!

[@garymann499]

@@tomaskoeck Have Canon stopped the hard case? Do you know if Canon sell this bag separately? Has this got a name. Sorry for asking so many questions. Thanks. 👍🏻😃

[@michaelsterling365]

That case comes with it.

[@mhsvz6735]

Thank you. Subscribed! Keep up the good work.

[@JaStProduction]

The filter is not 77mm but 52mm and it is a drop-in filter, gelatin or cpl - my 500f4 has the same as all big white lenses from canon!

[@tomaskoeck]

Ugh did I leave that in a graphic? Must have done that by mistake! Thanks for the catch. I think I mentioned the drop in filter later in the video

[@paulhenry7]

It's 48mm in the old NFD 300mm f2.8 L.

[@davidjayamazingkitesurferp3819]

Is this lens instock USA?

[@jamessinger1471]

Love this video! Beautiful quality and great insight. Question though: how do you adjust the filter if it’s not on the edge of the lens?

[@tomaskoeck]

Thank you James! Skip to 10:40

[@tariqueorderson9808]

@@tomaskoeck yea i love it too what camera and lens combination did you use to shoot the talking head shot, if its cool

[@lonewolfphotography01]

Awesome video, thanks Tomas , sure is a dream lens

[@calvinwon5113]

Thank you so much for touching on that topic of "photographer vs. equipment." It doesn't matter so much what gear you have. Because ultimately, it's the PHOTOGRAPHER who makes the photo! I've been able to get some AMAZING images using my little Rebel with a basic telephoto (not an L series, btw). I'm actually upgrading to your exact "go-to" setup.... 90D body paired with a 100-400mm L. But when I share images with friends who know I'm upgrading, they always make the assumption that I'd taken those images with my new setup. NOPE! I still don't have it, actually. Any images I've shared are from my Rebel with my basic 70-300mm IS USM lens I got for $550. Again, it's the photographer who makes the image. You can have the top of the line equipment, but it doesn't mean you'll automatically produce quality images like magic. It takes blood, sweat, and tears to get the stuff you want. So I guess it's mildly insulting that people think my quality images are only due to quality gear.... haha! Btw, it's VERY obvious that you've put in the shutter time. The photographs you take are absolutely stunning! I'm a big fan of your work. You're actually the reason I'm getting the setup that I am. Everything you say just seems so logical to me!

[@Paul-jj3ux]

Érvqf😂

[@InnovativeVideoCreations]

RF or EF version? Very important information. No matter what, it's too expensive for most people, who are not professional photographers

[@PanelChannel-xn2tm]

It's the same lens with a different mount at the rear. (The RF version is not a _new_ design.)

[@mobelue]

Did you buy the r5 and r6?

[@tomaskoeck]

R5!

[@mobelue]

@@tomaskoeck Did you keep the 90d?

[@tomaskoeck]

@@mobelue yes!

[@j.kimmer1509]

Thank you for the video, i picked up a RF600 f4 at my local camera shop. They just got one in the day i walked in. score and broke.

[@schwartzmatthewe]

The crappy thing about the is iii 600 is that almost every single one is softer than the is ii variants. Even the old 800mm f/5.6 is sharper than most is iii copies. Canon really screwed up with that. I’ve got my second copy of a 600 is iii coming tomorrow and I was told it was tested against a 600 GM and an is ii and it is just as sharp. We shall see. Considering I own a 600 gm and a 600 is ii, I am quite curious.

[@schwartzmatthewe]

@Benjamin Mesa tons. It’s a widely known issue.

[@schwartzmatthewe]

@Benjamin Mesa I am not going to spoon feed you my friend. If you are interested in this lens then you will do the research yourself because it is an expensive purchase. This info is easily found. Many photographers don’t like to talk about it because they’ve spent so much money but the issue is not hard to find….especially when you own these lenses and do your own comparisons. I’ve now seen three 600 rf f4 and heard of others and all sharp so the qc issues look to be resolved.

[@schwartzmatthewe]

@Benjamin Mesa there are no issues with focus on mirrorless because of the way it works. If you don’t believe the image comparisons, then buy one and you shall see if you also own the other lenses I have mentioned and can compare. Right now, I have the only sharp 600 is iii I have ever heard of. The website that does the image comparisons went through three copies of the 600 is iii trying to find a sharp one and they still didn’t find one!

[@schwartzmatthewe]

@Benjamin Mesa but definitely NOT extraordinarily claim my friend. Not in the least lol. Just extraordinary if you don’t like what you’re being told because, after all, it is an expensive lens.

[@schwartzmatthewe]

@Benjamin Mesa are you on fm?

[@publictoilet7832]

i dont like the idea removable filter which possible cause of fungus, just my opinion

[@samiam1025]

Since Nikon doesn't seem to be making any more super teles I might be switching to Canon soon.

[@bahaatamer1245]

This is not an airport, no need to announce your arrival

[@bigcatswm]

*Love from India*

[@AjaySingh-228]

Wow nice lens bro..I am huge fan of telephoto lens..I love it

[@grassmanBoca]

A lot of that great shot is the photographer!

[@PaulWKerr-ji7yu]

Great lens, great video ... but no mention of the magnificent and awe-inspiring Canon 800mm F5.6? Any reason for that?

[@tomaskoeck]

In my opinion it’s just TOO long! For me 600mm is the sweet spot. But it all depends on the user and I have heard many great things!

[@mikkelstormhansen9733]

The 800mm is more for planes, not so much birds

[@Windsurfingaddict]

Just came across this review, I’m off to sell a kidney 🤣🤣

[@coreychappelle2543]

Gorgeous lens

[@feingemacht4604]

The background separation on distance cannot be achieved With a different lens that has no F4 on 600

[@benjaminmesa1089]

Honestly, I am not sure we need these expensive, large primes anymore. My 100-500 with the stabilizer, does amazing work. It's half the weight, much cheaper, and gives versatility with the zoom. The only advantage with these primes is that if you put an extender on, they are going to cost you less light. That's it. I never carry the prime into the field anymore because the RF 100-500 is just that good imo.

[@tomaskoeck]

Great points, the 100-500 is an amazing lens. Yet I still will give the edge to the 600 due to being able to shoot at F4.

[@sunnysurwade464]

Yours videos are of photography quality...

[@thomassiegers3007]

That sigma 500mm f4 looks might be a better buy it’s already the price

[@anthonyclements6020]

I have the Sigma 500mm F4 and Canon's 600 MM IS II. The Sigma provides very good, sometimes excellent images, but not consistently great images as does the 600 f4. The 600 mm Canon also provides great images using a 1.4 TC while the Sigma occasionally provides a great image using the Sigma 1.4 TC.. I nearly always use a TC on the 600 mm F4 IS II with the 1dxII or 5d IV. I usually do not put a TC on the Sigma 500 but might do that more often if I did not have the Canon 600. 840mm equivalent FOV as opposed to 500MM ( for consistently good or better images) is a significant advantage shooting small birds or shooting larger birds that do not allow close access. The smaller 7.5 lb Sigma 500 feels like a toy lens after handling the 8.5 lbs. of the Canon 600 IS II. The 600 IS III weighs only 6.7 lbs. Handling the Sigma 500 mm is much easier than handling the Canon 600 mm IS II and the reduced weight of the IS III version combined with a better weight distribution should improve handling even more. Bird in flight captures should be much easier with the new and lighter 600 MM IS III. Others have written a preference for a 600 mm lens for full frame cameras and a preference for 500mm lenses for crop sensor cameras. Is a Canon 500 mm a bit more consistent than the Sigma 500 mm ??? I can't answer that. I consider the Sigma 500 MM and the Canon 600 MM lenses as equal "value" at their prices since you can put a teleconverter on the 600 and just leave it on the lens if the magnification is needed. The Sigma 500 used for around $2500 is a very good buy. I do occasionally get fooled in to thinking an image was taken with the 600 mm when it was actually taken with the 500 mm.

[@thomassiegers3007]

Did you use the sigma dock if it only focuses good sometimes

[@elwelkin]

Dear Mr Sir, I just have the money, can I buy it?

[@androidstreak]

Definitely fantastic lens

[@mrrimon6]

🥰🥰🥰 Your content quality going like 💥💥 But you are still underated in KZbin.

[@tomaskoeck]

I appreciate that!

[@mrrimon6]

@@tomaskoeck Don't worry about it brother. You will definitely get the benefits of your hard work. We are all with you.

[@MajMachete]

you sould better go with the Sigma 500 f4 Sport

[@mikkelstormhansen9733]

Worse autofocus and perfomance with a tc is not as reliable

[@MajMachete]

@@mikkelstormhansen9733 dude i own the Sigma :D but hey you can buy what you want

[@garyrobinette351]

Short answer - yes.

[@TomeRodrigo]

Canon loans him a super expensive lens and he bangs it on the table like it doesn't contain any precisely adjusted optics :D

[@tomaskoeck]

Still working so I think I’m on the clear, phew!

[@ngyalalani]

I wish I could have this monster one.

[@nautversteegen3271]

oeff nice man

[@SnakrGarage]

and just in the 0:44, It felt like a hammer smashing a $13,000 lens over the table. Can't watch it again...

[@furiousdoe7779]

Almost no professional makes cash out of photographs anymore .... , this is only for the few fortunate ones . But how do you travel with it so huge . This lens must go into the bulk of the airplane , hopefully it will be treated o.k.!

Nice video, Like 117 and Bye from Italy :)

[@MannsWoodlandPerspective]

Canon really needs a 180-400 1.4TC similar to Nikons.

[@-WhizzBang-]

for $18,000 it better be nothing less than the Hole Grail

[@gregoryrogalsky6937]

Or for $1500 you can buy a Nikkor 600 F4 IF-ED AI-s and an adapter.

[@eric00214]

Nope, Nikon 500mm f5.6 PF is really the holy grail. 2.5lbs, focuses from 10ft to infinity as fast as any 600f4, is as sharp and costs new $3600 compared to $13,000. The weight and 1 stop better (f4 to f5.6) is NOT worth $10k

[@daviddowling9830]

Agree agree agree,canon users salivate over this masterpiece.Mine is attached 24/7 to my D850.

[@mikkelstormhansen9733]

For the best of the best, F4 vs F5.6 is a major difference

[@eric00214]

@@mikkelstormhansen9733 not worth the 10k price. I can shoot my D500 and 500PF f5.6 in just about the same light as the f4. I lost me shutter speed and can shoot Eagles fighting in flight at 1/640 and 1/800 regularly. I've even shot at 1/250 with everything tack sharp but the wings and background. Would having f4 he nice, sure but not at $10k or $13k

[@eric00214]

@@daviddowling9830 mine is attached to my D500 24/7 as well. My backup D500 gets the macro and Street duty with the Tamron 24/70 f2.8 and the Tamron 90mm f2.8 1:1 Macro

[@TechnoBabble]

@@eric00214 Sounds like confirmation bias because you own the 500PF. There's reason these lenses still sell and are used by the best of the best around the world. Also, half the noise in every equivalent scenario isn't exactly a small difference... whether that's worth the difference in price is dependent on the photographer and how much they make from their photos.

[@johnrus7661]

Except for the EF 800mm f/5.6.

[@douglasstemke2444]

For the price of that lens you could travel to Antarctica. I'd take the later.

[@thepanel2935]

... and, of course, anyone who delves more deeply into photography these days discovers that they're better off shooting video, rather than stills, with their cameras these days... certainly in the case of making better money.

[@LuigiL75]

WHEN I win the lottery, I won't tell anyone but...there will be signs! 👁👁

[@timelesscreations777]

I'll have to stick with my Sigma 150-600

[@nonamenogame121]

Its crazy

[@JBrown123]

*It doesn't matter what setup we're using to get great images,* but.... 😁😂😜

[@shademanirvanipour6870]

You need over £6.000 to as much as £10.000 or even more to buy one of Canon 600MM F4L Lens

[@Sparisland]

It's astronomically better...

[@speecher1959]

Maybe before people drop their lenses in a vat of acid, they should consider lens rescue, and I am willing to make myself available for that.

[@robertpatterson3321]

Put it on a camera body !

[@MythicalFunny]

FIRST

[@garymeredith2441]

In your review of this lens you forgot to show us the switches of the lens how the lens shade attaches the basic function of this lens you're too busy talking about it why don't you show us the function ability of the lens instead of just keep talking about it show us how it works how close it focuses what are the subjects that people use this lens for for me it's Birds but other people might use it for other things go over that instead of just talk talk talk talk talk talk talk .

[@tomer.aviation]

uh and for that... ill just have to wait 20 more years before i can afford it...

[@davidjayamazingkitesurferp3819]

I subbed you #37.2k

[@MadMax-2021]

Well I moved away from zoom and ultra zoom complex

[@dcurleyifa]

Wait til you are 50 and your back is giving up and you cannot hold the lens up or walk with for any length of time and the lens will just become a hide lens on a gimbal. The 100~500mm for RF is the way to go, weight with R5 us easy to carry. Very similar results and because it is much lighter you will be able to shout all day long and not miss the shots

[@mikkelstormhansen9733]

Yeah but, F7.1 at 500mm is not something the pros want. They want the best photo even if it means getting fewer of them

[@dcurleyifa]

@@mikkelstormhansen9733 depends on subject and background , bokeh on the 100-500m is very good. Even ‘Professionals’ are moving away from the large lens as they too heavy and try getting a bag of large lenses on a flight without paying a kings ransom ! Give it another 10 to 15 years and you will agree with me when your Chiropractor tells you to stop ruining your back🤣

[@mikkelstormhansen9733]

@@dcurleyifa I mean, I’m 15 but i dont see any of my favorite pros saying that the 100-500 is their main workhorse. The 600 F4 is king in wildlife photography, even for older people

[@dcurleyifa]

@@mikkelstormhansen9733 no problem you will be fit enough to carry a 600mm for a while yet 😁, it takes time for Professional togs to change system and lens, the Canon RF system has only had a ‘Professional’ body the R5 for 12 months and they will wait until the bugs are ironed out before considering changing. The sports togs use what they are used too but they tend to use Monopods to carry and hold up the big lenses, because of the 8 time’s Stabilisation and lightness of the R5 and 100-500mm set up you don’t need a monopod anymore which is one less thing to carry and stow on a plane. If you haven’t used either lens yet I hope you can get the chance and you will see what I mean. Good luck .

[@mikkelstormhansen9733]

@@dcurleyifa I have tried them, even if they are great, i just dont see the benefit compared to the creamy bokeh and almost 2 stops better aperture

[@helthuismartin]

NO

[@yuqin405]

a lot of back and force talk....

[@JLTPhotog]

"Lemme tell you why this is a great lens...that Canon gave to me..." ;) Sorry man but nothing, and I mean nothing, is "free". How can you honestly answer if "its worth it" if you didn't shell out $13,000 of your own dollars?

[@unwoke1652]

Nikon is pronounced knee-koh, not nighkon, please. Merrikuns.......omw

[@olympus2OM]

Not worth it. To heavy, to big, to slow handling overall. The Olympus Pro f4,5 150-400 mm (eq. 300 - 800mm) with built in 1,25 x converter ( 375-1000mm) is the better solution. Very light, easy hand held, fast handling and a fast f4,5 lens.

[@nordic5490]

M43 has 1/4 the sensor area than FF, hence 2 stops worse noise performance

[@aturatur1]

yeah, totally unbiassed. awesome magical insane etc. tune down the rhethoric , become more credible, maybe