|
Canon EF 600mm f/4 L IS USM Field Review
The Canon 600mm f/4 L IS USM is
an unique lens in many respects. It gives enough magnification
to take frame-filling photos of distant subject like birds and
wildlife, and it has a wide aperture that allows to get clean
background and fast shutter speeds. Last bust not least, it employs
the excellent Canon image stabilization, that reduces the
effects of shake by the equivalent of 2-3 stops.
Lens
Specifications
|
Focal length
|
600 mm
|
|
Lens construction
|
17 elements in 13 groups
|
|
Number of Diaphragm Blades
|
8 blades
|
|
Angle of view
|
2.87º (on APS-C camera), 4.13º
(on 35mm camera)
|
|
Max. Magnification
|
0.12x (1:8.3)
|
|
Maximum Aperture
|
f/4
|
|
Minimum Aperture
|
f/32
|
|
Image stabilization
|
Yes
|
|
Autofocus
|
Inner ultrasonic motor
|
|
Full Time Manual Focus
|
Yes
|
|
Closest Focusing Distance
|
5.50 meters
|
|
Filter size
|
52 mm (Drop-In)
|
|
Dimensions (Diameter x Length)
|
168 x 456 mm
|
|
Weight
|
5,360 g
|
|
Weather sealing
|
Yes
|
|
Price
|
$ 7,200 at B&H
|
|
Announced
|
1999
|
|
Accessories
|
Rear cap, front cap, lens hood
(ET-160), tripod socket, lens case
|
Description
The 600 f/4 is large, heavy and
rock solid lens. The body is made of magnesium-alloy, and it
is entirely weather sealed: this is clearly a lens made for
heavy and continuous professional use. The front element is
actually a flat glass, that can be easily replaced by a Canon
Service Center, if it is damaged.
The lens has a robust,
non-removable tripod collar. The weight and the bulk of this
lens require a professional tripod: the best choice is the
Gitzo 1548 with the Wimberley Head II, a very specialized head
that is designed for super telephoto lenses as the 600 IS. Between
the tripod collar and the mount there is a filter holder,
where you can insert a gelatin filter. Even if you don't plan
to use it (I know very few photographers that use filters with such
lenses) you have the leave it in its place, because it is
a part of the optical system (even without a filter).
|
Next to the tripod mount there
are five switches and a button. The first one is the Focus
Limiter switch: you can choose between 5.5meters-infinity,
16.2mt-infinity, 5.5mt-16.mt. Reducing the AF range improves
visibly the AF speed, and it is particularly useful in low
light or with non-professional cameras. The second switch is
for AF/MF. For wildlife photography, I use always autofocus:
this lens has "Full Time Manual Focus", too, so it
is possible to focus manually in every moment, even if the
focus switch is set on AF.
The image stabilizator has two
switches. The first one allows to turn it on or off: I keep it
on all the time. The manual supplied with the lens tells to
turn off IS when you mount the lens on the tripod, but this is
clearly wrong, as Canon itself has stated in many other
occasions (see
the Canon CPS FAQ for more information). The first
generation IS created some problems when the lens was mounted
on the tripod, but the supertele have second generation IS,
that can be kept on even with the tripod. The second IS switch
allows to select the IS Mode 1 or the IS Mode 2. The Mode 1
correct shake both horizontally and vertically, while Mode 2
acts only vertically: when you use this lens for panning, you
have to select mode 2, otherwise the IS will try to compensate
your (intended) movements.
The last switch works together
with the "SET" button and the focus preset ring. The
focus preset is a very useful function that allows to memorize
a distance, and to come back instantly to this distance when
you turn the FP ring. To use the FP, set the switch on
"I" (active) or "((" (active, with beep).
Focus on the distance that you want to memorize and press the
the SET button. Now, you can instantly come back to this
distance turning the FP ring; if you have activated the FP in
"((" the lens emits a little beep when the focus is
achieved. This function is very useful when you
photograph subjects at very different distances: for example,
you are photographing a pair of egrets far away, but you know
that a kingfisher might perch in every instant on the
|
|
| branch
10 meters in front of you. Set the focus on the branch, save the
distance and then come back photographing the egrets. When the
kingfisher finally arrives on the branch, turn the FP ring,
and the lens will focus immediately on the right
distance. |
The focus ring is very large and
very smooth. What it the purpose of a manual focus ring on a
lens that will be used 99% of times in AF? Simple: it allows
to reduce the time for AF acquisition. In some situations
(e.g. low light, low contrast subjects, etc), the AF takes
some time to find the right subject, but you can help it
turning the focus ring close to the subject. As already said,
this lens has FTM, so you can use manual focus in every
moment, even if the AF is turned on.
Next to the focus
ring, there is a much slimmer ring: it is the already
mentioned "Focus Present" ring. Rotate slightly this
ring to move the focus on the memorized distance.
|
|
Next to the front of the lens
there are four back buttons. These are the AF lock buttons:
press one of them and the AF stay locked until you release the
button. Personally, I find then very awkward to use on a long
lens as the 600 IS: I much prefect to use the AF lock button
on the body of the camera. The AF lock is very useful when you
are photographing a still subjects: you can focus on the eye
with the center AF sensor (the most precise one), then lock
the focus and recompose the photo.
The lens hood is extremely large,
but surprisingly light. It is also extremely expensive to
replace (it cost more than an entry level DSLR!), so it better
to don't lose or damage it ;-)
All Canon supertele don't
have a real lens cap, but they use a leather-style cap that
covers both the front element, the hood and nearly half of the
lens body.
Using this lens in the field is a
cool experience. The 600 f/4 is provided with a carrying case,
that has the same build quality of the lens: sturdy and
rock solid, but quite large and not light at all. You
can even lock the case with a couple of keys, and it can
be carried both horizontally or vertically. It is not easy to carry around this heavy and
bulky beast but,
|
| once you have mounted it on your sturdy Gitzo
1548 tripod with Wimberley head, it is a joy to look into
viewfinder.
The reach of the bare 600 is good for many
subjects - and with the 1.4x and 2.0x you have enough
reach even for the most shy ones. When you half-press
the shutter button, the lens snaps quickly into focus,
thanks to the super fast ring-USM AF motor. The
teleconverters slow down
the AF by 25% (1.4x TC) and by 50% (2.0x TC), but it is still
quite fast. Remember that you can use the AF with a f/8 lens
(i.e. 600 f4+2xTC) only on the 1 series cameras; with the
other cameras you can't use the 2x with AF.
|
The image stabilization is
just fantastic! Turn IS on, and the image into viewfinder
ceases to shake. The stabilization is very useful even with
fast shutter speeds and tripod: with a focal length of 600,
840 or 1200mm, even the most stable support has a little of
shake, in particular if you don't lock the tripod head screws
to have the agility to follow the subject.
Similar
Lenses (for Canon EOS)
Sigma offers a super tele zoom,
the Sigma 300-800mm f/5.6 EX HSM. Even though it is a
sharp and versatile lens, I'd not recommend it; it lacks of
the image stabilization and built quality of the Canon 600 IS.
The only real alternative to the
Canon 600 IS is the cheaper, smaller and lighter Canon EF
500mm f/4 L IS USM. The Canon 500 f/4 is one of the
best lenses for wildlife photography; in many respects, it is
even better than the 600 f/4. The image quality is
identical - they are both razor sharp, even with the
1.4x TC, and they are pretty good with the 2x TC. The
autofocus is extremely fast; it focusses 1 meter closer
than the 600 (4.5 meters instead of 5.5 mt), even though
the reproduction ratio is the same since the 500 f/4 has
a shorter focal length.
The biggest difference between the 500 and the 600 is
weight and size: the 500 is smaller (146 x 387mm vs the
168 x 456mm of the 600) and much lighter (3.9kg vs
5.4kg). In practice, the difference is even more that
what you can imagine from these numbers. Since the front
element is smaller, it is easier to photograph from the
small windows of many hides, and overall the smaller
size of the lens makes much easier to carry it around.
Moreover, if you travel by plane it is easier to carry
it with you as carry-on luggage, while the 600 might
exceed the size limits of some plane companies. The
difference in weight between the 500 and the 600 is
another advantage of the 500, you might think that
"just" 1.5kg don't make much difference, but
in practice there is a very noticeable difference. I
am in good fit but I find quite difficult to handhold
the 600...of course I can handhold it for a dozen of
photos but I won't be able to handhold it for an entire
day with good results. By comparision, the 500 feels
featherweight: when I tried it, I never put it on
tripod, it is not too difficult to handhold it, even for
hours. If you have a steady hand, you will be able to
get regularly sharp photos with a shutter speed of 1/250
or faster. It is a joy to use this lens!
The 500 has 100mm less focal length than the 600. This
is not a night/day difference - if you are able to take
a photo with the 600, it is likely that you will be able
to take the photo even with the 500, moving a little
closer to the subject or cropping a little more. On the
other hand, with the 600 I tend to use less the TCs,
while with the 500 I'd be temped more often to mount at
least the 1.4x, losing one stop of light. Many wildlife
subject are pretty shy and it is not easy to get closer
so every bit of focal length helps, and it allows to get
a slightly better image quality by reducing the need of
cropping when you can not get closer. |
 |
| Side
by side: the 500 f/4 and the 600 f/4. In
practice, the difference is even more than
what you might think from that photo. |
|
In conclusion, the choice between
500 and 600 is far from easy; if possible, I'd suggest to try
both lenses before buying one of them. If you plan to travel a
lot and to carry the lens for long distances, I'd recommend
the 500, while if you want to photograph very shy subjects, in
particular small birds, the 600 is a better choice.
Personally, I've choosen the 600 because I wanted the maximum
reach and I can live with its bulk (even though I'd love
to have a smaller, lighter 600...while a 600 f/4 DO is not
likely, I hope that Canon will develop other technologies to
reduce the weight and size of tele lenses).
 |
|
 |
| These
two photos simulates the reach difference between the
500 (left) and the 600 (right). It is not easy too choose
between the reach of the 600 and the portability of
the 500! |
Image
Quality
The Canon 600 IS has the
potential to deliver superb image quality, even wide open at
f/4. The sharpness is
awesome; vignetting, distortion and chromatic aberration are
non-existent. That said, it is not easy to fulfill the
potential of this lens: you have to fight two great issues,
the motion blur and the atmospheric distortion.
The very long focal exacerbates
every slight movement, that might result in motion blur. IS
helps to reduce the shake, but you need also a sturdy tripod
and a specialized head (I recommend the Gitzo 1548 with WH-200
head). Other than that, a fast shutter speed is ideal to avoid
both the blur created by lens shake and subject movements.
The atmospheric distortion is an
issue almost unknown to those who don't have a supertele. When
you frame a very distant subject with a lens like the 600 IS,
you "pass through" a lot of air. Humidity and heat
waves can lower very much the image quality of the lens. In
very warm days, the effect is impressive: if you frame a distant
subject you can literally see the heat waves!
Usually, cold
days allows to get the best image quality with distant
subject, but at shorter distances (i.e. between 5 and 30
meters) you get almost always an good quality, even in warm
days.
The following samples show the
image quality of the lens between f/4 and f/8. The image
quality is great even at smaller apertures (up to f/16) but,
since this lens will be often used at its widest apertures, I
choose to show some samples taken at these settings (two at
f/4, one at f/5.6 and another at f/8). The photos had been taken
in RAW format and converted with Photoshop CS2; I processed
them to optimize the image quality (contrast, color,
sharpness), and I saved them as high-quality JPEG for web
display. You can download both the processed JPEG and the
original, untouched RAW file.
Click on every image to download
the full size JPEG sample, or use the RAW link to
download the untouched RAW (large files!). Please respect the
copyright! These images can be printed only to evaluate the
quality of the lens, for personal purposes. All other usages
are prohibited.
 |
 |
| White
Stork - 1/1600 f/4 [ JPEG
/ RAW
] |
Chimney
- 1/500
f/5.6 [ JPEG
/ RAW
] |
| |
|
 |
 |
| Squacco
Heron - 1/1250 f/4 [ JPEG
/ RAW
] |
Green
And Red Leaves - 1/320
f/8 [ JPEG
/ RAW
] |
Performance
with Teleconverters (Studio Test)
|
I'm not a fan of studio tests,
because they reveal only part of the story - you have to try a
lens in the field from weeks or months to know its actual
performance. That said, I'll make an exception here, including
a studio test in the 600 f/4 review: the purpose of this test
is to show the (awesome) image quality that can be obtained
with the 600 and TCs, in ideal conditions. All the images are
100 % crops, processed with Levels (contrast) and Smart
Sharpen.
I choose a postage stamp as test
target, since it has a lot of fine detail (in the images taken
at 1200mm, you can actually see the dots of ink used for the
drawing of the stamp!). This target allows to determine if the
TC actually adds detail to the image, or if it just magnifies
the image.
The photo on the right is
the resized full frame (photographed with the 600 with
no TCs); the red square shows the area of the crop. Of
course the crops taken with TCs show a tighter area,
since the distance camera-target was not changed.
|
 |
| |
Wide open |
1 stop from
wide open |
2 stops from
wide open |
| no
TC |
 |
 |
 |
| |
600 mm
at f/4 |
600 mm
at f/5.6 |
600 mm
at f/8 |
| |
|
|
|
| 1.4x |
 |
 |
 |
| |
840 mm
at f/5.6 |
840 mm
at f/8 |
840 mm
at f/11 |
| |
|
|
|
| 2.0x |
 |
 |
 |
| |
1200
mm at f/8 |
1200
mm at f/11 |
1200
mm at f/16 |
| |
|
|
|
| 1.4x+2.0x |
 |
 |
 |
| |
1680
mm at f/11 |
1680
mm at f/16 |
1680
mm at f/22 |
| |
|
|
|
| 2.0x
int |
 |
|
|
| |
1200
mm at f/11 (140%) |
1200
mm at f/11 (140%) |
1200
mm at f/11 (140%) |
With the bare lens, it is
practically impossible to see an improvement from wide open to
f/8 - it is razor sharp at every aperture. With the 1.4x, the widest aperture is just a tiny little softer than the
two other samples - but it is impossible to tell the
difference in the field. The 2.0x gives more distinct results
- f/11 and f/16 are very sharp, while f/8 (wide open) is a bit
softer, but still very usable; it has clearly more detail than
the sharpest 600+1.4x crop. Moreover, in the field the difference
from 1200 f/8 and 1200 f/11 is
much less apparent, since the faster shutter speed that you
get at f/8 partially compensates for the slightly lower
optical quality.
The stacked 1.4x+2.0x TCs are an
extreme combination: I was really curious to see if they actually
give more detail than an up-resized (interpolated) photo taken
with 600+2x. For comparison, I included a last row of crops,
that shows a detail from the image taken with 600+2x at f/11
(the sharpest aperture of this combination), up-resized with
PS CS2 by 140%.
At f/11, the 600+1.4x+2x has clearly less
detail than the interpolated 600+2x photo. At f/16, instead,
the 600+1.4x+2x has more detail - this is the best aperture
for the stacked TC combo, the only one that I'd recommend. At
f/22, the detail is nearly the same.
In practice, the
1680mm combo is nearly always softer than an up-resized 1200mm
photo: remember that to get a real advantage in resolution,
stacking the 1.4x to the 2.0x, you have to stop down to
f/16...in studio it works, but in the field it is very
difficult to avoid motion blur with a focal length of 1680mm
at f/16. I'd suggest to use this combination only with
stationary subjects, with remote release and mirror lock up.
If it is not possible, it is better to shoot at 1200mm.
Canon EF 600mm f/4 L IS USM
+ Canon EF 1.4X TC II (in the field)
| The Canon EF 1.4x TC
is a fantastic accessory for this lens: it transform
the 600 f/4 in a 840 f/5.6. All teleconverters reduce, more or
less, the images quality, but with the 600 IS the loss of
sharpness is truly minimal, even wide open (i.e. at f/5.6). I
shoot very often at f/5.6 with 600IS+1.4xTC, and I am very
satisfied by the results. Of course, the two previously
mentioned issues are even more pressing, but if you manage to
avoid them you can take awesome and unique photos.
Using the teleconverter is very straightforward:
mount it on the lens, and then mount the camera on the
lens/teleconverter combo. To remove the TC, first remove
the camera, then press the release on the left side of
the TC, and rotate it to the left. If you observe
closely the TC, you will notice that it is weather
sealed: it is an "L" lens in every respect,
even if Canon don't use the "L" designation
for teleconverters.
The only downside of this TC is the unavoidable loss
of 1 stop of light...the image |
|
| quality,
as already said, is excellent, and the AF remains pretty
fast even for wildlife subjects. I use it on my 600 f4
the 90% of time. |
The following samples show the
image quality of the lens wide open (f/5.6) and at f/8. The photos had been taken in RAW format and
converted with Photoshop CS2; I processed them to optimize the
image quality (contrast, color, sharpness), and I saved them
as high-quality JPEG for web display. You can download
both the processed JPEG and the original, untouched RAW file.
Click on every image to download
the full size JPEG sample, or use the RAW link to
download the untouched RAW (large files!). Please respect the
copyright! These images can be printed only to evaluate the
quality of the lens, for personal purposes. All other usages
are prohibited.
 |
 |
| Squacco
Heron - 1/3200 f/5.6 [ JPEG
/ RAW
] |
Juvenile
Night Heron - 1/1000 f/8 [ JPEG
/ RAW
] |
Canon EF 600mm f/4 L IS USM
+ Canon EF 2.0X TC II (in the field)
The Canon EF 2.0x doubles the
reach of your lens - in other words, the 600 f/4 becomes a whopping
1200mm f/8!
Even if the loss of image quality with the 2x
is more noticeable than with the 1.4x, the images are still
very good even wide open, and at f/11 - f/16 the sharpness is
excellent. I don't hesitate to use the 2x, when I need the
reach of this TC.
The following samples show the
image quality of the lens wide open (f/8) and at f/11. The photos had been taken in RAW format and
converted with Photoshop CS2; I processed them to optimize the
image quality (contrast, color, sharpness), and I saved them
as high-quality JPEG for web display. You can download
both the processed JPEG and the original, untouched RAW file.
Click on every image to download
the full size JPEG sample, or use the RAW link to
download the untouched RAW (large files!). Please respect the
copyright! These images can be printed only to evaluate the
quality of the lens, for personal purposes. All other usages
are prohibited.
 |
 |
| Juvenile
Night Heron - 1/1000 f/8 [ JPEG
/ RAW
] |
Grey
Heron - 1/640 f/11 [ JPEG
/ RAW
] |
Canon EF 600mm f/4 L IS USM
+ Canon EF 1.4X TC II
+ Canon EF 2.0X TC II (in the field)
The previous
studio test showed that stacked TCs, at f/16, gives
actually more detail than a up-resized 1200mm f/11
photo. This result holds true in the field?
I have tested extensively
the stacked TC, using all the best sharpness techniques
- sturdy tripod, Wimberley head, IS, remote release and
MLU. Nevertheless, the
results shows that, in the field, the 99% of times
stacked TC don't give any actual advantage.
The problem is not optical
quality - while stacked TC reduces considerably the
sharpness, they have the potential to deliver more
detail than 2x TCs. The real problem is motion blur,
that is almost unavoidable: consider that you have a
focal length of 1680mm, and you have to stop down to
f/16 to get acceptable image quality. Even using ISO 400
or ISO 800 in a bright sunny day, you will get shutter
speeds between a 1/200 and 1/400, that are quite slow to
freeze the vibrations of the camera/lens combo. In the
studio test the vibrations were not a problem, because
the tripod was placed on a solid, flat surface, the test
target was steady, and I used remote release and MLU. In the field, the majority of times the tripod is
places on a irregular surface of soil and rocks, the
subject rarely stays still and usually there is no time
to use MLU and remote.
The sample on the right
shows the same bird that I also photographed with the
600+2x - it was very cooperative, so I toke two photos
to compare the results. The image quality of
600+1.4x+2.0x is still acceptable, but if you compare it
with the same bird photographed with 600+2x, you will
see that the photo taken with stacked TCs doesn't have
any more detail, it is just more magnified.
As usual, the photo had been taken in RAW format and
converted with Photoshop CS2; I processed them to optimize the
image quality (contrast, color, sharpness), and I saved them
as high-quality JPEG for web display. You can download
both the processed JPEG and the original, untouched RAW file.
Note that the camera "sees" only one TC, so in
the EXIF it reports "1/400 f/11, 1200mm", even
though it actually is "1/400 f/16, 1680mm."
|
Grey Heron - 1/400 f/16 [
JPEG
/ RAW
]
|
Click on
the image to download
the full size JPEG sample, or use the RAW link to
download the untouched RAW (large files!). Please respect the
copyright! This images can be printed only to evaluate the
quality of the lens, for personal purposes. All other usages
are prohibited.
In conclusion, I think that
there is not any advantage using stacked TCs in the
field - you get better results shooting with 600+2x and
cropping the image, if necessary.
|
Other
Reviews
Conclusions
|
Pros
|
|
. Excellent image quality, even wide
open and with 1.4x TC
|
|
. Great reach (600, 840 and 1200 mm)
|
|
. Fast AF and very useful focus preset
|
|
. Very useful and effective image
stabilization
|
|
. First rate built quality; weather
sealed
|
|
. The short focusing distance allows to
photograph small subject
|
|
|
|
Cons
|
|
. Heavy and bulky
|
|
. Very expensive!
|
Conclusion
The Canon 600 f/4 is heavy and
bulky. It is very expensive, and you have to consider the cost
and the bulk of a professional tripod and Wimberley head, too.
Nevertheless, I love this lens! If you are seriously
interested to wildlife photography, the reach and the quality
of the 600 f/4 are truly unparalleled. I highly recommend
the Canon 600 f/4 L IS USM to professionals and serious hobbyists
who want the ultimate lens for wildlife photography.
Do you have
comments or questions?
If you have comments or questions about this
article, feel free to ask in the Juza
Nature Photography Discussion Forum!
|
