# EF 600mm F4 DO



## djack41 (Aug 12, 2017)

The 600mm F4 DO can help put Canon back in the game. Add a built in 1.4X tele, like the EF 200-400 F4, and the greatest sports and wildlife lens will be born.


----------



## AdamBotond (Aug 12, 2017)

I don't think it is going to happen in the nearest future, not at F4 at least. I agree however, that primes with built-in 1,4x or even 2x extenders should be really considered by Canon. A 400mm 2.8 with built-in 1,4 and 2x would be a game changer for sports and wildlife.


----------



## snoke (Aug 12, 2017)

djack41 said:


> The 600mm F4 DO can help put Canon back in the game. Add a built in 1.4X tele, like the EF 200-400 F4, and the greatest sports and wildlife lens will be born.



Greastest sports lens? For Who? What sport?
What sport you use 500mm or 600mm or 400, 500, 600 with 1x tele?
Show sample of your photo?

Wildlife, yes, good, but sport, you never make sport photo.


----------



## djack41 (Aug 12, 2017)

AdamBotond said:


> I don't think it is going to happen in the nearest future, not at F4 at least. I agree however, that primes with built-in 1,4x or even 2x extenders should be really considered by Canon. A 400mm 2.8 with built-in 1,4 and 2x would be a game changer for sports and wildlife.


A
Yes, a 400mm 2.8 with a integrated 1.4x would be nice. But Canon has been displaying a prototype EF 600mm F4 DO at the trade shows for more than a year. I own a EF 600mm F4 which is fantastic but quite heavy. The prototype EF 600mm DO is compact and very hand-holdable. An integrated 1.4x on a 600 DO would be over-the-top good. 
I shoot mostly wildlife but the 600mm is also a great lens for many sports and Canon's 2nd most popular lens in its loaner program during the recent Olympics.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 11, 2017)

Back to reality, I've often wondered whether the existing 600 f/4L IS II would be much more bang for the buck than the awesome 400mm f/2.8L IS II. I used to have the 400 f/5.6L and it always seemed a little too short (birding) and dark for me. Birds aren't always out in the blazing sun. However, it is a real bargain and mine was very sharp.

I wouldn't be interested in the 500mm.

The tempting thing about the 400 is the f/2.8 and IS. Tempting on the 600 would be the IS and f/4 isn't a slouch either. The f/2.8 on the 400 is just so exotic.

A zoom wouldn't interest me either.

Then again, there's the price.  I could buy a brand new Nissan Versa at that price, but the lens would last longer.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 11, 2017)

djack41 said:


> The 600mm F4 DO can help put Canon back in the game. Add a built in 1.4X tele, like the EF 200-400 F4, and the greatest sports and wildlife lens will be born.



Canon is not out of the game with telephoto lenses! Even if I am tempted to go over to Nikon or Nikon, I just could not give up the 100-400mm II or the 400 DO II. A lightweight small 500 or 600mm would be nice, but it would not be a game changer. Canon rules the telephoto lenses.


----------



## Ian_of_glos (Sep 11, 2017)

snoke said:


> djack41 said:
> 
> 
> > The 600mm F4 DO can help put Canon back in the game. Add a built in 1.4X tele, like the EF 200-400 F4, and the greatest sports and wildlife lens will be born.
> ...



Cricket. If you want to capture a decent shot of the bails flying off from the boundary then you need at least a 600mm lens.


----------



## tron (Sep 11, 2017)

djack41 said:


> AdamBotond said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think it is going to happen in the nearest future, not at F4 at least. I agree however, that primes with built-in 1,4x or even 2x extenders should be really considered by Canon. A 400mm 2.8 with built-in 1,4 and 2x would be a game changer for sports and wildlife.
> ...


The prototype is compact and handholdable because it does NOT have an integrated 1.4x. 600mm 4 II weight is 3.9 and prototype weight is 3.2. Include permanently a 1.4X and the weight advantage goes away. The same (more or less) with size.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Sep 11, 2017)

djack41 said:


> The 600mm F4 DO can help put Canon back in the game. Add a built in 1.4X tele, like the EF 200-400 F4, and the greatest sports and wildlife lens will be born.



Interesting thoughts.
When considering lenses of this type my contention/experience is that Canon is already well ahead of the game! Note my primary lens is that Canon 800 F5.6 L IS (600 F4 L IS previously) + a 300 F2.8 L IS for closer/larger stuff. Only Nikon offers alternatives to the Canon SuperTeles and having used/tried everything from the 300 F2.8 Vr2 upwards - they are not getting my money.

Certainly Nikon and others make some excellent cameras, but I have been disappointed with the AF performance of the competition on lenses in this bracket.

Canon is already ahead in this area for my uses (and I am not even thinking of Canon's Mk2 SuperTeles) - a 600 F4 DO would only take them further ahead. Having said that I would rather like one............not sure I have enough Kidneys left though!


----------



## aceflibble (Sep 12, 2017)

This guy keeps banging on about this 600mm f/4 DO in every damn subject, regardless of relevancy. He's either psychotically obsessed or a troll; leave it be.


----------



## Roo (Sep 12, 2017)

snoke said:


> djack41 said:
> 
> 
> > The 600mm F4 DO can help put Canon back in the game. Add a built in 1.4X tele, like the EF 200-400 F4, and the greatest sports and wildlife lens will be born.
> ...



Surfing, cricket, motorsport, Red Bull air races...


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 12, 2017)

I know that they had a prototype 600F4 DO lens, but honestly, I would have thought that the 800F5.6 DO would have come out first....


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 12, 2017)

snoke said:


> What sport you use 500mm or 600mm or 400, 500, 600 with 1x tele?



I assume that you mean a 1.4X tele......

and any sport that you are more than 50 meters from the athletes....

and skunk racing..... you REALLY want a long lens for skunk racing.....


----------



## Orangutan (Sep 12, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> snoke said:
> 
> 
> > What sport you use 500mm or 600mm or 400, 500, 600 with 1x tele?
> ...



Don, I really wish CR could be one place to avoid discussion of politics.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Sep 12, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Back to reality, I've often wondered whether the existing 600 f/4L IS II would be much more bang for the buck than the awesome 400mm f/2.8L IS II. I used to have the 400 f/5.6L and it always seemed a little too short (birding) and dark for me. Birds aren't always out in the blazing sun. However, it is a real bargain and mine was very sharp.
> 
> I wouldn't be interested in the 500mm.
> 
> ...



The amazing thing about the 400mm f2.8 LIS II isn't just the f2.8 brightness. It's the way it handles teleconverters so well it makes this lens super versatile. The IQ when using a 2x TC is astonishing, using a 1.4x TC is nearly as good as native. Which is why you see so many second hand immaculate 400mm f2.8 LIS (mk I) lenses would pounded lens mounts. It makes a great 600mm / f4 (just under) and a 800mm f5.6 all in one lens. 
Optically, the mkI was probably the best of all the big whites. The MkII is very similar and all the other mkII's have sort of come up to that level (or close). The 400 f2.8 LIS melts backgrounds a bit easier natively than other big whites but the DOF does get a little thinner. 

As much as I'd love a mk II 400mm f2.8 LIS...all I'm paying for is a large reduction in weight as an upgrade.


----------



## GoldWing (Nov 4, 2017)

djack41 said:


> The 600mm F4 DO can help put Canon back in the game. Add a built in 1.4X tele, like the EF 200-400 F4, and the greatest sports and wildlife lens will be born.



I really don't want a TC on my primes. I'll own one 200-400 with a 1.4 but that's it. I see the difference when using my primes and so do my editors. Why pay for great glass and dumb it down?


----------



## Jopa (Nov 5, 2017)

GoldWing said:


> djack41 said:
> 
> 
> > The 600mm F4 DO can help put Canon back in the game. Add a built in 1.4X tele, like the EF 200-400 F4, and the greatest sports and wildlife lens will be born.
> ...



I wasn't aware that Canon is _out of the game_...


----------



## GoldWing (Nov 5, 2017)

Jopa said:


> GoldWing said:
> 
> 
> > djack41 said:
> ...



Canon "IS the game". Everyone else plays catch-up. To keep it that way.... let us keep our amazing world class primes pure. I'd rather own a 2.8 300 & 400 "as I do" than throw a 1.4TC on my 300 for 420. I see the difference and anyone who matters to me professionally can see the difference too. This glass is an investment. If the glass is sold... it will still keep much of it's value. I like to 200-400 but IMHO my big white primes are superior. I'd rather soot with an f/4 600mm than my 200-400 with the 1.4 TC kicked in... Perhaps it's just me!


----------



## edoorn (Nov 5, 2017)

Well my 500 II takes very sharp images with a 1.4... many pro’s use long white primes with a 1.4 and those images sell and win contests


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Nov 5, 2017)

They certainly do! However the shots without an extender are better.
It is a credit to Canon that their "Big Whites" work so well with extenders, but I don't think any owner would disagree with the fact that extenders are a compromise. Often a very workable compromise - but a compromise nonetheless.

Just my 2p.


----------



## scottkinfw (Nov 6, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> snoke said:
> 
> 
> > What sport you use 500mm or 600mm or 400, 500, 600 with 1x tele?
> ...



Love it Don!

Thanks.

Scott


----------



## RGF (Nov 6, 2017)

GoldWing said:


> djack41 said:
> 
> 
> > The 600mm F4 DO can help put Canon back in the game. Add a built in 1.4X tele, like the EF 200-400 F4, and the greatest sports and wildlife lens will be born.
> ...



I guess if Canon adds a built in 1.4 to the 600DO you can ask them for a custom version w/o the 1.4. You'll save the price of the 1.4 but pay a bit extra to have a custom lens made.

Based upon my experience with the 200-400 with the 1.4x built in, nearly every photographer I have meet, both Canon and Nikon shooters, find it valuable.


----------



## Jopa (Nov 6, 2017)

If they can make two 1.4x built-in converters in one lens that would be crazy


----------



## tron (Nov 8, 2017)

Although I know this is not going to happen I would welcome a 600mm 5.6 DO lens close to the size, weight and price of the 400 DO II plus teleconverter...


----------



## Bobrum (Nov 15, 2017)

Is there any mention from Canon on a release date? I have heard maybe in January 2018?


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Nov 15, 2017)

Bobrum said:


> Is there any mention from Canon on a release date? I have heard maybe in January 2018?



There's a small chance it appears in early 2018 ahead of PyeongChang & CP+, or later on ahead of Sochi. I hope to know soon.


----------



## James Larsen (Nov 16, 2017)

I can see them putting out a 600mm f/5.6 DO to be honest, that would be a pretty good seller for those wanting a prime, with slightly wider aperture then the typical 600mm from Sigma/Tamron.


----------



## RGF (Dec 10, 2017)

djack41 said:


> AdamBotond said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think it is going to happen in the nearest future, not at F4 at least. I agree however, that primes with built-in 1,4x or even 2x extenders should be really considered by Canon. A 400mm 2.8 with built-in 1,4 and 2x would be a game changer for sports and wildlife.
> ...



Agree that the 600 DO w/ integrated extender (1.2, 1.4, or even 1.7) would be very nice. Ideally I would like to see a combination 1.2 and 1.4 integrated extender so you could use either or both (to get 1.7). I imagine that this would be a huge challenge and in the end it might not be cost effective. Just wonder if Canon engineers ever designed such a lens or even built a prototype.

BTW - where did you get you information of Olympic lenses?


----------



## danski0224 (Dec 10, 2017)

GoldWing said:


> This glass is an investment. If the glass is sold... it will still keep much of it's value.



Until it is declared "obsolete" by Canon.


----------



## tron (Dec 11, 2017)

RGF said:


> djack41 said:
> 
> 
> > AdamBotond said:
> ...


The 600 DO w/integrated extender will nullify its purpose as far as weight and size are concerned.


----------



## scyrene (Dec 11, 2017)

GoldWing said:


> Jopa said:
> 
> 
> > GoldWing said:
> ...



Yeah, just you.


----------



## Busted Knuckles (Dec 11, 2017)

James Larsen said:


> I can see them putting out a 600mm f/5.6 DO to be honest, that would be a pretty good seller for those wanting a prime, with slightly wider aperture then the typical 600mm from Sigma/Tamron.



I would be a buyer.


----------



## RGF (Dec 11, 2017)

tron said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > djack41 said:
> ...



Really??? A 600 DO w/ an integrated 1.4 will be the same size and weight as the non-DO 600 F4 + separate 1.4 extender (for weight comparison)?


----------



## tron (Dec 11, 2017)

It would almost weight the same as 600 4L IS II without extender. For the simple reason that the prototype (without IS, extender, electronics for diaphragm) weighted about 3.2 Kg. So add all these and it will come dangerously close to the 3.9 of 600 II. Tell me what good it does for someone who does not need to use the extender a lot. They would carry the same weight!

And it would negate the size advantages considerably. Without extender the prototype was shorter than even the 500 (31 or 2 vs 38cm). Add the extender and it looses quite the appeal in portability.


----------



## RGF (Dec 12, 2017)

tron said:


> It would almost weight the same as 600 4L IS II without extender. For the simple reason that the prototype (without IS, extender, electronics for diaphragm) weighted about 3.2 Kg. So add all these and it will come dangerously close to the 3.9 of 600 II. Tell me what good it does for someone who does not need to use the extender a lot. They would carry the same weight!
> 
> And it would negate the size advantages considerably. Without extender the prototype was shorter than even the 500 (31 or 2 vs 38cm). Add the extender and it looses quite the appeal in portability.



Wonder if the final production version will be even lighter. I hope so


----------



## tron (Dec 29, 2017)

RGF said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > It would almost weight the same as 600 4L IS II without extender. For the simple reason that the prototype (without IS, extender, electronics for diaphragm) weighted about 3.2 Kg. So add all these and it will come dangerously close to the 3.9 of 600 II. Tell me what good it does for someone who does not need to use the extender a lot. They would carry the same weight!
> ...


As another forum member commented on the new telephoto patents thread weight cannot be minimized a lot since the diameter of the front element cannot change. The gains are mostly in length. For me these gains are super desirable because a shorter length makes handholding much easier by keeping my left hand closer to my body. I had used my 500 4 IS II 1.5 hours intermitently like that and I felt fatigue in my left hand for two months afterwards. I hope too it will be as light and as short as possible.


----------



## Click (Dec 29, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> I assume that you mean a 1.4X tele......
> 
> and any sport that you are more than 50 meters from the athletes....
> 
> and skunk racing..... you REALLY want a long lens for skunk racing.....



;D LOL


----------

