Posted by Chris Grady on August 28, 2006 at 1:08 PM
Hi everyone,
I'm looking to get the Canon 600 IS soon but would like to know if anyone out there has got a good reason why I should go for the 500 instead. Yes I know it costs more and it is heavier, but is there any other real drawbacks with it?
Put it another way, would anyone with the 500mm IS out there not swap to the 600 if it was the same weight and cost the same?
Thanks
Chris
PS This is my first post so I hope I've done it right!
I use Nikon rather than Canon, but Ican contribute insights. Before buying, I rented both a 500 f/4 and a 600 f/4 and used them for a week in the field. The tradeoff was between the small gain in "magnfication" and the extra weight and bulk. For my uses, it was easy to choose the 500. There were rare instances, especially for birds, when the 600 offered gains, but on long days the 500 was much less a burden. For large mammals and such, the 600 offered me no worthwhile advantages.
In your shoes I would closely examine your needs and how you will use the lense to determine if you can put up with the extra bulk and weight, and whether or not an extra 100mm in focal length would be that much of a gain.
Hi Chris,
I have the 600 IS and I love it. It is razor sharp, and it is also an excellent 840 and 1200mm. That said, it is big and heavy - very heavy! If you plan to carry the lens for long walks, you should consider carefully the bulk of this lens.
If I had to come back, I'd buy again the 600, but I'd love if Canon made a smaller and lighter version of this lens.
Posted by Chris Grady on August 28, 2006 at 2:19 PM
Thankyou both for your replies.
Juza, I've read your reveiw (a few times) and can tell how much you like this lens. But how does it compare to the 500 IS for image quality and is the massive 5.5m min focus distance a big problem when full framing small birds etc?
Posted by Bill Pelzmann on August 28, 2006 at 3:21 PM
I have the 500mm and enjoy it immensely. I frequently use it with the 1.4x TC on a full frame sensor, so I definitely could use a 600mm for birds. However, I have handheld the 500mm, something that I'm sure would NOT happen with the 600mm.
Also, in the past, many have chosen the 500mm because it could be more easily taken as airline carryon. That may no longer be a distinguishing issue if all carryon continues to be restricted.
You can't go wrong with either choice.
Posted by Chris Grady on August 28, 2006 at 4:52 PM
Thanks for your reply Bill.
I don't expect to hand hold the 600mm or a 500mm Canon, or take them on airlines so weight is not really an issue for me.
Nice pics.
Posted by Chris Grady on August 28, 2006 at 4:52 PM
Thanks for your reply Bill.
I don't expect to hand hold the 600mm or a 500mm Canon, or take them on airlines so weight is not really an issue for me.
Hi Chris,
the image quality is the same. So far I don't have much experience with small birds, but even with the min. focussing distance of 5.5 mt you can get a pretty good magnification, in particular with TCs.
Last year I had the same delema and decided on the 500. The weight and portability were the main issues. 8.5 lbs vs 11 lbs is a BIG difference. I shoot with a 1DMK2 so the 1.3 crop helps. I also use the 1.4 TC often and am considring a 2X TC purchase soon. The only thing I need the 2 X for is small song birds. I often hand hold the 500. I also didn't have to upgrade my tripod to hold an 11 lb lens!
However, I beleive it is strictly a personal decision based on your particular needs. Both are among the best lenses made in the world so from a quality point of view they are equal.
Welcome to NPN
Posted by Cliff Beittel on August 29, 2006 at 6:56 AM
But how does it compare to the 500 IS for image quality and is the massive 5.5m min focus distance a big problem when full framing small birds etc?
I own both. Though I haven't tested them (no need), the 500 is said to have a slight (in my mind meaningless) edge in sharpness. The minimum focusing distance is no problem. For very small birds or similar subjects, you just use a 25mm extension tube along with a 1.4x teleconverter. While either lens works fine with a 2X teleconverter, and I've made many fine shots with a 2X, it does limit you to the center AF sensor, and I much prefer to have all the sensors available. Bottom line: If you are strong enough to carry the 600, specialize in birds, shoot a full-frame camera, and often travel by car, those would be factors in favor of the 600. If the 600's weight is a problem, you shoot as many mammals as birds, you shoot a less than full-frame camera, and you often travel by air, those would be factors that favor the 500.
Posted by Chris Grady on August 29, 2006 at 3:38 PM
Thanks everyone for your replies - even yours Alex!. Looks like I'm going to go for the 600mm.
Once again thankyou
Chris
Posted by Josh Anderson on August 30, 2006 at 2:18 PM
I have the 600 and wouldn't trade it for anything. If $ isn't an issue, go for the 600. You won't regret it.
Posted by Jon Swanson on September 22, 2006 at 12:53 AM
I am glad I purchased the 600mm. I don't see why everyone makes such a big deal about three pounds. The tradeoffs are too great to worry about that. I mean seriously.....it's only three pounds! But whatever floats your boat I say. The type of photography should matter most in a person's choice.
Discussion
13 repliesI'm looking to get the Canon 600 IS soon but would like to know if anyone out there has got a good reason why I should go for the 500 instead. Yes I know it costs more and it is heavier, but is there any other real drawbacks with it?
Put it another way, would anyone with the 500mm IS out there not swap to the 600 if it was the same weight and cost the same?
Thanks
Chris
PS This is my first post so I hope I've done it right!
I use Nikon rather than Canon, but Ican contribute insights. Before buying, I rented both a 500 f/4 and a 600 f/4 and used them for a week in the field. The tradeoff was between the small gain in "magnfication" and the extra weight and bulk. For my uses, it was easy to choose the 500. There were rare instances, especially for birds, when the 600 offered gains, but on long days the 500 was much less a burden. For large mammals and such, the 600 offered me no worthwhile advantages.
In your shoes I would closely examine your needs and how you will use the lense to determine if you can put up with the extra bulk and weight, and whether or not an extra 100mm in focal length would be that much of a gain.
I have the 600 IS and I love it. It is razor sharp, and it is also an excellent 840 and 1200mm. That said, it is big and heavy - very heavy! If you plan to carry the lens for long walks, you should consider carefully the bulk of this lens.
If I had to come back, I'd buy again the 600, but I'd love if Canon made a smaller and lighter version of this lens.
My in-depth review here : Canon EF 600mm f/4 L IS USM Field Review
Juza, I've read your reveiw (a few times) and can tell how much you like this lens. But how does it compare to the 500 IS for image quality and is the massive 5.5m min focus distance a big problem when full framing small birds etc?
Here are some handheld 500mm shots:
http://www.pelzmann.smugmug.com/photos/63714998-O.jpg
http://www.pelzmann.smugmug.com/photos/60078113-O.jpg
Also, in the past, many have chosen the 500mm because it could be more easily taken as airline carryon. That may no longer be a distinguishing issue if all carryon continues to be restricted.
You can't go wrong with either choice.
I don't expect to hand hold the 600mm or a 500mm Canon, or take them on airlines so weight is not really an issue for me.
Nice pics.
I don't expect to hand hold the 600mm or a 500mm Canon, or take them on airlines so weight is not really an issue for me.
Nice pics.
the image quality is the same. So far I don't have much experience with small birds, but even with the min. focussing distance of 5.5 mt you can get a pretty good magnification, in particular with TCs.
A couple of examples:
http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/galleries/aculepeira_sp.htm
http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/galleries/sympetrum_fonscolombei-red_veined_darter.htm
Last year I had the same delema and decided on the 500. The weight and portability were the main issues. 8.5 lbs vs 11 lbs is a BIG difference. I shoot with a 1DMK2 so the 1.3 crop helps. I also use the 1.4 TC often and am considring a 2X TC purchase soon. The only thing I need the 2 X for is small song birds. I often hand hold the 500. I also didn't have to upgrade my tripod to hold an 11 lb lens!
However, I beleive it is strictly a personal decision based on your particular needs. Both are among the best lenses made in the world so from a quality point of view they are equal.
Welcome to NPN
I own both. Though I haven't tested them (no need), the 500 is said to have a slight (in my mind meaningless) edge in sharpness. The minimum focusing distance is no problem. For very small birds or similar subjects, you just use a 25mm extension tube along with a 1.4x teleconverter. While either lens works fine with a 2X teleconverter, and I've made many fine shots with a 2X, it does limit you to the center AF sensor, and I much prefer to have all the sensors available. Bottom line: If you are strong enough to carry the 600, specialize in birds, shoot a full-frame camera, and often travel by car, those would be factors in favor of the 600. If the 600's weight is a problem, you shoot as many mammals as birds, you shoot a less than full-frame camera, and you often travel by air, those would be factors that favor the 500.
Once again thankyou
Chris