Canon 500mm IS vs Canon 600mm IS

[dale_yarbrough]

Has anyone had experience with both lenses? I finally saved enough lunch money

to buy a Canon telephoto and I'd like to find someone to help me compare the

two. Thanks in advance!

[leopoldstotch]

You can start by comparing reviews from <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-500mm-f-4.0-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx">here</a> and <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-600mm-f-4.0-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx">here</a>. In a nutshell, it all comes down to whether or not the 100mm difference is enough to justify the difference in price.

[mark_chappell]

Another place to start would be to search the archives on this site. You'll find a lot of

threads. It also might help if you let us know what you intend to photograph.

 

Basically, the 600 is sufficiently bigger than the 500 (3 inches longer, 3 pounds heavier) to

make it a lot more ... awkward isn't quite the right word, maybe 'challenging'... to manage.

You have to get your equipment to where your subjects are, and if that includes some

hiking, you will be happier with the 500 than with the 600 in terms of weight. Many

people, myself included, will hand-hold a 500/4 for images of flying birds. That's much

less do-able with the 600/4, although I've seen it done. Fitting the 500 into airline carry-

on bags is considerably easier than with the 600. Manuvering the lens from inside a

vehicle (a very good way to get wildlife images) is easier with the 500.

 

Both are excellent lenses; several reviews suggest that the 500 is a bit sharper than the

600. Neither focuses close enough for frame-filling shots of small birds, if that's of any

relevance to you.

[alan_myers]

Hi,

 

Well, I don't have experience with both. Frankly, I couldn't imagine needing both and haven't come up against a situation where I needed to rent a 600mm for some special purpose. Even if I had, I'd be a bit reluctant to compare a rental lens that's had a tough life with a lens I bought new and have personally maintained rather carefully.

 

Both the 500 and the 600 are truly top notch lenses, from all the research I did when shopping. Canon's telephoto lenses were a key reason I bought into the system initially.

 

I opted for the 500mm because it weighs less and is smaller. The 600 is a lot bigger! (In fact, the 400/2.8 is also bigger than the 500/4.) I ain't gettin' any younger.

 

Plus I could use a more flexible tripod arrangement with the 500. That is basically a Gitzo 1325 with Kirk BH-1 and Wimberley Sidekick gimbal mount. Shooting wildlife, I definitely wanted a gimbal mount. The Sidekick is quickly and easily removed to convert back to a standard ballhead without tools, to use the tripods with other cameras and lenses.

 

Due to it's size and weight, with 600 (and 400/2.8 for that matter) require you to use one of the full size gimbal mounts, which is essentially permanently installed on the tripod in place of the ballhead (it can be swapped for a ballhead with tools). This means a dedicated tripod for long lens work. That means either setting up another tripod for general purpose work, or not using a tripod at all for other purposes, or taking the time to get out the tools and swap the gimbal mount for a standard ballhead.

 

I'd want a tripod for general purposes and swapping the head would be a pain. So that meant that not only the lens is heavier and larger, but the supportive equipment I'd need would double, as well.

 

I got 1.4X II, initally, and later 2X II Extender for use with the 500mm (and my 300/2.8). They both work very well with it. The 2X tends to produce a slightly warm image but that's no big deal.

[ncarnick]

This is more your type of lens...

http://www.canon-europe.com/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/EF_Lenses/Fixed_Focal_Length/EF_1200mm_f56L_USM/

 

I like how they didn't leave the rear cap on so it would look compact.

 

On a serious note, I suggest going to a photo show (PMA, Photokina e.g.) and playing with the 300, 400, 500, and 600 lenses. In the past Canon was great to work with. I brought in my camera body and they let me work with basically anything. The only exceptions were new lenses that had not gone into production yet. They still let me play with those but wouldn't let me use a card to save the photos. I have no idea if they are as cool now as that was a few years ago but it is worth some research before you buy. Email Canon in advance and they might let you know if there is anything you can take samples with at the nearest equipment show.

 

The suggestion above about renting is particularly good for the same reason.

 

Another possibility is contacting Arthur Morris (http://www.birdsasart.com/about.html) or similar birder/big game/sports person. There are many around and when contacted they all seem to be great folks.

 

I haven't seen what you do but not many have daily use for a 600. Truthfully most photos are 300 or under. If your craft requires it and then go big but if this is for fun I don't imagine lugging around a 600 will lead to using it much. Truthfully, anything above a 300 2.8 or 400DO is pretty hard to travel or blend in with. If you have a need for the 600 then go big and get it but if this is for a few special trips then just rent the 500 or 600 as needed and use the money you saved for the next 5d, 1DS Mark II or whatever.

[bobatkins]

I owned the old (non-IS) 500 and 600mm lenses. The 600 was a monster. Big and heavy. The IS version is a bit lighter, but still heavy. I currently use the non-IS 500, which by comparison is small and light!

 

If I were looking at a new telephoto, I'd go for the 500/4IS and save the money, size and weight. They're pretty similar in reach, so unless you have some real need for the longest possible focal length, I think the 500 wins.

[colinsouthern]

I could well be wrong, but I think I recall reading somewhere that the 500mm lens case was just small enough to qualigy as carry-on luggage whereas the 600mm lens case was required to be checked baggage when flying.

 

Might be worth following up if that's ever likely to be a potential issue?

 

Cheers,

 

Colin

[dale_yarbrough]

Thanks everyone! I really appreciate the input. I shoot mainly larger mammals (Yellowstone, Glacier, etc.) and some hiking is required. Think I'll purchase the 500mm and save the additional money for better lunches!

Thanks again!

[jwhite3.0]

Dale, looks like you already made up your mind but as extra info I've used both on monopods successfully. However, I was less tired at the end of the day after walking around with the 500mm f/4 IS and the 500mm was easier to balance on a monopod.

[mark_chappell]

Dale: You probably know this already but don't forget that you'll need a solid tripod and

head. The

general (but not unanimous) consensus is that a gimbal head is the best option for a big

lens if you want to track moving targets; for something the size of the 500/4, you can't

beat the Wimberley (current model) for quality and (relatively) small size and mass. Of

course, gimbals are next to useless if you want to mount a wideangle or other short lens...

 

Also give some thought to how to carry this rig on a long hike. On the tripod over the

shoulder is best for quick response, but is clumsy and offers little protection for the

equipment. Stowing the lens in a backpack is much better protection and is easier to

carry, but then you have to spend a lot of time getting ready to shoot -- not good for

subjects that appear and disappear quickly.

[keith_lubow]

I used the 600 twice, and the 500 once. Neither of these is my own lens (I wish....). I was using the 500 for the Long Beach Grand Prix, and the 600 once for a stand up comedy routine and the other time for file shots of the moon, so I don't know if I can offer a direct comparison, as the conditions were so different. However, I can definitely say that both are nice and sharp, and the 500 is notably easier to use, IMHO. It all depends on how much length you need. Better too short than too long, though.

 

Keith

[keith_lubow]

Oh, BTW...I neglected to interject my opinion...

 

If it were my pile of money, I would buy neither, and get the 400mm f/2.8, and the 1.4 TC. I borrow the non-IS version moderately often, and it is a great lens. Super sharp, and MUCH more versatile than the 500 and 600. I can't warrant owning my own, but I know that I would if I could at this point.

 

Point of trivia: the most published picture of the Virginia Tech shootings was shot with a 500mm lens that the Roanoke Times staffer happened to have in his trunk when he heard about the incident on his car radio.

 

Keith

[dale_yarbrough]

John: I appreciate your input. After reading all of the responses I was pretty convinced the 500mm was the way to go...and to confess, I had researched both units and had decided myself the 500mm was better suited for me.....but you know how the draw of the "bigger" lens can somtimes lead you astray....I really wanted to be pushed to the 500mm and now I am convinced. Thanks!

 

Mark: Thanks for the info. You raise several good issues that I have given some thought to. I was planning to purchase the Wimberley from B&H just for this application. I have recently purchased a Bogen specifically for this type of work and will dedicate this tripod to the Wimberley. As for the length of my hikes, let's just say this...if the subject is more than a few hundred yards from my location I'll wait 'till it moves closer! I also shoot a Pentax 67II so I am familiar with the effort required to move something heavy and cumbersome. Long hikes are not part of my vocabulary! Thanks again.

[dale_yarbrough]

Keith: Thanks (I think!) for your input. Now you're making me take a closer look at the 400mm/f2.8....why did you have to bring it up? (just kidding!) Oh my....more research!

[j.kivekas]

Just out of curiosity, are you planning to shoot NASCAR? I mean the name...

[dale_yarbrough]

Juha:

No, no nascar for me.....I get asked that allot!

[kurt_garcia]

I apologize for being a late comer but this information has been very useful. Juha asked if you were shooting Nascar. Well Indy, Nascar, and Triple-A sports is exactly why I am in the market for a super telephoto lens. The 400 f/2.8 and the 500 f/4 are my two top choices.

 

I asked one of the Getty Images photographers last week at Infineon why he shot the 500 f/4 and this is what he said: The Canon EF 500mm f/4 L IS weighs 3.3 lbs less than the 400 f/2.8 IS thus making it more portable for foot travel. It is also slightly easier for panning shots because it is easier to balance because it was not as front-end heavy. He also mentioned that is was about $2000 less expensive. On the flip side he said the airlines might allow you to carry on the 400 case but the 500 would need to be checked. I think I?m sold on the 500.