This will be a multi-part, multi-day review compiled over time. It will focus primarily on using the lens to photograph birds. My main concern is to talk about using the lens in the field and the quality of the photos it produces with different setups and in different conditions. I use it with the 1.4x III extender, the 2.0x III extender, and on its own. My camera body is a Canon 5D Mark IV. My experience with the Canon EF 100-400mm II is my main point of comparison.
Why I Bought One:
I bit the bullet and purchased a dream "monster" lens: Canon's new EF 600mm F/4 III. For a couple of years now, I've been shooting with the Canon EF 100-400mm II, which is a fabulous lens for bird photography. It's light and mobile for long birding walks, it provides very fast auto-focus, and it produces very sharp images. I've recommended this lens to many bird photographers looking to upgrade to a longer telephoto zoom, or looking to replace their Sigma or Tamron lens of similar focal length.
Sometimes, though, 400mm isn't enough. So, you add a 1.4x extender and suddenly you're shooting at 540mm. The compromise here, though, is that your aperture goes to F/8, which requires more light (higher ISO to compensate), slows down autofocus, and sometimes produces too much depth of field, creating backgrounds with more detail and less pleasing bokeh for isolating the bird from its background.
Enter the 600mm monster (I've named mine Cyclops). If you're reading this, then you've probably been doing research on the lens, so I won't go through all the technical specifications, except for a momentary word on weight. Yes, it's heavier than the 100-400, and much larger. BUT, it's much lighter than its predecessor. I've only had the lens for four days, but I'm confident that I'll feel comfortable shooting handheld for short periods of time.
Day One:
For my first day, I went to a place nearby where some Eastern Bluebirds are spending the winter. Hamilton winters can often be mild in comparison to other areas in Canada, but we can still get a lot of snow and we always have very cold periods when the lows can hit -20C or lower. So, to have a group of 17 Eastern Bluebirds close by is a real treat at a time of year when many of the colourful birds have migrated south. As an added bonus, a Northern Shrike is living in the same field. If you've ever photographed Northern Shrikes, you know that they can be quite skittish and tend to stay far away from you.
First Shots: Handheld, No Extender
My first shots with the 600mm III were handheld, no extender attached. When I arrived at the Bluebird field, I was delighted to see an Eastern Bluebird fairly close to the road. So, I grabbed the camera and fired off a few quick snaps. Unfortunately, I didn't check my settings, which were still set for the 100-400mm. The ISO was far too high, so the photos were quite over-exposed.
Soon thereafter, another Bluebird showed up in a particularly nice setting. I took about 10 handheld shots until the bird was flushed by another birder trying to get a better view. The results were mixed: some shots were tack sharp, others were slightly soft. It didn't take long for my arms to shake a little holding the camera on the bird, waiting for it to turn its head. With the 100-400mm, this is a common practice for me. It won't be with the 600mm III, unless I start doing weights soon!
Here are two samples of those photographs and the camera settings I used. They are unedited except for being cropped for composition and to provide closer detail of the bird. The photos were exported from Lightroom into JPG format, resized to 1400 pixels on the long edge at 100% quality, with no sharpening applied. They exhibit some noise having been shot at ISO 1250.
![]() | |
|
![]() | |
|
Note that I was still habitually thinking in terms of using the 100-400mm, so my settings were not what I would use now that I've acclimated a bit more to the lens's capabilities (not sure why I was shooting at f/6.3!). Both photos are noisy because they're shot at ISO 1250 and have had no noise reduction applied. I think the difference in sharpness/focus is mainly due to shooting handheld, even though the shutter speed was relatively high.
The first photo is quite soft. A faster shutter speed might have fixed this. The second photo, with the Bluebird looking further away from the camera, is quite sharp. It doesn't really need much editing for sharpness at all. I was very happy with this example of the lens without an extender attached.
Here's my favourite photo from that set:
![]() |
The next test was with the 1.4x extender attached and the camera on a tripod with a gimbal head. It's been a very long time since I've used a tripod (the 100-400mm doesn't need one), and I'd never used a gimbal head before, so my technique was as novice at it could be!
The bird house in this photo was quite close (20 - 25 feet away).
![]() |
Canon 600mm III + 1.4x III, Tripod, f/5.6, ISO 800, 1/2000s, -2/3 EV |
On this day, the keeper rate for photos with the 1.4x attached was much lower than with the 100-400mm + 1.4x, but I attribute this mainly to poor technique using a tripod.
Day Two:
The next day was very windy, and even with the camera and lens attached to a tripod, it was quite challenging to get sharp photos at all, so I won't include any discussion of those.
Day Three:
I discovered after Day One that the firmware on the lens had not been updated to the most recent firmware released in November (version 1.1.2). So, I updated the firmware, which was meant to address some problems with the image stabilization at slow shutter speeds. I went to the Bluebird field again, this time hoping for some good looks at the Northern Shrike.
All photos this day were taken with the 1.4x attached and the camera on the tripod. I wanted to practice my tripod technique and to see if the firmware update made a difference. I'm not sure if the firmware made a difference, but my technique using the tripod was certainly better. The keeper rate rose substantially. Again, my experience the 1.4x attached to the 600mm III was similar to my experience with the 1.4x attached to the 100-400mm II. The photos needed some sharpening, but were still quite good. This is a small compromise for the extra focal length (600mm vs. 840mm).
Here area few shots from that day, cropped for composition, before and after editing:
![]() | |
|
![]() |
Edited in Lightroom |
![]() |
Canon 600mm III + 1.4x III, Tripod, f/5.6, ISO 640, 1/800s, 0 EV |
![]() |
Edited in Lightroom |
The next tests will be with the 2.0x III attached. My assumption is that the photos will be best for record shots of birds far away rather than for high quality bird photos to share.
No comments:
Post a Comment