canon fd 600 f/4.5 vs. canon fd 500 f/4,5 for wildlife

[yaron_zamri1]

Hi

I now own an eos elan 7 camera, but I can't afford myself to buy a

decent 500 mm f/4.5L lens (3000$ and above).

I'm intrested in wildlife photography, so I must have a good

telephoto lens.

 

I was thinking of buying a T-90 body (best canon MF body) and a super

telephoto lens. which is the best buy: canon fd 600 f/4.5 or canon

500 f/4.5 L? the 600 f/4.5 is not an L serious lens, but It's canon

original, so it must be good as well. please help me decide.<div></div>

[john_burnley3]

If you want the sharpest results, you will need the "L" lens.

[ryan_taylor1]

yaron: it would help if you told us what kind of "wildlife" photography you are interested in. If you are really interested in shooting only birds, than you will typically want all the reach you can get. However, you are just interested in shooting wildlife in general, the 500 may be a better bet. It will be lighter and easier to carry around and handle. With any long telphoto lens you will need some substantial tripod support to get the most out of your lens.

I don't know much about the weight or quality of the 600/4.5, but if you aren't concentrating solely on birds, I'd say the 500 would be a better all-around choice.

[paul_eriksson]

Have you considered a third party option like Sigmas AF 500mm f/4.5 or Tamrons 400mm MF f/4.0. They can be had used for $2000 and $1000 respectivly.

[jimvanson]

yaron...the T90 & 600 f4.5 was my weapon of choice for a couple of years...image wise it's very good, ergonomically, with it's wheel focus, it's superb! Whoever says it needs to be an "L" to be sharp is just beaking off!<p>After lugging it and a huge tripod for a while I traded it for a Tamron 400 f4. The Tamron is extremely sharp and much smaller then the 600. An adaptal 1.4 times tele on the Tamron made it a 560 f5.6 & it was still sharp, even more so stopped down a stop. I shot with that for a year or so until it was stolen.<p>I replaced it with Canon's 400 f4.5...a very sweet lens not as sharp as the Tamron 400 but very handholdable, superb on a monopod...but it wasn't fast enough so I got a 300 f2.8L. That was the sharpest of the sharp...BUT it was to damn big! I ended up dropping it and it's T90 down 3 flights of stairs...toast!<p>So that was replaced with a Tamron 300 f2.8 2nd series. Very good lens but since it was the same size and not as sharp wide open as the Canon a mistake. (I've seen them go for $450 on eBay...it would then be a very good choice!).<p>At that point I stopped shooting waterfowl, I now shoot people.<p>I still own a couple of T90's but nothing longer then a 35-105 for them. I also shoot EOS. I bought a 100-400 IS (mush at the 400 end). I recently traded it for a 300 f4L IS...NIRVANA!!! Small, reasonably priced (compared to todays big glass), Handholdable, Sharp and IS...nothing in this world beats IS!<p>And my rather long winded advice to you? A T90 & long glass will run you from $800 to $1600+. A 300 f4L IS for your Elan 7 will cost you about $1150. Another $250 for a 1.4 teleconverter.<p>That's the WINNING combination in my books!

[ligia_dovale]

I think that you would be happier with the 500 mm. I agree that the 300 f/2.8 is the sharpest of all, however, its range is not long enough for many wildlife subjects. It is great to have it as an addition, but not as a primary lens for shooting wildlife. In the other hand, if you add the teleconvertes to the 500 mm, you would have a lens that would allow you to get closer to plenty of wildlife subjects, including small birds. I would not trade my 500 f/4 for a 600 mm, f/4, not even if the trade was even. I was very satisfied before and now, with the addition of the multiplication factor of today's digital SLR cameras, it is even a greater lens for a large assortment of wildlife subjects.

[bbart12]

You should also consider how good the FD converters will perform with a non L lens.This is important especially if you are shooting primarily birds.I am also looking for a 600mm lens and came across the FD 600.According to some lens tests, it performed a 3.5 out of 5.The 500mm 4.5 topped it with 5 out of 5.

[ShunCheung]

As far as I know some version of the old FD 600mm has a very long minimum focusing distance. That could be a serious disadvantage. I would check that out before getting the lens.

[bobatkins]

Save your money and look for a used EF500/4.5L with some external cosmetic flaws but good glass. You won't regret it.

 

Going manual focus will be a step down and the 600/4.5 lens is known to be less sharp than the 500/4.6L. The FD 500/4.5L is the same as the EF 500/4.5L - a superb lens.

 

Your other alternative might be to buy a Canon EF 400/5.6L and a 1.4x TC and shoot with faster film. Smaller, ligher and cheaper, but slower.

 

I would not go manual focus if I were you, but if you can live without AF, a T90 and FD 500/4.5L would be my choice. Just remember the T90 is very old (20 years now) and I'm not sure how repairable they are if they develop a problem. If you get really serious, you'll be trading it for an EOS system at some point, so consider resale losses too.

[bacsa]

For animals that are ~600kg, you'll definitely need the 600mm, while for the smaller ones around 500kg, you can get closer, so the 500mm will be enough. It's that easy.

[bacsa]

Oh i see you're concerned about quality of images! If you can persuade the animals to stand(sit,lie)still for a few seconds,you can stop down any non-L lens and benefit from the better quality at the lens' sweet spot. Good luck with this!

[bobatkins]

I really don't think the weight of the animal has much to do with what lens you use!

 

The difference between a 500 and 600mm lens is only 20%, half the effect of a 1.4xTC. The smaller size and weight of the 500mm lens makes it much more practical for most people including me. I had a 600/4L and I sold it and bought the 500/4.5L. I do not regret that decision one bit.

[bacsa]

well, dear Bob...the bigger the animal, the more distace one should keep! ;o)

[bobatkins]

On the other hand, from any given distance, the bigger the animal, the shorter the focal length needed to fill the frame!

 

If I'm 100 yards from a moose, a 500mm lens might be fine, but if I'm 100 yards from a mouse, even a 1200mm lens will be totally inadequate.

 

It's also very possible that the moose will allow you to be closer to it than the mouse will, though of course moose are potentially more dangerous than mice, so close approach isn't recommended.

[ShunCheung]

By all means if it is possible to save for a 500mm/f4.5 EF, go for that. The old FD lenses are cheaper because they are now out of favor, but your have to buy an additional body, which means extra money, and those two items will be completely incompatible with the rest of your system; you'll also lose AF, which is very useful in wildlife photography. Finally, resale value of your FD will also be lower.

 

In these days, mots wildlife photographers favor 500mm lenses. They are much smaller and lighter to carry around, especially in flights. In this post 9/11 world, 600mm lenses are just inconvenent.

[John Crowe]

If you do photography on a relatively low budget, like myself, and you want pro quality Canon telephotos, then Canon FD is the way to go. I could only dream of having an EOS system like the FD one I have now! This year I purchased a Canon 300mm f2.8 for less than a sixth of a new one! At least I can take some nice photos for the next few years instead of spending that time saving for an EOS!

 

The 500mm f4.5 L is said to be much sharper than the 600mm, and it is supposed to perform well with teleconverters too. Oddly enough the 600mm f4.5's usually fetch the same price or higher! When they were new the 500 sold for much more than the 600. I too am considering one of these in the future, but for the "wildlife" of automotive racing. Good luck!

[yakim_peled1]

I'd get a D30. You still have AF (although not a pretty good one), your lenses become 1.6X longer and you get to have digital workflow. Money-wise I think it's your cheapest solution (~800$). Start there and then see if you need more reach.

 

Happy shooting ,

Yakim.

[johahn_o.]

Where can I get one and approx. cost?

[rodney_compton]

rodney compton , feb 05, 2007; 02:37 p.m.

Interesting point about adapters for EF to FD fitting. I bought a 400 mm f2.8 FD lens for

my Canon XL2 video rig. It functions as a 3000 mm lens, because the chips in the video

camera are 1/3 inch - that's seven to eight times smaller than full frame 35mm -

(24x36mm). The good thing is that the f stops still work as if the camera was a 35 mm,

giving the same depth of field.

I also bought a FD 500 mm f4.5 for my 20D and 5D stills cameras and with it a cheap

glass adapter. I always use long lenses on a tripod so it is not a lot of extra work to work

at stopped down apertures of f8 to f 11 for small birds. I unscrewed and threw away the

glass element almost straight away, since on the 500mm lens the small 12mm adapter

ring worked like a conventional short macro tube, which is just what I wanted. I am only

interested in subjects within about sixty feet from the camera, so it is no loss not to get

infinity, but the gain in resolution is astonishing, allowing the old style 'L' lens to shine.

www.papillio.co.uk

 

When I bought the 400mm f2.8 it had a strange bit of aluminium sticking in the stop down

lever channel thus holding back the lever. I subsequently found out it performed a similar

purpose as a matching peg on the old style Canon bodies - allowing the fstop ring to

function, in this case in manual mode.

 

I should really like a 600 mm f4 L IS, but I cannot justify it at the moment, but was grateful

for the comments that the old 600mm was not an L series lens. This seems unlikely, but it

would be nice to know for sure.<div></div>