Again: 500 or 600

[darrill_stoddart]

In the next 2 weeks I will finally purchase either a 500 or 600mm f4

IS lens to be paired with an EOS 1D. Though there is a 1.3 focal

length multiplication factor with the 1D I suspect that this will

disappear in the next camera I purchase. I am leaning towards the

600 feeling that every last mm is important but having searched the

archives the weight issue seems to constantly reoccur. The latest

B&H prices show a difference between the two of $1600.

 

My usage is primarily in African game parks (such as Kruger) where

you are forced to photograph from a vehicle though more local to

home (Finland) I will use it on shorter hikes from a car. Subjects

are all animals and some birds though I have not devoted as much

time to birds in the past because I was limited in focal lengths.

 

I have used a 300 f2.8 AFS with an F5 in the past and found that I

was almost always attaching the 2x converter. I have a Gitzo 1349

tripod and a B1 ballhead.

 

Thanks in advance for your comments. Darrill

[craig_bridge]

I'm not sure anybody can really help on this one without knowing what your next shorter focal length lens will be, how much your willing to carry, and how interesting smaller birds will become.

 

I've got a D1X 1.5 factor and a 600. Putting on a 2x and having 1800mm is great at times, but when a large bird gets less than 15m away action shots are tough to frame because they are tight in camera crops. See my bird folder Egret Bass Supper for a full frame example where a 500 would have been easier to work with.

 

If you've got a light weight 400 (520), then a 600 (780) won't leave a huge gap, but you might find your using your 400 more than your 600. If your next shorter lens is 300, you'll have an ugly gap and the 500 is the better choice. If birds aren't a factor, then forget the 600 and lighten your pack with a 500.

[kferris575]

Darrill,

 

I also debated the 500 or 600. I had used a 500mm f4.5 manual focus for a few years before I changed to autofocus and I think that my experience with the 500mm had helped me with my decision. I also went on a phototour with a primary focus on birds before I made my final decision. This way I was able to see a lot of 500mm and 600mm in the field as well.

 

Ultimatley I decided on the 500mm because I felt it was the better lens for my purposes. I shoot animal and birds, but my primary focus is not on birds. In addition, I will hike some distances with the lens and the 500mm is lighter and easier to carry.

 

There are times I wish I had the extra 100mm but overall, I know I made the right choice for me and the type of shooting I do. I would say that if you are going to do any hiking (like a trip to Denali, etc.), go with the 500mm and converters. However, if you are going to do a lot of bird photography, go with the 600mm.

 

My decision was a little easier for me because I had experience with a 500mm and I was able to see a lot of 600mm in use. If you can get your hands on one or the other for a few days, it may help you with your decision. Try renting one for a weekend. You do not need to use a new "IS" version. Even a manual focus version will help you get the "feel" of the focal length and the weight of the lens.

 

I hope this is helpful.

Good luck

Kevin Ferris

www.ozarkimages.com

[ryan_taylor1]

Also consider your support. Your 1349 and B1 will handle the 500. I use a 1325/Kirk head with a 500 and it is adequate. However, I don't think I would feel comfortable putting the larger and heavier 600 on a 13 series tripod with small ballhead. The 600 would be better served by a larger tripod and a gimbal head. I also like to hike around and the overall weight and support issue made the the 500 the right choice for me.

[ShunCheung]

This topic has been discussed over and over. See these existing threads:

<P>

<A HREF="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=000Bqw">http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=000Bqw</A>

<BR>

<A HREF="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=000DWs">http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=000DWs</A>

<P>

In wildlife photography, an extra 100mm is helpful, but the main issue with the 600mm (and the 500mm also) is whether it is too heavy and bulky for you to carry around. That includs flights to Africa and your local hikes. While an extra 100mm is helpful, a few extra pounds (or Kg) are not. Only you can make that decision for yourself.

[alex_lofquist]

I believe that Art Morris, of bird photography fame, has recently gone back to using a 500 instead of the monster 600 he formerly carried. His decision was based largely on weight, though it may also have been the closer focussing distance of the 500 that had a bearing on his choice. The 500 is marginally "hand-holdable" where the 600 isn't.

 

Alex

[ShunCheung]

Well, we don't have to do whatever Arthur Morris, John Shaw, Galen Rowell, Art Wolfe ... do. I could be wrong, but I think Artie (Morris) has some back problems; that might have something to do with his switch to the lighter 500mm. Everybody's strength, health, shooting condition (hiking, shooting near a vehicle, having an assistant :-) ... may be different. That is why this is an individual decision.

 

I'll give you a couple of somewhat extreme examples. If you were Bill Gates or some other really rich guy with your own jet, getting a 600mm/f4 onto a plane flying to Africa is a non issue. A few years ago I bumped into Art Wolfe traveling to some very remote area. He was shooting with a 400mm/f2.8, which is about as big and heavey as a 600mm/f4. However, Art Wolfe had an assistent with him and the assistent carried the big lens during long hikes. Unfortunately, these options are not available to most of us ordinary folks.

[carlos_pimenta]

Darril,

 

I faced a similar decision and went for the 500 4.0 IS.The extra 100mm

on the 600 is nice,but believe me,with birds,you wil always wish for

more.Once you have a 600mm,you will wish for more reach and so on.I

photograph mainly birds,and I had the old Ef 600(non-IS) once,but I

sold it,cause I was not using it so much,cause size and weight.My

first 500,was the EF 500 4.5L,and I produced some nice images with

this lens.What is so good about those 500mm's,is that you will

actually use them,since they are so much easier to carry around in the

field.

 

Right now,when I go shoot,I carry a Elan7e/EF 300 4.0L IS on my

shoulders and the 500mm/EOS 3 stays on the tripod.I have found this

"combo" perfect for the kind of photography I do..

[wildpicture]

Darill,

 

Unless you are mostly photographing small birds (which you say you are not) a 500mm will be more than adequate in Africa. Specially if you have a 1.4x for those few times, you would need more reach. I have done quite a lot of wildlife photography in Africa and I never wished I had an 600 instead of a 500.

 

Shun made a very important remark about size and weigth. Not so much for carrying it around. That depends merely on your own built (size and strength). But if you plan to do a lot of air travel with a 600/4, I do not envy you! With most intercontintal flights having a 500mm as handluggage will already be very very difficult. Having a 600mm will be like a nightmare.

 

Regards,

Hans

[robert_kennedy]

Some good points have been made about the subject. Longer isn't always better. You have to consider the subject and the area you will be shooting in.

 

Sometimes you find yourself shootng in areas where you can get pretty close to the subject. A 600 could hurt you then. Other times you are so far away that any extra length counts. If taking a 600 with youmeans not being able to take say a 200, then you might want to really think about things. Unless you know you will never need that 200, it might not be worth the sacrafice.

 

Here is an extreme example of where size doesn't always help...<div></div>

[brian_kennedy]

As Shun mentioned, there are already some good threads on this topic. The consensus is get the 600 if you shoot mainly birds and are willing to carry a larger lens and larger tripod. There is little or no quality difference between the lenses.

 

FWIW, I prefer the 500 to the 600. Neither lens is portable, but the 500 is a bit smaller. When you are carrying either lens over the course of the day, you begin to notice the weight. With the 500, you hurt less.

[mark_lagrange3]

Darrill,

 

I currently own the 600/4 IS. I am very happy with my purchase ... for me. I am however, an extremist. I know myself. I know I would always be thinking "If only I had the 600,... I wouldn't have to use this 2X converter which isn't as sharp,... I wouldn't have to lose that extra stop of speed when attempting to freeze motion,... etc., etc., ... etc. I agreed with myself (that's a good thing) that I would resolve to carrying around the extra weight.

 

However, with the kind of shooting most people do, paired with the advent of a quality (D60) digital body (1.6 conversion), I can see where the 500 would be the best choice MOST of the time/for MOST people. Additionally, in your situation, your support (as Ryan said) would work only on the 500.

 

The weight differential is NOT a small issue. Most people only measure the weight difference of the lens. You must also add the weight of a wimberly or kirk tripod head. Oh .... and what about that step up in size of tripod. Can you do the math here? A 600 lens is inferior when its location is in the car trunk because you were unsure if a shoot might require it.

 

All that said, the 600 was and is right for me! Weight lifting was another goal of mine :)

[kinesisphotogear]

Visit this excellent thread for discussion regarding 400, 500 or 600mm.

http://www.naturephotographers.net/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=2&t=002923

[bob stewart jacksonville]

If you're going to concentrate on birds get the 600. If birds are not the primary focus get the 500. I have the 600 f/4 (not IS) and it is big committment. Its' heavy, requires a bigger tripod, bigger head (preferably a wimberly) and a bigger bag. you're looking at $2,000 in a new tripod, new head, and new bag to feed the 600's demands.

By the way I took a seminar with Arthur Moris theis Feruary. Several times he siad I'm just going to use the 500 here, but each time he said it, he ended up pulling out the 600.

[arthur_morris_birds_as_art]

Darrill, Hope that I am not too late. As long as you are choosing between the Canon 500mm and 600mm f/4 IS lenses, the correct lens for you is the 5 IS. It is lighter, it is less expensive, it focuses closer, it travels better, you do just some bird photography, and this lens produces razor sharp images at 1000mm with 1/2-way decent technique. (BTW, my back is fine, I am just getting old and lazy, but I do use the 600mm about half the time, esp. when I don't have too far to walk.) Here is an excerpt from a recent BIRDS AS ART Bulletin: CONFESSIONS

 

Though some may find it hard to believe, I am leaving the work horse 600mm f/4L IS lens at home for my AZ/CA trip and packing the 500mm f/4 L IS lens. And, as if that is not enough, I am bringing the Gitzo Carbon Fiber 1325 and leaving the heavier CF 1548 at home. Am I getting older? Sure I am . And so are you. As I have used the 500mm IS more and more in recent months, I have grown to love its relatively light weight and the razor sharp images that it produces routinely. And last but not least, I must publicly admit that I am taking 55 rolls of Provia F 100 and "only" 50 rolls of my beloved Velvia; speed is addictive!

 

I will be photographing hawks with Ned Harris in a valley south of Tucson for a few days, and then heading on to San Diego to see my Mom and lead the sold out Southern California IPT. I just can never get enough of those breeding plumage Brown Pelicans on the cliffs of LaJolla.

 

All are invited to receive our free opn-line Bulletins; e-mail birdsasart@att.net to request same.

 

Best and great picture making to all, Arhtur Morris/www.birdsasart.com

[ShunCheung]

Artie, glad to know that your back is fine; sorry about the wrong information. Unfortunately, we are all getting old, or at least older.

[mark_lagrange3]

Getting older ??? Speak for yourselves! When does that 600/2.8 IS come out? :)

 

 

"denial at its finest"

[alex_lofquist]

To Mark:

Denial was at its finest before the built the Aswan High Dam. \

 

Best, Alex

[ShunCheung]

This question is the classic case that if you ask 10 people, you receive 11 different opinions. Some questions such as which film to use, 70-200mm f4 or f2.8, which medium-format camera to buy, 500mm vs. 600mm/f4 ..., you just have to make up your own mind based on your particular circumstances.

 

Outside factors also influence one's decision. After September 11 (2001), the more severe air travel restrictions seem to favor the 500mm/f4 more, but the lighter lens has always been my choice anyway.

[brian_kennedy]

Hey, Shun, that's easy! RDP, 2.8, 67II, 500 ;-).

[cecil_wormsborough_st__joh]

I'd like to suggest a third alternative, a 400mm f2.8. I used to carry a 300mm and a 600mm and often used a 1.4x on both. When I felt the need for more magnification I even went so far as to borrow a couple of 800mm f5.6 lenses from their respective importers for a few days. I decided the extra size and weight of the 800s made them impractical so I stuck with my 600 until I was loaned a 400mm f2.8 for a project. Having found the 400 very useful once I had to return it I bought my own. I started carrying just the 400 and the 300 and 600 sat gathering dust in my equipment cabinet. Having not used the 600 for about a year I sold it and have never regretted doing so.

 

For me there are several benefits to the 400. I fly frequently and although a 400 is heavy it's smaller than a 600 for getting on board with as hand luggage. It has an extra stop of light available at dawn and dusk which I personally find very useful. When shooting out of a vehicle or in a blind it's more user friendly due to its shorter length. And when coupled with a 1.4x and 2x TCs you have a 560mm f4 and an 800mm f5.6.

 

If you're already prepared to carry a 600 carrying a 400 of similar weight is no big deal. I know what I'd rather shoot out of a vehicle in Africa with.

[ShunCheung]

While a few well known pros now use the 400mm/f2.8, IMO, if what you really need is a 600mm for birds and small animals, a 400mm/f2.8 is not a good alternative. One can compromise with a 500mm/f4 and get the benefit of a smaller and lighter lens. With a 400mm, you'll end up using either a 1.4x or 2x teleconvertor most of the time (if not all the time) as you did with the 300mm/f2.8, thus degrading your image quality somewhat without the benefit of a lighter lens. And in the occasions that you really focal length, a 500mm or 600mm with a 2x TC will get you 1000mm or 1200mm. With a 400mm, you'll always be behind because you start with a shorter focal length.

 

A 400mm/f2.8 may make sense if you typically shoot larger animals and only need the very long focal lengths occasionally. Otherwise, you are buying the wrong lens if you end up using a TC with it all the time (assuming that you can afford the alternatives).

[mark_lagrange3]

Gotta agree with Shun's teleconverter critique of the 400/2.8. The 400/2.8 rules for a different use ... sports. You will commonly use this lens at 400 and at 2.8, occasionally you will get exotic and use a 1.4X converter. A 600/4 just doesn't fit the bill for sports.

 

.... but for birds ..... 600/4 (ultimate) or 500/4 (weight)

[gary_s_meredith]

Darrill

When I went to A photo class ( I P T tour with Arthur Morris )

last November I used A Canon ( CPS loaner lens ) the 600 IS it

was great to try this lens out.

 

But there is only one problem with using this lens it is A VERY

HEAVY load ( 11.7 pounds ) at the time my main lens was the 500 4.5

it is VERY LIGHT ( 6.6 pounds ), now I have made A decsion to use

the 500 IS it is ok to carry ( 8.5 pounds ) and it has auto-focus

with the 2x on the ( EOS-3, EOS-1V and EOS-1D ) this is something

to consider, ( try walking A mile down A sandy beach to photograph

the Shore-Birds or even small Animals, carrying the BIG lens might

get you the bigger frame size, ( but is it worth the health problems ) I don't think so, this is why I chose the 500 IS lens .

 

Gary S Meredith

[cecil_wormsborough_st__joh]

<P>Not all the people on this forum are North American bird photographers. I suggested the 400mm f2.8 as a third alternative based on the usage described in the question.

 

<P><I>My usage is primarily in African game parks (such as Kruger) where you are forced to photograph from a vehicle though more local to home (Finland) I will use it on shorter hikes from a car.</I>

 

<P>I know which lens I'd prefer to use out of a vehicle, especially for and dawn or dusk game drives. I was also considering the fact that in Europe the use of permanent and portable hides to get close to your subject is much more common than it is in North America.

 

<P>As for the use of TCs with a lens, I long ago stopped worrying about that. You soon learn by testing and using lens/TC combinations which of those combinations work for you. The only thing that matters to me about using a TC is that the lens/TC combination produces images of publishable quality.