I sold my 400mm f/2.8 lens for a 600mm f/4 for Wildlife (Canon RF 600mm F4 Review)

In this video I discuss why I sold my Canon 400mm f/2.8 II to switch to the new RF 600mm f/4 and give my initial impressions of the new lens paired with a Canon R5 for wildlife photography.
What prime lens do you think is best for wildlife photography? Let me know in the comments.

0:00 - Intro
1:12 - Why I sold my 400mm f/2.8
4:13 - 400mm f/2.8 vs 600mm f/4 example
8:34 - Why I chose the RF 600mm f/4 over used EF II or III
15:24 - Final thoughts
16:21 - RF 600mm Image samples
17:00 - Conclusion
19:20 - My workshops

[HuFilms]

I think you’re right to get the RF. And totally right about not using the tc. This lens is on my radar too. Nothing really compares to the quality you get. If you use a 100-500 you’ll always be wishing you had that f4 and 600.

[alexabadi]

I don't have a 400mm f/2.8 anymore (Nikon) but I use now the 500mm f/4, the 600mm f/4 and the 200-400mm f/4 VR.
I had the 400mm f/2.8 for several years, but always found it to short and to heavy to be use by hands.
So now I use the 200-400mm f/4 VR by hands and the others telephotos lenses with a monopod.
The D850 give me very nice ISO settings up to 800.

[robertlawrence]

When I was starting out in photography back in the early 80s I was told never to use extenders unless absolutely necessary. If i was constantly finding a need to use an extender then I was using the wrong lens.
Even though technological advances have greatly improved the quality of extenders I still hold true to that advice.

[marksuchomelsr]

Syler, I have a 600 version 1 and love it to death, but moving it around can be a struggle. I use it more when I am mostly stationary. I'm looking at the RF version for the future and look forward to being able to carry it around or with a monopod rather than having to have a tripod all the time.

[blueskysmile]

Hey Syler, absolutely loved your video! You explained the comparison lenses well and gave me a lot to think about. I just bought the Canon R6 with adapter for my good ole EF400mm and was curious to hear about the RF600 which a bit out of my league pricewise right now, but it's always good to dream, haha, or should I say, create goals. I'm happy to know you lead wildlife expeditions and have added that to my goal list and will need to look into renting the RF600F4. BTW, stunning images! Thank you, again! Happy shooting :)

[photoapeal]

Good to know, I was thinking maybe I should have purchased the EF400 f2.8 instead of the EF 600 f/4 II, Looks like I made the right decision. My main subjects are birds, ducks etc. in flight.

[MichaelF]

Thank you for this great review. I'm headed to the Tetons or Yellowstone in May to back pack and hopefully see some nice wildlife. I have the 100-500 right now, but I def want this 600.

[LivPoxleitner]

great shots! i like the natural colors in the photos. somthing im trying to do. im more into videography

[ghlocal]

I actually own and love both lenses……..but the low light and image quality of the 400mm f/2.8 makes it the best wildlife lens I’ve ever owned!!

[WilliamJohnston]

Your images are INCREDIBLE! Thanks for the review, I have the 400 IS II just now and considering upgrading to a 600 for the exact reasons you mention, the one thing swaying me to the 600 IS II is that older lenses have lost the majority of their depreciated value already, so financially slightly better, if okay with staying a generation or two behind, which I may need to consider as a new dad and not someone who makes much money from wildlife photography. My wedding photography will need to pay for a luxury lens like this, but at least it's tax deductible!

[Jessehermansonphotography]

The interesting thing to me about Sony, Canon and Nikon moving the lens elements to the back of the lens is that those special elements are much smaller. Being so much smaller they should be significantly cheaper to make. (Which they are)
Amazingly the build quality is similar, the the cost of production has dropped significantly, yet the price has increased.

The good part of that complaint is that the used lenses from EF and F mount are still amazing. (Canon version 2 and 3 and Nikon E)

[dougsturgess]

Hey Syler. Thanks for this informative video. Just what I needed to hear. Are you aware if Canon ever discounts the 600 f/4 during their biannual sales?

[texmex]

Great video. 400 f2.8 and 600mm F4 are both fantastic lenses for sports or for wildlife. In my opinion the 400 is the better choice for field sports, and the 600 is better for wildlife. I shoot both and have owned both in a few versions, so far all EF. Right now I have the EF 600mm f4 IS II, which is known for being very sharp with both the 1.4 and 2.0X extenders vIII. That has been my experience, though I shoot an R3 so fewer MP.

[VinceMaidens]

Don't discount the RF tc's, both the 1.4 and 2x are brilliant. I have negligible IQ impact and speed is great. Good choice in going RF for all the rationalisation you state

[smurgy]

I use 400/F2.8 III in Africa. The reasons being: reach is enough, better in low light, much easier to travel with. But I use 600/F4 II at home for birds, otters, etc.

[attiksystem]

Excellent considerations! I especially like when you tell us about "ethics" @ 7:15 . I own a 500 f4 and I'm not quite sure what lens would be "ideal" for me. I have a few questions: how do you travel with such a big lens? Do you have a backpack that is big enough? And aren't you sometimes "too close" from a subject with 600mm? Have you ever done "panorama-like" shots in this situation? Final question: do you miss sometimes this extra light stop you had with your 400mm f 2.8, in low-light situations?

[michael_sterling]

My RF 600 f/4 with an R7 is what I use almost 100 percent of the time for birds. The crop on the R7 gives me 960mm at f/4. Unfortunately, he R7 suffers from some pretty bad rolling shutter so I have to use first curtain electronic shutter.

[BobMechanic]

400mm 2.8 is a compromised. I owned the FD version starting in 1983 when it was introduced. Canon had no 600 4.0 so it was a no brainer purchase. I shot a lot of college/pro sports, nature, and auto racing. In shooting it, I always liked having the ability to gain that extra stop if needed, however I shot it primarily with the 1.4x most of the time as well. The 400mm focal length overall I found was just too short for most things. It was “ok” for auto racing, but short for nearly all field sports, and too long most of the time for indoor sports. Specifically for wildlife (I documented the regrowth of Yellowstone for Newsweek in 1989) it’s again too short IMHO large animals where your safety requires distance. I would recommend a two lens solution instead. Buy a 600 4.0 and a 300 2.8. The 600 is what you’re wanting to achieve in reach and if you’re needing something smaller and lighter with less reach you’ll be quite happy with the 300 2.8 due to its focal length being closer to 400mm. The desperation in focal length between 600 and 300 makes them the ideal pairing in terms of the various in light, length, and image capture. I realize their are many variables and personal choices that come into play when choosing ones kit. All three lenses mentioned here (600, 400, 300) will never disappoint on image quality.

[aarong]

great video! In the situation where I'm trying to decide between the two. Really wish they had a rf with builtin TC

[snappycanon]

Hi Syler, I'm waiting for the R5 Mk II, as the R5 is never going to power the extra motor I don't see the point in me paying an extra £4, 000 for the same piece of glass. In the UK right now the RF is £14, 179.00 ( $ 17, 882.00 as of 21/2/2024) all the company's here in the UK, have got a price fix going on. I have found the EF as low as £9, 999.00 new ( $ 12, 609.00 ) we really are paying through the nose in the UK I'm just a amateur wildlife photographer so I have no chance of ever making money on my photos. so cost is a big thing. Great information and images and a good review thank you. 👍(451)