500mm 1:4.5 vs 600mm

[tom_smith22]

I have heard that the 600mm is quite soft compared to the 500mm. Does anyone

have any personal experience with these lenses, because I am leaning towards the

500mm.

Also, do the SSC coatings on the early versions produce a warm(er) tone than the

later versions, as it does with some of the shorter focal lengths?

Ta, Tom

[User_502260]

This is a question for Mark Wahlster.

[14mm 2.8l]

600mm is not an "L" lens. Whereas 500mm is an "L" lens. Don't let the white paint confuse you.

[awahlster]

I've had both and while the 600mm f4.5 I had was not int he best shape the 500mm f4.5L made it look like a coke bottle bottom.

 

My 500mm f4.5L with a 2X-A will resolve 5 of the moons of Saturn I doubt the 600mm could find Saturn

 

The 500mm f4.5L nFD is a wonderful lens the 600mm f4.5 was a really big tube with glass in it.

 

The 400mm f4.5 with a 1.4X was better then the 600 straight.

 

Sorry I didn't mean to pull my punches

[tom_smith22]

Thanks mate. Didn't know the 600mm was so bad. Even the 400mm has LD glass in it. But I sure could use those extra 100mm.

I'll stay well away from that 600mm. I didn't know it isn't even an L series.

 

Hmm, got me thinking about that 800mm 5.6 . . .

[awahlster]

Unless your really into packing around a LOG your better off with the 500mm f4.5L and a 1.4X-A or 2x-A extender. It's a much more manageable package and since you ain't gonna be humping both a 500 and that 800 into the woods the use of the extenders allows you the luxury of being able to use a shorter lens when needed.

[tom_smith22]

If the FD 500mm is a bit shoddy in comparison, how much would a proper Canon 1.4TC effect the quality?

And since I've never had the chance to try it out, how does the FD 500mm compare with the EF 500mm 1:4 optically wise? I would expect the EF lens to be vastly superior, thanks to modern CAD/CAM processes.

Not that the process of me purchasing an EF super-telephoto has progressed past the 'wistful dream' stage at the moment, but it would be worth knowing.

[14mm 2.8l]

Many birders make a good living with the lightning fast AF the Eos 500mm f4 provides. Weclcome to the 21st century. It'll cost you but if you are good you'll depreciate outlay versus earnings over a few years:

 

$1,000 to $1,500 for 500mm L FD

 

versus

 

$5,500 for Eos made 2007 vintage 500mm f4 IS L super telephoto.

 

and versus $600 or so for a 600mm Non L FD. So 2x the money for FD L 500mm f4.5 versus non L 600mm FD, I wonder why? ;^)

 

If you need a good 6.5 fps eos dslr add $1,300 for newly issued 40D and $560 for 1.4x and 2x: all USA and good guy pricing.

 

Here's the best canon user website I know of for birding and Art Morris used to use Canon FD in the early 1980's thru the late 1970's

 

http://www.birdsasart.com/

 

Lindy

[tom_smith22]

I shoot surfing, not birding, and I'm nowhere near stepping up to EF-mount lenses. In fact, I would feel lost without my hand around a nice, large manual focus ring. All these pros these days, letting the lens do the work . . .

 

And 4.5fps is good enough for now.

[mike1430]

Tom I have a 500mm f4.5L and I shoot airshows. I love the preformance of this lens, it is the best money I have ever spent on a Canon prime, and would do it again. Go for the 500 f4.5L.