Canon new 500 mm f/4 vs new 600 mm f/4

[subhasis_roy]

<p>Hi,<br>

I am using Canon 40D with 300 mm f/4 lens and sometimes use 1.4x with this. I notice some sharpness problem in this combination. I need more reach with quality image. What would be better for me Canon new 500 mm f/4 vs 600 mm f/4 ? Please advice me the lens in respect of sharp image with a better reach. Another thing is that in near future I can upgrade my body to 7D. Then changing of camera is necessary or not?<br>

With thanks,<br>

Subhasis Roy<br>

Sikkim,India</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>Obviously the 600/4 has better reach with the same maximum aperture, hence the higher price. I don't know the price difference off hand but perhaps the 600 is worth it to you. What are you photographing?</p>

<p>The 40D will not take full advantage of these lenses but the 7D will. Currently there is no true upgrade to the 7D since no Canon camera can match it's pixel density. You may want to get the lens first, as it will make a significant difference even on the 40D, and wait a year for the "8D."</p>

<p>If you have a problem justifying the budget for these supertelephotos there are quite a few used variations out there for under $4000, and sometimes under $3000, with the original Canon EF 500mm f4.5 L being the least expensive.</p>

<p>You may want to check these out in a store too because they are huge and heavy and you will want to think about how you will use them and transport them depending on what you are doing. A smaller lighter option would be the 300/2.8.</p>

[Robert DeCandido PhD]

<p>Unfortunately recent used prices for the version 1 500mm F4 AF/IS range from $6k USD (rarely) to $7k in mint shape. So expect to pay about $6500 USD at minimum for a used, in great shape, 500 F4. If you look in the buy/sell section here, there is a 600mm F4 for about $6800 - cosmetically not in great shape but working 100% fine. By comparison, a used but in mint shape Nikon 500 F4 with VR (IS) and AF (current version) is about $7k USD.</p>

<p>The new 600mm lens is going to be just about the same weight as the current (version one) 500mm F4...with a price tag of about $13k USD...</p>

<p>We don't know anything about the image quality of these new Canon supertelephotos except the new 400mm F2.8 is getting great reviews...my guess is that any of the new supertelephotos (fixed mm and not zoom) will be magnificent.</p>

<p>Finally, don't overlook a used 800mm F5.6 Canon - a mere $10.5K USD for a new, mint copy. It is a great lens...</p>

<p>Ouch</p>

[User_1172872]

<p>Please bear in mind that I have experience with exactly one of each of these. However, in my experience, if I add the 1.4x to the 300 f/4 I have to stop down to f/11 for a really sharp image on a 40D. The older version of the 500 f/4 is sharp at maximum aperture, even with the 1.4x attached. That's what you pay the extra $$$$ for.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Subhasis, they're both wonderful lenses. The one to buy depends on two things; what are you shooting and will you always stay with a crop-sensor or might you go full-frame in the future. I use the series I 500/f4 with a 7D, shooting birds and wildlife. I also own a 5D MkII, but I use it with a 70-200 and a 24-105 as my everything else camera.<br>

With the improvements in the 5D MkIII AF and fps, I'm thinking of making that my main wildlife body. If I did, then the 600mm f/4 II would be my likely next lens. If I stick with a 5D/7D combo, then I'll move to the 500mm f/4 II to take advantage of the lighter weight and faster AF vs. my series I 500mm/f4.<br>

The series I 500mm/f4 is an exceptional lens if you want to save some money. The 7D is a super camera with a AF program that'll make it well worth an upgrade.</p>

<p> </p>

[dzaebst]

<p>Using a crop camera such as the 40D or the 7D, and if I could get just one super-telephoto lens, I would opt for the 500. I have the 7D and use the Mark I 500mm f/4 IS. It is lighter and more portable than the 600, and on a crop camera, gives you an effective field of view of 800 mm. The 600 of course, would give you a field of view of 960 mm. I find the Mark I is incredibly sharp, that is, assuming I don't screw up the shot myself! </p>

<p>Here is a slightly cropped view of Great Blue Heron and chicks in the nest at the Venice Rookery, taken using a 7D, 500 Mark I, at ISO 200, f/6.3, 1/1000 sec. It was cropped from original 5184 x 3456 to 2715 x 3456.</p><div></div>

[dzaebst]

<p>Sorry double post</p>

[dzaebst]

<p>And here is a 100% crop of the adult's head. No adjustments, not sharpened, straight out of the camera.</p>

<p>I would assume the new 500 Mark II is just as sharp, and the IS is likely (don't know because it isn't yet available) a stop or two better.</p><div></div>

[subhasis_roy]

<p>Very useful discussion here and there are so many things which I have learnt. Actually I shoot birds. Then I think 7D and 500 mm f/4 combo will be fine for me just now. Thanks everyone for kind co-operation a suggestion. I also invite more suggestion on this topic.</p>

<p>With thanks,</p>

<p>Subhasis Roy</p>