500mm/f4 vs. 600mm/f4

[ShunCheung]

This issue has come up a few times when we discuss ballheads. I have used a 500mm/f4 for seveal years but never a 600mm/f4. I wonder what the real difference is. In terms of weight, a typical 600mm/f4 weights 13lb/6kg while a 500mm/f4 around 8lb/4kg, so the 600mm weights a lot more and hence might require a bigger tripod and ballhead. The price difference is somewhat significant depending on which brand and model. Of course, a lot of bird photographers choose the 600mm for the extra reach, but those who do some hiking with a big lens would choose the lighter and smaller 500mm.

 

<p>

 

So what other factors are there in choosing between the 500 and 600?

[bob_royse]

I think that you already have answered the basic questions about the major factors between choosing between a 500f4 and 600f4. I too have used a 500f4 for about 5 years, but am for the first time considering trading it for a 600f4 (used manual Nikkor).

 

<p>

 

I was at Pt.Pelee a couple of weeks ago (lots of birders and bird photographers!). By far the most commonly seen lens there was the Nikon 500f4P, but a few people (most notably Arthur Morris) managed to haul around 600f4's. The 1.2x magnification increase really is significant when photographing small passerines. A good ball head should be able to handle both a 500 and 600mm, but a larger tripod is need for the 600. A 300 series Gitzo is adequate for the 500mm, but a 400 series is necessary for the 600mm. That adds even more weight. If you're willing to buy a used manual-focus lens, then the price difference isn't extreme.

 

<p>

 

With that said, I was able to carry my 500mm and gear for several miles at a time, while the 600mm folks didn't. Unfortunately the weather conditions didn't produce many big fall outs of warblers at Pt.Pelee this year and probably very few great warbler shots were taken with either lens.

[ShunCheung]

Speaking of Arthur Morris, I went to one of his slide shows last year and I got to ask him about a picture taken at Pt. Pelee. He told me that he usually uses a Canon EF 600mm/f4 AF with an extention tube at Pt. Pelee. And then we ran into him at Ding Darling in Florida this past February (1998), and he was walking around with that 600mm/f4 on a large Gitzo tripod as well as another camera/lens hanging over his shoulder. Arthur Morris is a big strong guy. I am not sure I want to walk around that much carrying a 600mm/f4 with a 400 series Gitzo.

[bobatkins]

Chosing between a Nikon 500/4 and 600/4 probably depends on the

strength of your back (and the size of your wallet) more than

anything! Clearly the 600 is better for most wildlife work, but

if it's too heavy to carry, it's not much use to you.

 

<p>

 

In the Canon line, the 600/4 offers AF with a 1.4x, while the

500/4.5 doesn't. That a strike against the 500 which the Nikon

500 doesn't have. Still, the lower weight (6.6 lbs lighter)

and lower cost ($3500 less) are powerful incentives to own the

500.

 

<p>

 

I see no optical advantages at all to the 500mm lenses. It's

all a matter of practicality and affordability. If it was a

present and someone would carry it for me, I'd go for the

600mm lens every time. In fact if there was a good 800mm lens,

I might even go for that if I was really into bird photography.

So far though, there are no "top-of-the-line" AF 800mm lenses.

[mitch_mcconnell]

The biggest other factor (other than the $$$ and weight, which are

both considerable) is the fact that with a Canon 600mm/f4 you can

autofocus with the 1.4x at 840mm. For wildlife which is often

constantly moving (such as birds) this is an enormous advantage.

The weight is not a problem if you are at, say, Anhinga Trail in

the Everglades, but if you have to hike a couple of miles to get to

your shooting location, it is a significant factor!

 

<p>

 

Mitch

[ShunCheung]

The 500mm cannot AF with a 1.4x teleconvertor is a Canon-specific issue, since the Canon EF 500mm has a maximum aperture at f4.5 instead of f4 as in the case of the Canon 600mm. In other brands, the AF 500mm lens is an f4. With a 1.4x TC on, the effective aperture is still f5.6 and hence the AF capability is maintained.

 

<p>

 

The RUMOR I heard is that Canon will replace its EF 500mm by an f4 version. If that is indeed the case, this problem will go away.

[bobatkins]

Canon may bring out a 500/4 one day, but my Canon contacts, while

unable to make any offical comments, seemed to me to be suggesting

that this was not likely to happen any time soon (if ever). That

doesn't mean it can't happen, but I'd bet a small amount of money

against it!

 

<p>

 

Actually isn't Nikon the only 500/4? Both the Canon and Sigma are

4.5 and I don't think anyone else makes a fast 500 do they?

 

<p>

 

The AF problem lies not so much with the lens, but with the AF

system. You can certainly make an AF system which works just

fine at f6.3 (f4.5 + 1.4x). I wouldn't be suprised to see some

sort of multiple AF system one day, like the current Canon

EOS-1(n) sensor in which one arm needs f2.8, but the other

only needs f5.6. You could make a sensor which also had an f8 component (or f6.3 etc.),

not quite as accurate or as fast as the f2.8 or the f5.6 components, but which switched in when needed and which worked well under most

conditions,

[bob_royse]

In response to some other comments here :

 

<p>

 

Arthur Morris' everyday quipment for poking around the migrant traps along Lake Erie consists of a Canon EOS1N with 600f4+1.4x+ext.tube mounted on a carbon 400series Gitzo with a flash unit mounted on a RRS flash arm and powered by a Quantum battery pack. Who knows what all he carries in his photo vest, but he always carries 20 or so pages of large dupe transparencies and his books that he will pull out and show to anyone (e.g. birders or a waitress at the lunch counter). Not only is he a great bird photographer, but he also knows how to get his images seen.

 

<p>

 

I also heard a RUMOR that Canon is indeed going to release a 500f4 lens. The RUMOR goes that it will be a lightweight titanium image-stablization lens that can be "handheld" for sports photographers. It will also probably sell for more than the current 600f4.

[ShunCheung]

When we ran into Arthur Morris back in February, he was carrying his 600mm/f4 on a green aluminum Gitzo tripod with a Wimberly head on. That head itself is like 4 lbs. I think he also had a 300mm/f2.8 on another camery body on his shoulder. His van was near by, but he was carrying A LOT of equipment. I wouldn't be surprised that he has upgraded to a carbon fiber tripod since then.

 

<p>

 

The <B>rumor</B> I heard is also that there will be a Canon EF 500mm/f4 IS (image stabilization), but there is no way for me to verify it, so take it with a grain of salt. Moreover, the Nikkor 500mm/f4 AF-S actually does AF with their 2x TC on (TC-20E), although it auto-focuses very slowly such that it might not be all that useful. On a Canon EOS body, if you add their 1.4x TC on the 500mm/f4.5 EF, it automatically drops to MF.

[paul_wilson2]

In regards to AF with lenses slower than f5.6, I believe at least some P&Ss with longish, slow zooms use passive AF. Many of these zooms are f11 or slower at the long end.

[david_moretz]

I just returned from 10 days in Yosemite, and spent 3 of those days chasing the small heard of Big Horn Sheep in the Tioga Pass area. I was carrying a 500 F4 with several other lenses and an F4 body in a Lowe Pro Photo Trekker backpack and a Gitzo 320 tripod with Arca Swiss B1 monoball. Hiking up and down some of those 'trails' in that area with that amount of weight kicked my butt. Had I been carrying a 600 F4, I think I would have needed a Medevac Helecopter to make it back home.

 

<p>

 

Yes, the extra reach would have been nice had I located the heard, but don't think I could have ever even gotten into the area if I had been carrying the extra weight of a longer lens. I think one has to honestly evaluate ones needs and style of shooting before deciding which lens to get. If you stay close to the car, the 600 F4 may be a better choice, but if you venture very far, the weight gets heavy very quickly.

 

<p>

 

I wish sometimes I could leave some lenses back in the car to lighten the load, but am reluctant to do so for fear of them being stolen out of the car while hiking. Hope this helps a little in shedding some light on the subject.

 

<p>

 

David Moretz

[ShunCheung]

Sounds like David is having a good time with his 500mm lens. :-)

 

<p>

 

I think what it really comes down to is that for bird photographers, the extra 100mm in the 600 is useful, but you need to be primarily working from or near a vehicle. For thsoe who are planning to do any type of hiking with a big lens, the fact that a 500mm is much lighter is a major plus.

[stephen_vaughan1]

I have used the Canon 500 for years and have tried to use the 600 but

find it much too heavy for all but roadside shooting. The new Canon

EOS3 will autofocus at with f8 lenses, hence the 500f4.5 with a 1.4TC.

That ends the debat for me.