Canon 600mm F4

Messages
682
Name
Kell
Edit My Images
Yes
#1
There’s No real point to this except to say I Had a chance to play with a very bashed one of these through a photographer we’ve worked with in the past.

He’s leant it to a friend of mine as it was just sitting in a drawer doing nothing

What a beast of a thing.

Would love to take it out and have a proper play.

97086BBA-3595-4D03-837C-44DC8217DC1B.jpeg
 
OP
OP
Kell
Messages
682
Name
Kell
Edit My Images
Yes
#3
Have you felt the weight difference of the Mark III? Wow.
Lighter or heavier?

My mate just had the lens and camera - no tripod at work - so trying to take a shot was fun.
 
Messages
2,539
Name
Allen
Edit My Images
Yes
#8
I owned one and its a beast for sure , No way you would hand hold it , I was dubious using it on a monopod , Just on a very sturdy tripod
 
OP
OP
Kell
Messages
682
Name
Kell
Edit My Images
Yes
#9
I owned one and its a beast for sure , No way you would hand hold it , I was dubious using it on a monopod , Just on a very sturdy tripod
Yeah, I think my flimsy aluminium tripod would just collapse.
 

StewartR

Efrem Zimbalist Jr
Advertiser
Messages
12,059
Name
Stewart
Edit My Images
Yes
#10
Goodness, that's a first-generation (non-IS) EF lens, in production from 1988 to 1999. You don't see many of them around these days.

You'll be astonished by what Canon have done with the weight of 600mm f/4 lenses:
  • non-IS (1988) = 6.00 kg
  • IS Mk I (1999) = 5.36 kg
  • IS Mk II (2011) = 3.92 kg
  • IS Mk III (2018) = 3.05 kg
 
Messages
96
Edit My Images
No
#11
I wonder if all that weight loss , has / will have any effect on longevity and robustness . What have they actually changed to get that weight down I wonder . I would love to have the money for one , whilst I am still fit enough ( I think ) to carry it about .
 

StewartR

Efrem Zimbalist Jr
Advertiser
Messages
12,059
Name
Stewart
Edit My Images
Yes
#12
What have they actually changed to get that weight down I wonder.
Two main things.

Firstly, they're using different materials. The barrels are made of lighter materials - more carbon fibre, stuff like that - but more interestingly they've developed some new types of glass which have high refractive indices but low densities.

Secondly they've completely changed the optical design. Much more of the work happens towards the back of the lens, where the glass elements don't need to be so large and are therefore considerably lighter. Canon released images of the optical arrangement of the 400mm f/2.8 Mk III compared with it predecessors, and they followed the same approach with the 600 Mk III - see below. It really is extraordinary how the large front half of the lens is basically just full of air, and a welcome side-effect is that the lens balances much more comfortably with the centre of gravity further back.

1570723388726.png
 
OP
OP
Kell
Messages
682
Name
Kell
Edit My Images
Yes
#16
Messages
296
Name
Darren Russell
Edit My Images
Yes
#17
id love a go with one with those!
 
Messages
2,100
Name
Russell
Edit My Images
No
#18
Saw this and just had to check on the price of the MK lll after I got up off the floor I looked at differant retailers and supprise they are both selling at £12.999.00 so checked the Canon UK site and supprise supprise they are also selling it at £12,999.00, can I afford one? NO!! but if two retail shops sell it at that price and have to make a profit what profit is the Canon store making on the same lens? Russ.
 
Top