Posted by Kurt Bowman on February 24, 2014 at 5:07 PM
FYI - This question pertains to the "older IS" version of these lenses.
I have the opportunity to purchase a used 600mm f/4 IS. I currently own the 500mm f/4 IS (again, both version 1). I would most likely need to sell my 500 to get the 600 and I really don't want to do that just to find out later I made a mistake. So I was hoping someone who has shot with both could chime in and help with my thought process.
So far all the research I have seen says the sharpness and performance are almost identical. If anyone knows something different than that, please let me know. My biggest concern is the weight difference. I believe my 500 wigs about 8.5 pounds and I see the 600 weighs about 3 pounds more (I know that doesn't sound like a lot).
How I use my lens:
I hardly ever hand hold my 500 although have a few times. I mostly shoot on a tripod with a Gimbal type head. I also frequently shoot off the car window with a sandbag. When shooting with my tripod, I do hike it out once in awhile, but usually don't wonder more than a mile or so when carrying the big lens.
I am wondering if someone out there has had experience with both lenses and what their thoughts are on the difference? Does the weight really come into play much? Are the articles online correct about performance being equal? Or do you have other advice on whether or not this would be a good idea to upgrade? I should also add....since Canon seems to be moving in the direction of using nothing but full frame sensors in their professional bodies (and loosing the 1.3 sensor on the 1D series), focal length has become a bigger concern to me lately.
Thanks for any help.
Posted by jack jaeger jr on February 26, 2014 at 11:17 PM
I love my 500 I do hike with mine so wouldn't like the extra 3lbs, I have never used the 600.
Posted by Greg Lessard on February 27, 2014 at 1:43 AM
I am a Nikon shooter. I just upgraded to their 600 and wish I had done it years ago. The extra reach is amazing. f5 to f4 will help a bit too. Personally, I don't mind the extra weight. Its been worth it for the extra reach!
I use only full format sensors and I have a 500/4 IS-I and a 600/4 AF,non-IS which weighs 13lbs and that extra 5 lbs really does make a difference. I only use the 600 on a tripod or on a bean bag from my vehicle. When using either of them in the vehicle, just the extra length and front lens hood diameter differences is a handling issue. I much prefer the 500 except when photographing small perching birds. I bought the 600 first and then bought the 500 a few years later when I decided to go to Churchill for polar bears because the window openings on those tundra buggings are too small for the 600 hood. When flying internationally I leave the 600 home, every lb counts. Both lenses are equally sharp and I have read that the 600 IS-I is actually a bit less sharp than my non-IS 600, but that the 600 IS II is sharper than the 600 IS-I .
The 600 is harder to use than the 500 because of the increased size of the hood, increased length, and increased magnification (higher shutter speeds, MLU, and using a shutter release cable help with the magnification issue). The extra weight is actually beneficial when on a tripod (gimbal style head is mandatory) or on a beanbag.
I did daypack 14 miles with the 600 and a 9lb tripod plus 2 other short lenses in Glacier NP once. I don't plan on ever repeating that episode.
Currently my usage ratio between the 500/600 is about 3/1.
You are welcome to try my 600 if it helps you to compare the weight/size issues better. I live in Woodland Park, but I drive about the state often, so perhaps we could meet up somewhere.
Posted by Rick Cloran on March 12, 2014 at 5:25 PM
Like Don, I have the 500 F4 IS-1 and the 600 F4 non-IS. The 600 may be the sharpest lens I have ever owned, but I came to a point where my old film rig (600, Gitzo 410, EOS V-1 with drive, Studio ball head) would put a dent in my shoulder after the second mile. Simply put, after some distance carrying it isn't fun anymore. I'd guess my ratio is 5 /1 in favor of the 500 now. I miss using the 600 for the extra reach and the way it performed, just not enough to schlep it long distances any more. In fact, the 600 is for sale. So if you try Don's and decide you like it, drop me a line.
Discussion
4 repliesI have the opportunity to purchase a used 600mm f/4 IS. I currently own the 500mm f/4 IS (again, both version 1). I would most likely need to sell my 500 to get the 600 and I really don't want to do that just to find out later I made a mistake. So I was hoping someone who has shot with both could chime in and help with my thought process.
So far all the research I have seen says the sharpness and performance are almost identical. If anyone knows something different than that, please let me know. My biggest concern is the weight difference. I believe my 500 wigs about 8.5 pounds and I see the 600 weighs about 3 pounds more (I know that doesn't sound like a lot).
How I use my lens:
I hardly ever hand hold my 500 although have a few times. I mostly shoot on a tripod with a Gimbal type head. I also frequently shoot off the car window with a sandbag. When shooting with my tripod, I do hike it out once in awhile, but usually don't wonder more than a mile or so when carrying the big lens.
I am wondering if someone out there has had experience with both lenses and what their thoughts are on the difference? Does the weight really come into play much? Are the articles online correct about performance being equal? Or do you have other advice on whether or not this would be a good idea to upgrade? I should also add....since Canon seems to be moving in the direction of using nothing but full frame sensors in their professional bodies (and loosing the 1.3 sensor on the 1D series), focal length has become a bigger concern to me lately.
Thanks for any help.
The 600 is harder to use than the 500 because of the increased size of the hood, increased length, and increased magnification (higher shutter speeds, MLU, and using a shutter release cable help with the magnification issue). The extra weight is actually beneficial when on a tripod (gimbal style head is mandatory) or on a beanbag.
I did daypack 14 miles with the 600 and a 9lb tripod plus 2 other short lenses in Glacier NP once. I don't plan on ever repeating that episode.
Currently my usage ratio between the 500/600 is about 3/1.
You are welcome to try my 600 if it helps you to compare the weight/size issues better. I live in Woodland Park, but I drive about the state often, so perhaps we could meet up somewhere.