Canon EF 600/4 I vs 600/4 II

[a._ts]

Hello. I'm now in the road to get a used long lens. After

considering the 500/4.5 my focus is now on 600/4. I'm a bit

confused because in some places I read about two version of

the lens (both non-IS) sometimes referred as version I and

version II. Does anyone know anything about that? and What are

the differences?

 

Best regrads,

Alejandro Torés

Spain

[matan_levinson1]

all I can say is that I've looked at the canon camera museum site, and found that there are only two EF versions of the 600/f4. the new version has IS and the older doesn't.

 

matan

[bobatkins]

I believe there may have been a change to the lens hood somewhere along the way. Nothing significant and certainly no change in optics or electronics. It may have been just going from metal to a composite resin hood.

 

Whatever the difference between any versions I and II, it's totally insignificant as far as performance goes.

[eos 10 fan]

For the price of a used 600/4L (non IS), you might be able to find a used 500mm f/4L IS USM.

 

--

[steve_dunn2]

<p>There were I and II versions of the 400/2.8L (non-IS) USM, but I've never heard of more than one version of the 600/4L (non-IS) USM. AFAIK, there was only the 600/4L USM and the 600/4L IS USM.</p>

[yakim_peled1]

<P> <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/500vs600.shtml">Some people ask � is IS really necessary when one is using a tripod? The answer is a resounding yes. A 500mm or 600mm lens has 10X and 12X magnification respectively. Even the resting of ones hands on a tripod mounted lens this long causes vibration, and if there's a wind blowing then that's another contributor to camera shake. It needs to be borne in mind that when shooting wildlife, at least, one is usually working in low light levels, early and late in the day, which means sometimes shooting at 1/60th or even slower. I have done this successfully with the 500mm and 600mm IS lenses but not so successfully with earlier long non-IS telephotos.</a> </P>

 

<P> Just a thing to consider. Hope it helps.</P>

 

<P> Happy shooting , <br>

Yakim. <P>

[sergey_oboguev]

Just to concur with the previous poster:

 

Surely it is your personal decision, but once you decided to make such an investment, you surely want it to pay back, so it might be sound idea to walk a little further and put out some extra for IS, whether 600 IS or 500 IS. At focal distances like this, and especially coupled with teleconverter, it DOES make plenty of difference.

[bobatkins]

IS makes a difference, but it doesn't ALWAYS make a difference. Thousands of world-class images were shot with non-IS lenses before IS lenses became avaialble and those non-IS lenses still take images every bit as good as they once did.

 

Under difficult circumstances IS helps. If the wind is blowing strongly, if the light is low and your shutter speeds drop, if you have a 2x TC on the lens, if your tripod and head are inadequate, then IS can certainly help, there's no dispute about that.

 

However balance that against the fact that a used non-IS lens will probably cost you less than 1/2 as much as a new IS lens, and maybe even 1/2 as much as a used IS lens. You can easily save $2500-$3000 by going the non-IS route if you shop around. If money isn't an issue then there's really no reason not to go for the IS version.

 

Personally I'd recommend the 500/4.5L. It's smaller, lighter and cheaper than any of the alternatives. I owned both the 500/4.5L and 600/4L lenses at the same time, and the one I sold was the 600/4L so I'm speaking from some experience here. Do I wish it had IS? Sure sometimes it would be useful. Most of the time I'm happy with it as it is though.