# Canon officially announces the EF 400mm f/2.8L IS III & EF 600mm f/4L IS III. The worlds lightest lenses of their kind



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 5, 2018)

> MELVILLE, N.Y., September 5, 2018 – Most professional photographers need to carry multiple lenses in their camera bags. Helping to lighten their load, Canon U.S.A. Inc., a leader in digital imaging solutions, introduces two new super-telephoto lenses, the EF 400mm f/2.8L IS III USM and EF 600mm f/4L IS III USM. Both lenses possess a dramatic weight reduction and high-image quality, making it ideal for shooters to easily transport and capture images during action-driven scenarios, such as sports and wildlife. Both lenses now hold the title of world’s lightest in their respective focal length*. The weight of the EF 400mm f/2.8L IS III USM and EF 600mm f/4L IS III USM lenses has been reduced by 2.2 lbs. (more than 25 percent) and 1.9 lbs. (more than 20 percent) respectively.
> 
> “When developing updates to some of Canon’s most popular legacy lenses, one common question that is asked by photographers was ‘can they be lighter,’” said Kazuto Ogawa, president and chief operating officer...



Continue reading...


----------



## sid.safari (Sep 5, 2018)

This is what I've been waiting for. The Canon R is great, but wildlife photographers will rejoice at the news that the mighty 400 and 600 have been improved rather then merely refreshed. I can't wait to read the reviews of these lens because they are definitely on the must-buy list. I've used both the II versions and they were already great so I can only imagine how much better the III will be.


----------



## Maximilian (Sep 5, 2018)

I am quite impressed, how much weight they could save. 
Of course I really hope that this will not go at the expense of IQ and reliability.


----------



## MartinF. (Sep 5, 2018)

I see theese two big-white lenses as a marketing commitment to the EF-mount. To tell all that EF-mount will stay around for years to come. However I do not expect many new EF lenses from 2019 and on. And probably just a few new DSLR EF-mount bodies ex an 1D a 5D and a combined 80D/7D/6D replacement. Three DSLR EF-bodies and maby one entry-level Kiss/Rebel like model. No more EF-S lenses either.
The future of Canon belongs to R-series and RF-mount - whether you like it or not. (personally I am a bit frustrated...)
Of course that is just a guess.


----------



## sid.safari (Sep 5, 2018)

MartinF. said:


> I see theese two big-white lenses as a marketing commitment to the EF-mount. To tell all that EF-mount will stay around for years to come. However I do not expect many new EF lenses from 2019 and on. And probably just a few new DSLR EF-mount bodies ex an 1D a 5D and a combined 80D/7D/6D replacement. Three DSLR EF-bodies and maby one entry-level Kiss/Rebel like model. No more EF-S lenses either.
> The future of Canon belongs to R-series and RF-mount - whether you like it or not. (personally I am a bit frustrated...)
> Of course that is just a guess.



This was what I was wondering as well. Will Canon ever make a *RF* 400mm f/2.8 L and also *RF* 600mm f/4 L ?
If the RF mount can indeed lead to faster lens then I assume the next mirrorless generation of big-whites will be even faster?

Is a RF 400 f/2.0 even possible? How about a RF 500mm f/2.8?

Or are am I dreaming a decade or two ahead in time till light weight materials can be developed that would bring the weight of these potential behemoths down to manageable levels.


----------



## sid.safari (Sep 5, 2018)

I'm now even more excited about the EF 300mm f/2.8 III and the 500mm f/4 III which should come in the next 6 months. Both the II versions of these lens are excellent and also quite reasonable to handhold. The version III with 15-20% weight saving will make them a very enticing proposition to wildlife and action photographers who have to deal with a lot of heavy lens when they go into the field. The important thing though is how much better the IQ will be. That I feel will be the deciding factor because all of Canons big whites are top notch as it is (with the exception of the 800 which is a little long in the tooth).


----------



## Kit. (Sep 5, 2018)

sid.safari said:


> This was what I was wondering as well. Will Canon ever make a *RF* 400mm f/2.8 L and also *RF* 600mm f/4 L ?


Just add an adapter.



sid.safari said:


> If the RF mount can indeed lead to faster lens then I assume the next mirrorless generation of big-whites will be even faster?


The speed of telephoto lenses is limited not by the mount, but by the size (and weight) of the front element.


----------



## sid.safari (Sep 5, 2018)

Kit. said:


> Just add an adapter.



Wait so they will have an adapter to take a RF lens (made for mirrorless system) and use it on a DSLR? Is that even possible? I thought the adapter only works to make a EF lens work on a EOS R system... (slightly confused -- does it go both ways? Can a new R lens work on my 1dx mark ii with the adapter? )



> The speed of telephoto lenses is limited not by the mount, but by the size (and weight) of the front element.



Ok, but they claim the RF lens will provide faster lens with better optical quality. So...does that mean the next generation of big whites will be on the RF mount to achieve those results? Is this in fact the last batch of great EF lens from Canon?


----------



## Kit. (Sep 5, 2018)

sid.safari said:


> Wait so they will have an adapter to take a RF lens (made for mirrorless system) and use it on a DSLR?


No, but if you glue an adapter to an EF lens, you will get an RF lens.



sid.safari said:


> Ok, but they claim the RF lens will provide faster lens with better optical quality. So...does that mean the next generation of big whites will be on the RF mount to achieve those results?


No, it means that the next generation of RF lenses will be lenses that could be made faster and better optically for RF mount compared to EF mount. Which is not big whites.


----------



## Mireaux (Sep 5, 2018)

I really hope that they screwed these up after having invested in both 400II and 600II quite recently. ;-)

Seriously speaking I guess that such weight reduction could not be achieved without compromising some factors. And there was no plate of glass in front of the real front element to remove as in case of I -> II upgrade.

And regarding the RF mount construction and reduced flange distance - it has relatively negligble effect on the construction of long telephotos. It does make a difference in wide glass, as that retrofocus design can be avoided in some cases.

The long glass has A LOT of space behind the rear element in case of EF lenses. Canon found space for drop-in filters there, in case of 200-400 1.4x extender optics fit there as well.


----------



## Mireaux (Sep 5, 2018)

sid.safari said:


> Is a RF 400 f/2.0 even possible? How about a RF 500mm f/2.8?



I cannot even imagine a front element of such diameter.


----------



## hendrik-sg (Sep 5, 2018)

@sid.safari

Your questions are completely ignoring the geometry and basic physics. Maybe you read the available informations about RF first?


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Sep 5, 2018)

Amazing, didn't think they would even surpass the Sony for weight reduction. But are they still front heavy or have they move the CoM back like Sony?

Over to you Nikon.


----------



## sid.safari (Sep 5, 2018)

hendrik-sg said:


> @sid.safari
> 
> Your questions are completely ignoring the geometry and basic physics. Maybe you read the available informations about RF first?



apologies...my excitement at the news has got the better of me.


----------



## MartinF. (Sep 5, 2018)

sid.safari said:


> Wait so they will have an adapter to take a RF lens (made for mirrorless system) and use it on a DSLR? Is that even possible? I thought the adapter only works to make a EF lens work on a EOS R system... (slightly confused -- does it go both ways? Can a new R lens work on my 1dx mark ii with the adapter? )
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, but they claim the RF lens will provide faster lens with better optical quality. So...does that mean the next generation of big whites will be on the RF mount to achieve those results? Is this in fact the last batch of great EF lens from Canon?


;
My quess will be that launch of new EF lenses will only be to maintain the system, as long as needed. Future is R-series and RF mount. Personally I would only by new EF lenses if I was pro, that see it as a 3-5 year production item. For enthusiast like me with an lifetime on equipment on +10 years, I will stick with my 6D and current EF line up as long a possible and then go for a 6D like R-series and a fast 2.8 / 2.0 kit zoom and then converter for my current EF lenses. I hold my money in the pocket for the next 3 years and then look around the Canon landscape.


----------



## sid.safari (Sep 5, 2018)

MartinF. said:


> ;
> My quess will be that launch of new EF lenses will only be to maintain the system, as long as needed. Future is R-series and RF mount. Personally I would only by new EF lenses if I was pro, that see it as a 3-5 year production item. For enthusiast like me with an lifetime on equipment on +10 years, I will stick with my 6D and current EF line up as long a possible and then go for a 6D like R-series and a fast 2.8 / 2.0 kit zoom and then converter for my current EF lenses. I hold my money in the pocket for the next 3 years and then look around the Canon landscape.



One has to assume that Canon will support the new range of big whites for at least 7-10 years. It would be the slap in the face of anyone buying these 10k + lens if they release RF super tele-photos that are better in quality in the next 3-5 years. As someone who has held out buying the EF 400 f/2.8 ii (i did rent it often though) I think the weight improvement alone for the III's is a determining factor. Add to that it seems the balance issue of the 400 ii has been sorted in version iii so that's fantastic news. I just hope the IQ and durability hasn't been compromised (and has in fact been improved)


----------



## Meatcurry (Sep 5, 2018)

lots of cool info here:-https://youtu.be/3LON8qPZpMo


----------



## goldenhusky (Sep 5, 2018)

EF 600mm f/4L IS USM II is 8.62 lbs / 3920 g Vs the III is 6.73 lbs / 3050g

EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II USM 8.47 lbs / 3850 g Vs the III is 6.26 lbs / 2840g

Weight reductions are just awesome

and for comparison Sony FE 400mm f/2.8 GM OSS Lens 6.4 lb / 2.9 kg


----------



## sid.safari (Sep 5, 2018)

goldenhusky said:


> EF 600mm f/4L IS USM II is 8.62 lbs / 3920 g Vs the III is 6.73 lbs / 3050g
> 
> EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II USM 8.47 lbs / 3850 g Vs the III is 6.26 lbs / 2840g
> 
> ...



not just the weight reduction...but the additional IS improvement means the 400 f/2.8 iii will be far easier to handle (and hand hold a lot more then was possible with version ii). This is simply incredible news for wildlife photographers who aren't always in a position to always use tripods and monopod setups.


----------



## Phil995511 (Sep 5, 2018)

Very good technological progress, but where is the 600mm F4 DO that we have been promised for years and has not arrived on the market ?

An EF 600mm f / 4L IS III of 3.1 Kg is too heavy for use without a tripod... 

So, for now, I keep my EF 400mm f / 4 DO IS II USM, despite a diaphragm at F5.6 and F8 with Extender EF 1.4x III and Extender EF 2x III..

I hope a 600mm F4 DO will soon come out on the market with a maximum weight of 2.5 Kg.


----------



## Lurker (Sep 5, 2018)

Mr Majestyk said:


> Amazing, didn't think they would even surpass the Sony for weight reduction. But are they still front heavy or have they move the CoM back like Sony?
> 
> Over to you Nikon.



Center elements are moved way back for better balance.
Canon 600


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 5, 2018)

Phil995511 said:


> An EF 600mm f / 4L IS III of 3.1 Kg is too heavy for use without a tripod...


Well, speak for yourself. This is the 600 II, which I routinely use handheld.


----------



## hendrik-sg (Sep 5, 2018)

This weight reduction is just fantastic. I had the 400 2.8 IS (original version for rent, it was not handholdable, and the IS quite bad. In Comparision, just recently I could use a 400 2.8 IS ii, which is a fantastic improvement.

Now, 1 kg less (as the 300 2.8 IS) and 1.5 stops better IS, there is nothing to add, except that I don't have 12k$ of pocket money to be burned. And the big concern, what about RF (beside the possibility of using adapters) ???

Now, comparing the weight differences between 300/400 or 600/500 lenses at the same opening, a 500mm 2.8 or a 700 4.0 at below 5kg comes into sight. for a bargain of 20k bucks maybe


----------



## nitram (Sep 5, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Well, speak for yourself.



They are as you are too ;-) Different people, different limitations.


----------



## Lurker (Sep 5, 2018)

> I just hope the IQ and durability hasn't been compromised (and has in fact been improved)



I know looking at charts has it's limits but the 600 MTF chart doesn't look as good as for the II.


----------



## Phil995511 (Sep 5, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Well, speak for yourself. This is the 600 II, which I routinely use handheld.


To hold it at arm's length is one thing, to make 100% of photographs which are not blurred, it is certainly certainly impossible in this way ...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 5, 2018)

Phil995511 said:


> To hold it at arm's length is one thing, to make 100% of photographs which are not blurred, it is certainly certainly impossible in this way ...


To make 100% of photographs which are not blurred is certainly impossible on a tripod, also. Importantly, I do not have any problems getting a very high keeper rate shooting handheld. With birds in flight (my most frequent subject with the 600/4 II), shutter speeds of 1/2000 s or faster are needed, which combined with IS effectively eliminates the effect of camera shake. But I have shot handheld with shutter speeds in the 1/60 - 1/200 s range with excellent results. In winter when shooting raptors, I use a tripod and gimbal because that use case involves a lot of standing and waiting. But in more clement weather, I prefer to hike and shoot. I can assure you that even if I could achieve 100% not blurred shots by stopping to set up the tripod and mount the lens on it, the majority of those images would be sharp, crisp images of an unoccupied tree branch or empty sky, since my subject would have long since flown away.


----------



## Meatcurry (Sep 5, 2018)

Looks like they moved some elements rearwards


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 5, 2018)

Lurker said:


> I know looking at charts has it's limits but the 600 MTF chart doesn't look as good as for the II.



600/4L IS II:





600/4L IS III:





I’m not sure I’d call the MkIII worse, but based on MTF charts I’d conclude that the MkIII does not offer any meaningful improvement in sharpness or contrast. The new coatings are likely better at reducing flare (and of course, that affects contrast when present), but I haven’t found that to be an issue with the 600 II (unlike, for example, the 70-200/2.8L IS II, where despite the claims of no improvements, I expect that lens to have meaningfully better performance in backlit situations, where the MkII just washes out with veiling glare).


----------



## scyrene (Sep 5, 2018)

Phil995511 said:


> An EF 600mm f / 4L IS III of 3.1 Kg is too heavy for use without a tripod...



I use the 500L II almost exclusively without a tripod and it weighs 3.19kg. I'm not strong either. It can be done, with the right technique and motivation.

As a general point, I'm very impressed they were able to reduce the weight by so much again, although I doubt I'll ever be able to afford one of these. The cost difference between 500 and 600mm was why I chose the former a few years ago.


----------



## ethanz (Sep 5, 2018)

Phil995511 said:


> To hold it at arm's length is one thing, to make 100% of photographs which are not blurred, it is certainly certainly impossible in this way ...



I'm no weight lifter and I can hand hold the 200-400 (which is around the same weight) for a while and shoot with good results. This is an amazing release today that they were able to reduce the 400 / 600 weight so much.


----------



## dolina (Sep 5, 2018)

It blows my mind that the 400/2.8 IS III is 440g heavier than a 300/2.8 IS II. Equally mind blowing is the 600/4.0 IS III weighing 210g heavier than the 400/2.8 IS II.

Seeming the new lens will be available by mid-December buying this lens at street price would be prudent by mid 2019.

For those who need strength and endurance training take up crossfit. Really helpful in handholding heavy lenses.


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 5, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> To make 100% of photographs which are not blurred is certainly impossible on a tripod, also. Importantly, I do not have any problems getting a very high keeper rate shooting handheld. With birds in flight (my most frequent subject with the 600/4 II), shutter speeds of 1/2000 s or faster are needed, which combined with IS effectively eliminates the effect of camera shake. But I have shot handheld with shutter speeds in the 1/60 - 1/200 s range with excellent results. In winter when shooting raptors, I use a tripod and gimbal because that use case involves a lot of standing and waiting. But in more clement weather, I prefer to hike and shoot. I can assure you that even if I could achieve 100% not blurred shots by stopping to set up the tripod and mount the lens on it, the majority of those images would be sharp, crisp images of an unoccupied tree branch or empty sky, since my subject would have long since flown away.




1.9lbs and 1.5 stops will be substantial when hand held. It is a worthy upgrade IMO.

This will be a nice step up, just let us know when your ready to sell your version II.


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 5, 2018)

So what is the sacrifice to gain 1.9lbs on the 500mm?

How much structural integrity did they give up to do this?

Light is nice but not always best.


----------



## Kit. (Sep 5, 2018)

takesome1 said:


> So what is the sacrifice to gain 1.9lbs on the 500mm?


The middle lens group is smaller and shifted back. Probably requiring much more manufacturing precision than before, and made possible with recent upgrades in Canon's lens manufacturing plant.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 5, 2018)

takesome1 said:


> This will be a nice step up, just let us know when your ready to sell your version II.


No plans to upgrade, sorry.  If this was a 600/4 DO, I might feel differently...


----------



## sid.safari (Sep 5, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Well, speak for yourself. This is the 600 II, which I routinely use handheld.



that's some long lens technique... Wonder what his hit rate was?


----------



## docsmith (Sep 5, 2018)

The 600 III is lighter than the 500 II. 

That is impressive. I own the 500 II, handhold it all the time.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 5, 2018)

Wait, are these focus by wire?


----------



## sid.safari (Sep 5, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> 600/4L IS II:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So seems like the difference in sharpness will be towards the edges and at 600mm? (am I reading it right). If so, that's fair enough...both the 600 and 400 ii's are already some of the sharpest lens in the world. I would have hoped for more considering it's been 7 years but there doesn't seem to have been a major breakthrough in optics since that time. Can't expect exponential changes given the lens materials are basically unchanged. The weight and IS though are significant improvements in my eyes. So is the balance which in the 400mm f/2.8 ii was definitely not optimal.

I like what i'm seeing and hopefully they will have a new extender pair that comes with these lens. Since the EOS R can now autofocus at f/11 that's huge for those who use TC's. I'm curious to see the MTF's of the 400 III at 1.4x and 2.0x.


----------



## sid.safari (Sep 5, 2018)

docsmith said:


> The 600 III is lighter than the 500 II.
> 
> That is impressive. I own the 500 II, handhold it all the time.



yeah, 500 II is relatively easy to handhold. balance is great too.


----------



## Meatcurry (Sep 5, 2018)

Liking the new shorter lens hood option....


----------



## Mireaux (Sep 5, 2018)

scyrene said:


> Wait, are these focus by wire?


Yes, unfortunately they are.


----------



## efmshark (Sep 5, 2018)

hendrik-sg said:


> This weight reduction is just fantastic. I had the 400 2.8 IS (original version for rent, it was not handholdable, and the IS quite bad. In Comparision, just recently I could use a 400 2.8 IS ii, which is a fantastic improvement.
> 
> Now, 1 kg less (as the 300 2.8 IS) and 1.5 stops better IS, there is nothing to add, except that I don't have 12k$ of pocket money to be burned. And the big concern, what about RF (beside the possibility of using adapters) ???
> 
> Now, comparing the weight differences between 300/400 or 600/500 lenses at the same opening, a 500mm 2.8 or a 700 4.0 at below 5kg comes into sight. for a bargain of 20k bucks maybe



A 400mm RF lens would be the same size as a 400mm EF lens with EF-to-RF adapter. The dimensions of a super telephoto lens is dictated by aperture (diameter of the front element) and focal length (roughly the length of the lens). There is room for minor amount of weight reduction by eliminating the mount adaptor, but it's probably not worth for Canon to make native RF mount telephoto lenses for a long time.


----------



## efmshark (Sep 5, 2018)

Looking forward to 500 f/4 iii with 25% weight reduction over ii...


----------



## RGF (Sep 5, 2018)

600 III is lighter than the 200-400 !! Now that is nice

Now bring on the 600 DO !


----------



## ethanz (Sep 5, 2018)

Mireaux said:


> Yes, unfortunately they are.



What does that mean for the lens and do you guys think that had anything to do with the weight reduction?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 5, 2018)

sid.safari said:


> So seems like the difference in sharpness will be towards the edges and at 600mm? (am I reading it right).


Yes, slight improvement at the edges/corners (everything is at 600mm, since these are prime lenses). The MTF for the 400 MkIII should be on Canon Japan’s website (that’s where I got the MTF for the 600 III), although they don’t generally publish MTFs for lenses with TCs (with the exception of the 200-400 with it’s built-in TC).

Agree that the big differences are weight and IS. 



sid.safari said:


> I like what i'm seeing and hopefully they will have a new extender pair that comes with these lens. Since the EOS R can now autofocus at f/11 that's huge for those who use TC's.


AF at f/11 matters only for an f/5.6 lens with a 2x TC, so not really relevant for these f/4 lenses. A 100-400 with a 2x would AF on the EOS R (but that combo also can AF in live view on current DSLRs).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 5, 2018)

Mireaux said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > Wait, are these focus by wire?
> ...


Where are you getting the information that the 400 III and 600 III are focus-by-wire? I don’t think that’s the case.


----------



## RGF (Sep 5, 2018)

efmshark said:


> Looking forward to 500 f/4 iii with 25% weight reduction over ii...



Wonder if they can take 25% off the weight of the 200-400?


----------



## Mireaux (Sep 5, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Where are you getting the information that the 400 III and 600 III are focus-by-wire? I don’t think that’s the case.







Starting from 3:00. There is even an additional switch to control the sensitivity or as they say “speed” of manual focus.


----------



## Mireaux (Sep 5, 2018)

ethanz said:


> What does that mean for the lens and do you guys think that had anything to do with the weight reduction?


One will lose the feeling of direct contact with the focusing group. It is going to behave like the white ring (which I have never used) in previous versions.


----------



## BeenThere (Sep 5, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Where are you getting the information that the 400 III and 600 III are focus-by-wire? I don’t think that’s the case.


I’ve seen it reported on som non-Canon sites that these are FBW lenses.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 5, 2018)

Mireaux said:


> Starting from 3:00. There is even an additional switch to control the sensitivity or as they say “speed” of manual focus.



Thanks. I did wonder when I saw those switches. I've only used focus by wire on the 85L II and I've no doubt the implementation will be better here, but I dislike it, and it would put me off upgrading even if I could afford to.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 5, 2018)

Mireaux said:


> Starting from 3:00. There is even an additional switch to control the sensitivity or as they say “speed” of manual focus.


Thanks! And ugh. I saw the line in the feature list, “Improved, flexible focus control with a customizable electronic-focus ring,” but was hoping that referred to the focus preset ring which also drives Power Focus on the MkII lenses. 

The hard case is now optional– they’re including a soft case which is likely more useful for most people (I bought a LowePro Lens Trekker 600 II AW for my 600 II), but more importantly for Canon saves them money (more profit) and allows them to sell a high markup accessory (even more profit). Should one ever need to ship the lens to Canon for service (or for a firmware upgrade as was needed for the earliest versions of the MkII lenses), the hard case would be the way to go. Also an ‘optional accessory’ is the smaller for lens foot for use with a monopod. It was included with my 600 II. More profit for Canon, but IMO a pretty crappy way to cheap out on a $13K lens.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 5, 2018)

scyrene said:


> Thanks. I did wonder when I saw those switches. I've only used focus by wire on the 85L II and I've no doubt the implementation will be better here, but I dislike it, and it would put me off upgrading even if I could afford to.


Agreed. I had no plans to upgrade anyway, but this makes that even less likely. I manually focus my 600 II quite frequently, and I’m not a fan of FBW (having owned the 85/1.2L II and many EF-M lenses which are al FBW).


----------



## AlanF (Sep 5, 2018)

Meatcurry said:


> Looks like they moved some elements rearwards
> View attachment 180175


Hmm. Is this a coincidence, convergent thinking, that Sony and Canon make the same radical change of lens design within months of each other? Or do we suspect industrial espionage?


----------



## JMZawodny (Sep 5, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> 600/4L IS II:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Note sure where you got the MTF plot for the mk II, but this is the plot I downloaded from Canon moments ago. The Mk II appears to be significantly better than the Mk III. And the same goes for the 400 Mk III.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 5, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> No plans to upgrade, sorry.  If this was a 600/4 DO, I might feel differently...


The DO 400mm f/4 II is significantly shorter, ~4", than the old II and the new III 400/4.


----------



## NorskHest (Sep 5, 2018)

I'm not in the market to upgrade anything but FBW has confirmed that I will do no such thing, sure 2 pounds lighter is nice but I will gladly stay with my 600ii for years to come and probably my 300 as well. I'm sure there is some alegeded benefits but I couldn't image any, I've used their 50 and 85 and and because of the issues with fbw I never purchased them.


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 5, 2018)

If it is FBW, I wonder if this is where some of the weight savings came from?
There is no need to have the manual focus system in the lens.

If the MF is electronic, why do you even need the ring? Your MF system can be handled from other locations.

I wonder if the FBW change is a preparatory move for a 1D style mirror less that is released some time in the distant future?
Possibly Canon is laying the groundwork now.

For all the naysayers and anti Canon posters who claimed there is no innovation at Canon, these lenses would have had to be put in production almost a year ago.
We are looking a year old innovation.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 5, 2018)

JMZawodny said:


> Note sure where you got the MTF plot for the mk II, but this is the plot I downloaded from Canon moments ago. The Mk II appears to be significantly better than the Mk III. And the same goes for the 400 Mk III.


From which Canon site did you download that image? Mine are linked from ‘the source’, Canon Japan:

https://cweb.canon.jp/ef/lineup/super-tele/ef600-f4l-is-ii/spec.html
https://cweb.canon.jp/ef/lineup/super-tele/ef600-f4l-is-iii/spec.html


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 5, 2018)

AlanF said:


> Hmm. Is this a coincidence, convergent thinking, that Sony and Canon make the same radical change of lens design within months of each other? Or do we suspect industrial espionage?


My guess is the latter. Working in Pharma for years, I was at first surprised by (then later became accustomed to) the astoundingly high success rate the medicinal chemists had in ‘guessing’ the structures of competitors compounds and subsequently having their ‘guesses’ confirmed. In this case, I’d hazard a guess that some little 鳥 told Sony about a Canon design, and Sony came out with it first.


----------



## JMZawodny (Sep 5, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> From which Canon site did you download that image? Mine are linked from ‘the source’, Canon Japan:
> 
> https://cweb.canon.jp/ef/lineup/super-tele/ef600-f4l-is-ii/spec.html
> https://cweb.canon.jp/ef/lineup/super-tele/ef600-f4l-is-iii/spec.html




I got it from here https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/...s/ef/super-telephoto/ef-600mm-f-4l-is-iii-usm .
I would find it nearly impossible to end up with essentially identical MTF curves (at both apertures) when there is such a large increase in distance between the front optic and the next group. So I suspect "The Source" may be wrong. I guess we won't know for sure until actual samples go through thorough measurement and testing. I'll remain skeptical until then.


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 5, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> From which Canon? Mine are linked from ‘the source’, Canon Japan:
> 
> https://cweb.canon.jp/ef/lineup/super-tele/ef600-f4l-is-ii/spec.html
> https://cweb.canon.jp/ef/lineup/super-tele/ef600-f4l-is-iii/spec.html



Canon USA
https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/...es/ef/super-telephoto/ef-600mm-f-4l-is-ii-usm

Someone came in the office and I see JMZ posted it.

The MTF charts at Canon USA are the same as were posted when they first released.


----------



## Lurker (Sep 5, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> 600/4L IS II:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 5, 2018)

Edge to the old.


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 5, 2018)

And again, Edge to the old


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 5, 2018)

Lurker said:


> Interesting. I did not find the MTF on Canon USA site so I looked at the MTF from The-Digital-Picture review.


They’re on the Canon USA site as well, but the MTF for the 600 II on Canon USA differs from that on Canon Japan. The MTFs for the MkIII match.


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 5, 2018)

And again, IQ going down on the III?


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 5, 2018)

FWIW all the ones I posted came from Canon USA.


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 5, 2018)

This is a major gut.
I would definitely wait for TDP's comparisons before ordering. 
Maybe a few field reviews.
Sometimes things are better left alone.
$12 k is to much to be the guinea pig.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 5, 2018)

It seems Canon simplified their MTF charts recently, the ones on Canon USA for the MkII have all 8 lines (contrast and sharpness for both sagittal and meridional, wide open and at f/8). The new MTFs (MkII and MkIII on Canon Japan, just MkIII on Canon USA) have only 4 lines – it looks like they removed the contrast data (the thick lines on the older format) and swapped the colors. Given that, I’d be inclined to rely on comparing the Canon Japan MTFs as an apples-to-apples comparison, rather than comparing an new format to an old format as is seen on Canon USA.


----------



## Lurker (Sep 5, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> They’re on the Canon USA site as well, but the MTF for the 600 II on Canon USA differs from that on Canon Japan. The MTFs for the MkIII match.



So they are! I had to click on the tiny read "read more" text to see them.


----------



## Del Paso (Sep 5, 2018)

Couldn't it be a different (more demanding) MTF testing procedure?
I would really be surprised if Canon opticians accepted a decrease in quality of such important lenses mostly used by pros.


----------



## ethanz (Sep 5, 2018)

takesome1 said:


> I would definitely wait for TDP's comparisons before ordering.



We need you Bryan!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 5, 2018)

Del Paso said:


> Couldn't it be a different MTF testing procedure?
> I would really be surprised if Canon opticians accepted a decrease in quality of such important lenses mostly used by pros.


No, in the sense that the MTFs don’t result from empirical testing (that’s true for most manufacturers, although Zeiss actually tests production copies of their lenses to generate MTFs). The plots from Canon, Nikon, Sigma, etc., are computer-generated from the lens design parameters, i.e. they are theoretical (perfect) MTFs. However, they may have changed the algorithm used to generate the MTFs.

I’d also be really surprised if Canon released MkIII lenses that were so noticeably worse (based on those theoretical MTFs, the differences would be noticeable). That’s another reason I’m inclined to believe the comparison using the MTFs on Canon Japan.


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 5, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> It seems Canon simplified their MTF charts recently, the ones on Canon USA for the MkII have all 8 lines (contrast and sharpness for both sagittal and meridional, wide open and at f/8). The new MTFs (MkII and MkIII on Canon Japan, just MkIII on Canon USA) have only 4 lines – it looks like they removed the contrast data (the thick lines on the older format) and swapped the colors. Given that, I’d be inclined to rely on comparing the Canon Japan MTFs as an apples-to-apples comparison, rather than comparing an new format to an old format as is seen on Canon USA.




IMO if we can't rely on one we can't rely on the other. The 2x on Canon USA's website shows quit a bit of difference.

Looking at the changes they make I think we have to consider this an entirely new lens that as of yet not proven.
It is definitely more than just a minor revamp of an existing design.


----------



## ethanz (Sep 5, 2018)

takesome1 said:


> Looking at the changes they make I think we have to consider this an entirely new lens that as of yet not proven.
> It is definitely more than just a minor revamp of an existing design.



In the video, Rudy says they are a complete optical redesign.


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 5, 2018)

ethanz said:


> In the video, Rudy says they are a complete optical redesign.



If the IQ of the III doesn't match the II it is a good thing. The II's used price will surely drop in price, while I do not see the need to spend $11 K on a new one I could be enticed with a substantial price drop in the used market.


----------



## ethanz (Sep 5, 2018)

takesome1 said:


> If the IQ of the III doesn't match the II it is a good thing. The II's used price will surely drop in price, while I do not see the need to spend $11 K on a new one I could be enticed with a substantial price drop in the used market.



Yes, the GAS is growing exponentially today.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 5, 2018)

takesome1 said:


> If the IQ of the III doesn't match the II it is a good thing. The II's used price will surely drop in price, while I do not see the need to spend $11 K on a new one I could be enticed with a substantial price drop in the used market.


If the II is optically superior, wouldn't that prop up used prices?


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Sep 5, 2018)

So now we have the lens I want to blow all my money on and the 28-70 I want to blow the rest of my money on. Yet one of these is on a 'old' mount. Given my 300mm f2.8 is now pushing 30 years, It looks like the logical thing to do seems to be to wait for the 600mm to get a native R mount which I guess we'll see when the R '1x' comes out.


----------



## tron (Sep 5, 2018)

takesome1 said:


> Canon USA
> *https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/products/details/lenses/ef/super-telephoto/ef-600mm-f-4l-is-ii-usm*
> 
> Someone came in the office and I see JMZ posted it.
> ...


I could not find the MTF chart for the version 600 2 in that link. In contrast the 600 version 3 contains it!

EDIT: FOUND THEM! The advice about read more was very useful!


----------



## JMZawodny (Sep 5, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> ...
> 
> I’d also be really surprised if Canon released MkIII lenses that were so noticeably worse (based on those theoretical MTFs, the differences would be noticeable). That’s another reason I’m inclined to believe the comparison using the MTFs on Canon Japan.



I'd be just as surprised that the MTF curves for the Mk II and III are identical (save for the corner point) given the drastic change in optical layout between them. I can't believe it. Perhaps both the Japan and USA figures are wrong. That is infinitely more plausible than the Mk II and III being identical.


----------



## JMZawodny (Sep 5, 2018)

tron said:


> I could not find the MTF chart for the version 600 2 in that link. In contrast the 600 version 3 contains it!


Go to the the Mk II Overview page and click the red "read more". You should get a sample image and the 3 sets of MTF curves.


----------



## tron (Sep 5, 2018)

JMZawodny said:


> Go to the the Mk II Overview page and click the red "read more". You should get a sample image and the set of 3 MTF curves.


Yes, thanks! I found out 1 minute before and I updated my post after seeing about read more in a previous post.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 5, 2018)

JMZawodny said:


> I'd be just as surprised that the MTF curves for the Mk II and III are identical (save for the corner point) given the drastic change in optical layout between them. I can't believe it. Perhaps both the Japan and USA figures are wrong. That is infinitely more plausible than the Mk II and III being identical.


I don't find the idea that the MkIII is substantially worse than the MkII to be plausible, either.


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 5, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> If the II is optically superior, wouldn't that prop up used prices?



 Probably, but maybe there will be enough buyers that must have the newest and latest lens.


----------



## NancyP (Sep 5, 2018)

Here's hoping that some used 500 f/4 IIs come onto the market....
The new 400 f/2.8 redesign might be very attractive to sports photographers due to the change in weight distribution.


----------



## JMZawodny (Sep 5, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> I don't find the idea that the MkIII is substantially worse than the MkII to be plausible, either.



Well I certainly agree. The other problem has to due with an identical situation with the 400/2.8 Mks II & III. Perhaps the same person making the mistake updating the website twice. What does "the source" have to say about the 400/2.8 III, same identical performance? It is very unusual to have MTF graphs on the day of release. Could they have simply copied old data while developing the page and forgotten to update/delete those plots? That would not explain the USA site though, unless they copied different plots. Some sleuthing should sort this out quickly.


----------



## tron (Sep 5, 2018)

I am satisfied with my 500 II. To update it I would require both a significant weight reduction and the same IQ as minimum! I assume it's similar with the 400 II and 600 II owners...


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 5, 2018)

JMZawodny said:


> Well I certainly agree. The other problem has to due with an identical situation with the 400/2.8 Mks II & III. Perhaps the same person making the mistake updating the website twice. What does "the source" have to say about the 400/2.8 III, same identical performance? It is very unusual to have MTF graphs on the day of release. Could they have simply copied old data while developing the page and forgotten to update/delete those plots? That would not explain the USA site though, unless they copied different plots. Some sleuthing should sort this out quickly.



They may be theoretical. If memory serves, the II version MTF’s at release were theoretical.

Also, the lens has just now been released, however there have probably been prototypes for over a year.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 5, 2018)

takesome1 said:


> They may be theoretical. If memory serves, the II version MTF’s at release were theoretical.


All of Canon's MTFs are theoretical.


----------



## padam (Sep 6, 2018)

NancyP said:


> Here's hoping that some used 500 f/4 IIs come onto the market....
> The new 400 f/2.8 redesign might be very attractive to sports photographers due to the change in weight distribution.



Practical for carrying, but there won't be many situations where they wouldn't use a monopod (which attached to a point which is good for weight distribution anyway).
Yes, now you can definitely hand-hold it (and I am sure a sponsored video will emphasise that) but ultimately it won't lead to the same consistent results that they need. Wildlife photographers will probably make use of it, though.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Sep 6, 2018)

Canon says in the presentation video that image quality is improved. So i don't believe it will be less sharp.


----------



## psolberg (Sep 6, 2018)

Mireaux said:


> Yes, unfortunately they are.


this is horrible. I kind of expect the general consumer stuff to go this way for cost savings. hell, I expect the vast majority of lenses to end here. But I was kind of hoping anything that starts to push near or exceeding 10K USD to not be concerned with FBW and retain the current physical system. I suppose the writing is in the wall: if these things get FBW, nothing will get spared. shame.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 6, 2018)

psolberg said:


> this is horrible. I kind of expect the general consumer stuff to go this way for cost savings. hell, I expect the vast majority of lenses to end here. But I was kind of hoping anything that starts to push near or exceeding 10K USD to not be concerned with FBW and retain the current physical system. I suppose the writing is in the wall: if these things get FBW, nothing will get spared. shame.


Maybe it'll be a really really really good FBW. 

No, even I can't swallow that tripe.


----------



## applecider (Sep 6, 2018)

So eight pins on mount or twelve? 

And are the big white filters interchangeable with EOS R adaptor filters?


----------



## applecider (Sep 6, 2018)

Lurker said:


> I know looking at charts has it's limits but the 600 MTF chart doesn't look as good as for the II.



My impression as well.


----------



## Mireaux (Sep 6, 2018)

applecider said:


> So eight pins on mount or twelve?
> 
> And are the big white filters interchangeable with EOS R adaptor filters?


And this is what I have been asking everywhere since the launch, nobody has given any answer.

Have a look at the R adaptor - their line of drop-ins will include a variable ND an if it is compatible the other way, used in big white ones could be quite sexy and I do not mind it being black.


----------



## Mireaux (Sep 6, 2018)

applecider said:


> My impression as well.


The hope they screwed these up expressed by me at the beginning of this thread gets more real every minute this thread grows in size.


----------



## Daan Stam (Sep 6, 2018)

looks reallyy really nice for the people who use them. definetely worth an upgrade for anyone who is moving lots with these lenses. probably amazing iq


----------



## jrista (Sep 7, 2018)

MartinF. said:


> ;
> My quess will be that launch of new EF lenses will only be to maintain the system, as long as needed. Future is R-series and RF mount. Personally I would only by new EF lenses if I was pro, that see it as a 3-5 year production item. For enthusiast like me with an lifetime on equipment on +10 years, I will stick with my 6D and current EF line up as long a possible and then go for a 6D like R-series and a fast 2.8 / 2.0 kit zoom and then converter for my current EF lenses. I hold my money in the pocket for the next 3 years and then look around the Canon landscape.



I think this is rather premature. Canon has just barely introduced their full frame mirrorless line. We still need to see how it stands up against the competition, how it is adopted, who it is adopted by, in what volume, etc. Everyone loves to call the death and doom of EOS and the EF line, but the introduction of brand new Mark III great white lenses right now indicates EF is alive and well and unlikely to go anywhere any time soon. You don't release new naturally low-volume lenses unless there is a large enough and strong enough market over a long enough term to actually sell enough to make the R&D worth the cost.


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 7, 2018)

jrista said:


> I think this is rather premature. Canon has just barely introduced their full frame mirrorless line. We still need to see how it stands up against the competition, how it is adopted, who it is adopted by, in what volume, etc. Everyone loves to call the death and doom of EOS and the EF line, but the introduction of brand new Mark III great white lenses right now indicates EF is alive and well and unlikely to go anywhere any time soon. You don't release new naturally low-volume lenses unless there is a large enough and strong enough market over a long enough term to actually sell enough to make the R&D worth the cost.



OR

You make the lens so it is easily adapted to the new mount.
Realizing of course the body could be adapted to be RF.
With one of the three adapters it is RF now.


----------



## padam (Sep 8, 2018)

Mireaux said:


> The hope they screwed these up expressed by me at the beginning of this thread gets more real every minute this thread grows in size.


I really don't get the complaining about MTF charts.
Probably the most pointless thing to complain about in photography - as opposed to real test results (which are still done at a specific distance etc. so it might be different to using it in real life, focusing at infinity, etc.).

Canon MTF charts are _theoretical_.
As far as I am aware, Leica MTF charts are measured with 'real' lenses.

It is quite possible, that they have simply _changed _their measurement standards, where it matches real-world measurements more closely...


----------



## tron (Sep 8, 2018)

Phil995511 said:


> Very good technological progress, but where is the 600mm F4 DO that we have been promised for years and has not arrived on the market ?
> 
> An EF 600mm f / 4L IS III of 3.1 Kg is too heavy for use without a tripod...
> 
> ...


When the 600DO prototype had been presented it weighted 3.2Kg! So they have to improve this too...


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 8, 2018)

padam said:


> I really don't get the complaining about MTF charts.



Who is complaining?

In Canon's book EF Lens Work III they give a very short description of their MTF's. In the past reviewing lenses I have found their MTF chart to be fairly accurate at what to expect. 

Although they are theoretical, wouldn't you think Canon would compare actual against theoretical after they make the lens? Of course they do, it would take a very irrisponsible company to not.

Any line over 0.8 Canon considers a superior lens. 
In this MTF for some reason Canon did not show the 30 lines/mm.

The heavy black lines are wide open and the blue lines at f/8.

I doubt Canon changed the way they do the MTF's. It would be bad salesmanship to show something that actually looks worse.

From the MTF Canon would consider this lens superior.
In real world situations I doubt you will ever be able to tell the difference. Both lenses will give you superior sharp results. It will only be the pixel peepers that will ever notice if the IQ is better or worse.


----------



## nightscape123 (Sep 8, 2018)

takesome1 said:


> Who is complaining?
> 
> In Canon's book EF Lens Work III they give a very short description of their MTF's. In the past reviewing lenses I have found their MTF chart to be fairly accurate at what to expect.
> 
> ...



That was the old format. They no longer show f/8, all lines are wide open and the thin blue lines are 30 l/mm. You can see the details of their new charts in the whitepaper they released for the RF mount. 

Old charts and new charts likely aren't comparable. My best guess as to what happened is they are now showing the toleranced designs instead of the nominal designs. Could be something else as well. Either way they clearly thought these were clearer and more accurate, we should know more once Roger gets his hands on some.


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 8, 2018)

nightscape123 said:


> That was the old format. They no longer show f/8, all lines are wide open and the thin blue lines are 30 l/mm. You can see the details of their new charts in the whitepaper they released for the RF mount.
> 
> Old charts and new charts likely aren't comparable. My best guess as to what happened is they are now showing the toleranced designs instead of the nominal designs. Could be something else as well. Either way they clearly thought these were clearer and more accurate, we should know more once Roger gets his hands on some.



In that description the light black lines on the old lens would match the blue on the new.
Still not good match up.

Canon provided us a description in the RF whitepapers on how to read an MTF on a just released EF mount. 
Does that mean the RF is the new standard? Oh no, is EF *******.

If they indeed made changes and it is showing charts that are not as good as previous models, that is defiantly a marketing mistake.

I think we will find the lens to be just as the charts indicate. The addition of the new coating is most likely the culprit. In the real world few if any will notice.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 9, 2018)

takesome1 said:


> I think we will find the lens to be just as the charts indicate.


Which charts? Why do the Canon USA and Canon Japan charts for the same lens not match?


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 9, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Which charts? Why do the Canon USA and Canon Japan charts for the same lens not match?



Why do they not match? Poor Canon marketing? 
Where did the III MTF come from that Canon USA posted?
I look at them with the assumption Canon USA had it right, then again Canon is a Japanese company.

Quote from Canon "An MTF characteristic of 0.8 or more at 10 lines/mm indicates a superior lens."
Sounds like that is what we will see no matter which MTF is correct.

One of the other items that changed is the paint / coating. That one I question because it seemed like an odd add. I have never seen a thread or a complaint about heat build up being a problem with the 600mm II.

So I have an unsupported hypothesis.
Did moving and rearranging the structure of the shell and lenses actually weaken the structure of the lens to a point that it is now weaker and susceptible to heat build up? Possibly the large area between the front and next lens creates a heat sink?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 9, 2018)

takesome1 said:


> Why do they not match? Poor Canon marketing?
> Where did the III MTF come from that Canon USA posted?
> I look at them with the assumption Canon USA had it right, then again Canon is a Japanese company.


Canon Japan and USA match 
for the 600 III, they differ for the MkII. I think Canon Japan updated the MkII MTF to the new format, and the two versions are nearly identical. Canon USA still has the old version of the MkII MTF, which looks noticeably better than the MkIII because of that.


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 9, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Canon Japan and USA match
> for the 600 III, they differ for the MkII. I think Canon Japan updated the MkII MTF to the new format, and the two versions are nearly identical. Canon USA still has the old version of the MkII MTF, which looks noticeably better than the MkIII because of that.



OK, but,,,

What does this comment underneath of the MTF on the Japanese site for the II and III:

*"[apology]*
_There was an error in the legend of the spatial frequency when updating the site on September 5, 2018 at 16 o'clock. I apologize and I will correct it_."


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 9, 2018)

takesome1 said:


> OK, but,,,
> 
> What does this comment underneath of the MTF on the Japanese site for the II and III:
> 
> ...


Error in the _legend _not the data. I noticed that initially – the colors are reversed (performance at f/8 should be better than wide open, not the opposite).


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 9, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Error in the _legend _not the data. I noticed that initially – the colors are reversed (performance at f/8 should be better than wide open, not the opposite).



Unless they made a mistake also on the RF Whitepaper, there is no F8 lines.
They changed the 30 line from light grey to blue and deleted the F8 lines.
Black lines stay the same, 10 line.
All lines indicate wide open.

I find the release of the RF interesting to watch unfold. At first it makes one wonder why they would choose to change the MTF charts of existing lenses that are being replaced. But it may be because going forward Canon sees this necessary to bring EF folks to RF.


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 9, 2018)

One other thing to notice. The corresponding lines from the II's MTF closely match on both the Japanese and Old American.

The difference is that they are .05 lower on the new Japanese chart.


----------



## hendrik-sg (Sep 11, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> No, in the sense that the MTFs don’t result from empirical testing (that’s true for most manufacturers, although Zeiss actually tests production copies of their lenses to generate MTFs). The plots from Canon, Nikon, Sigma, etc., are computer-generated from the lens design parameters, i.e. they are theoretical (perfect) MTFs. However, they may have changed the algorithm used to generate the MTFs.
> 
> I’d also be really surprised if Canon released MkIII lenses that were so noticeably worse (based on those theoretical MTFs, the differences would be noticeable). That’s another reason I’m inclined to believe the comparison using the MTFs on Canon Japan.



Is it possible, that the worse MTF's are from the Original IS versions by mistake?


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 12, 2018)

hendrik-sg said:


> Is it possible, that the worse MTF's are from the Original IS versions by mistake?



Looking at the version I MTF that would be a definite No.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Sep 12, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Well, speak for yourself. This is the 600 II, which I routinely use handheld.



Indeed. in fact, my shooting buddy uses the 600mm f/4 Mk I handheld _only_.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Sep 12, 2018)

nitram said:


> They are as you are too ;-) Different people, different limitations.



Nope. Saying:



> An EF 600mm f / 4L IS III of 3.1 Kg is too heavy for use without a tripod...



Is a sweeping generalisation clearly _not _couched as a personal opinion, but as an absolute.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Sep 12, 2018)

scyrene said:


> I use the 500L II almost exclusively without a tripod and it weighs 3.19kg. I'm not strong either. It can be done, with the right technique and motivation.



Me too - and always with at least a 1.4x attached, too.


----------



## nonac (Sep 16, 2018)

Looking forward to the arrival of the 400 and the subsequent reviews. I'm in the market for this lens. If the weight is the only major difference with little to no difference in IQ, I'll snag version II. I don't mind the weight. I hand hold my 300 2.8 shooting basketball and volleyball all the time so a monopod on a 400 2.8 won't be a problem. $1,000 more for each pound of weight reduction is too much if that's the only difference.


----------



## Hector1970 (Sep 20, 2018)

I've just spent over a week using a 600 f4 II partially hand held. It is doable but really quite heavy.
I'm not particularily strong but I could get a minute or two handheld and it worked very well.
20% off the weight would help.
The 100-400 II felt lightweight when I switched over.
I find the 300 F2.8 II very hand holdable.


----------



## tron (Sep 20, 2018)

The 300 2.8 II is indeed handholdable. But the 500 4L IS II could do with a significant weight reduction. At 3.2Kg it weighs more than the latest 600 (3.05Kg).


----------



## Mikehit (Sep 20, 2018)

Anyone seen a date that the 600 will be on sale?


----------



## jolyonralph (Sep 20, 2018)

Well I've used the original EF 400mm f/2.8 non IS handheld and I've almost recovered.


----------



## ethanz (Sep 20, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> Well I've used the original EF 400mm f/2.8 non IS handheld and I've almost recovered.



Hand still shakes a little every now and then?


----------



## tron (Sep 20, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> Well I've used the original EF 400mm f/2.8 non IS handheld and I've almost recovered.


6 Kg??????????  Congratulations! How many years did it take you to recover?


----------



## Act444 (Sep 25, 2018)

The weight reduction on the 400 2.8 III is impressive indeed. Handholdable??


----------



## Meatcurry (Nov 6, 2018)

First review of the new mark III lenses?
http://www.andyrouse.co.uk/index.php?b=1&currentpage=2


----------



## padam (Nov 6, 2018)

Act444 said:


> The weight reduction on the 400 2.8 III is impressive indeed. Handholdable??







It will depend on the user, but since it is even less weight than the 500 4 II and the focal length is a bit shorter, it looks like it really is.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Nov 6, 2018)

I've been using a 400mm f2.8 LIS mkI for years. Creatively...it's an incredible tool and probably the most flexible of all the great whites with tele-converters. But the mkI is ridiculously heavy. I hit the gym every week to make sure I'm in shape enough to handle this lens. My tripod and fluide head need to be conspicuously robust to handle the 10kg working load weight too. I'd live to find funds for a mkIII... but at that price I have to consider my car vs lens needs. After all...I already HAVE a mkI....


----------



## tron (Nov 6, 2018)

@GMC... I'd label the weight reduction health related so a higher priority than car's needs (but only you know the exact needs of course). So If you could get some money for your 400 mk1 you could at least find a relatively cheap 400 mk2 and keep some money for the car.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Nov 6, 2018)

tron said:


> 6 Kg??????????  Congratulations! How many years did it take you to recover?



I used to have the Canon 400 EF F2.8 L Mk1 (not the lighter Mk2 or IS versions) and yes it was hand hold-able - but not for very long! Recovery time was negligible.

To achieve this Herculean feat you need to be ageing, overweight, hopelessly unfit and have arms like matchsticks. Nowadays I am a complete wimp and have gone to the flyweight 800 F5.6 (about 1.6 kilos lighter) which I hand-hold for much of my photography.


----------



## tron (Nov 6, 2018)

Recovery time and strength differ from person to person. I used to hold the 500mm f/4L IS II with a 7DII for about 2 hours on a boat shooting intermittently. The result was my left hand barely escaped tenontitis after about 2 to 3 months later. A 400DOII is perfect for me (I can walk, handhold and shoot with it for hours). So these are my limits. But I have no complaints. I use my 500 while on a car or close by using a tripod.


----------

