About to jump on the 600mm f/4 IS

[jay dougherty]

I already have the 500mm f/4 IS and like it very much, but I'm

photographing birds more and more these days, so the 600 keeps

calling my name. What I'm looking for are words of

encouragement/discouragement from those who have been down this

road. Have you moved from the 500 to the 600, kept both? Are you as

in love with your 600 as you were when you got it? Do you find you

leave it at home most of the time? Are those extra 3 pounds really

the difference between taking the lens along and not?

 

Thanks. Gulp.

[mark u]

I know PJs are renowned for abusing their photographic equipment, but isn't jumping on it a bit excessive???

 

I suspect when you need 600, you need 600 - i.e. you do what it takes to get it to your location.

[bob_henny]

I too am getting ready to pull the trigger on the 600F4/IS - and while I briefly considered the 500 I came to the conclusion that I did not want to buy a 500 and then have to sell it to get the 600 when I wanted that last bit of reach. Birds are my main interest and reason for getting the 600. I look forward to hearing answers to your questions - about weight and does 3lbs keep a lens at home.

[bob_bell]

I have never used a 500 or 600mm so I am curious if you hand hold something that is 18" long and weighs 12 pounds? And are the images "a lot" better than a 300/2.8L IS with a 2x TC

 

Just curious :)

[jim_mueller2]

For those that already have an 500/4 why not just use a 1.4X TC to make a 700/5.6? Why spend all that money on a 600/4?

[John Crowe]

I think you are in a bracket where the few extra inches and weight will make no difference to how much you use the lens. If you can manage the 500 then you can manage the 600. You have already made the really big jump some time ago when you got the 500. I do not think you will use the 500 once you have the 600. To give yourself more flexibility, after you get the 600, sell the 500 and get the 400/5.6. Nice folder by the way, truly sharp. I laugh when people think the Sigma 500mm zooms are sharp, I'll be sure to send them to your folder! Have fun!

[antony_bichon]

I owned the 600 f/4L (non-IS version). I loved it (I had to sell it).

Sharp and everything but it takes some times to get use to its handling.

In my opinion, you'll need to get the RSS plate and a sturdy ball head (arcaswiss Giant) or the wimberley gimbale head.<BR>

It is a pain in the field but what results... well worth it!<BR>

<BR>

:)<BR>

Antony<BR>

[markci]

>>>> For those that already have an 500/4 why not just use a 1.4X TC to make a 700/5.6? Why spend all that money on a 600/4? <<<<<

 

Because a 600 with a 1.4x is an 840mm.

[John Crowe]

And yes a 600/4 will be noticeably sharper than a 300/2.8 with a 2x converter, as well as being one stop faster. The individual must decide if it is worth buying and carrying the larger lens. For myself I will stick with a 400/2.8 and 1.4x and 2x.

[jim_larson1]

You guys are my heros :)

 

Sigh. I am springing for the lowly 300/4L-IS -> maybe with 1.4TC.

 

If you can make money from these lenses, or if you can just go buy one - I think you should go for it. I will look at your portfolio with envy. (in an inspired way)

[bobatkins]

I had a 600/4L (non IS). I traded it for a 500/4.5L (non IS of course). I wouldn't go back. The extra 20% reach was great, but the weight wasn't. I love the 500/4.5L. Small and light with enough reach for me.

 

The weight and size difference from the 500/4L IS to 600/4L IS is less and the 600/4L IS weighs less than the 600/4L I think, so its not such a big difference.

 

So the answer is - I don't know. If you were talking about the non IS lenses, then I have a strong opinion!

[stormfront]

<a href="http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/500vs600.shtml">500mm vs. 600mm</a> at Luminous Landscape, might be of help to you.

[paul_chilton1]

No one has mentioned the possible multiplier effect of using the 500 on a digital body. If you used the 1D mk 2 with a 1.3 muliplication effect then your 500 has an effective reach of 650. Just something else to consider when spending such a large amount of money.

[jay_.]

<<And yes a 600/4 will be noticeably sharper than a 300/2.8 with a 2x converter>>

 

If by "noticeably" you mean, with a 40x loupe after several minutes of deep scrutiny of the part of the slide that's under the mount mask, then I agree with you. Otherwise because the 300/2.8L-IS is significantly sharper than the 600/4 to begin with, images made even with 2x-II (*not 2x-I!*)are as sharp any in many cases sharper, oweing to the fact it's mass is centered tighter over the tripod axis so even with IS there is less vibration blur. And you get the same close-focusing distance as the 300 so you have much more magnification possibility, not to mention less strain on your back and your budget. I have used the 300/2.8L-IS with 2x-II, 2x-II+1.4x-I, 2x-II + 2x-II and even 2x-II+2x-II=1.4x-I and even those admittedly over-the-top combinations produce images of surprising sharpness and contrast even though by all counts you'd think they should look awful.

[jay dougherty]

>>If by "noticeably" you mean, with a 40x loupe after several minutes of deep scrutiny of the part of the slide that's under the mount mask, then I agree with you. Otherwise because the 300/2.8L-IS is significantly sharper than the 600/4 to begin with, images made even with 2x-II (*not 2x-I!*)are as sharp any in many cases sharper<<

 

I would be buying a 600mm lens so that I could *start* at 600, not so that I could end up there with a doubler. Hence I don't know why the 300mm lens comes into discussion.

[jay dougherty]

>>No one has mentioned the possible multiplier effect of using the 500 on a digital body.<<

 

I have a D60 and a 1DS. The "multiplier" is really a crop factor. The downside of the 1.6 sensors, I have found, is that they do in fact "multiply" camera shake, especially noticable on lenses longer than 60mm.

[jay dougherty]

>>Sigh. I am springing for the lowly 300/4L-IS -> maybe with 1.4TC.<<

 

I love that lens and often take it on a second body when I'm out with the 500.

[borge_doskeland]

>>..because the 300/2.8L-IS is significantly sharper than the 600/4 to begin with, images made even with 2x-II (*not 2x-I!*)are as sharp any in many cases sharper<<

 

FWIW Canon.jp's MTF-curves seems to indicate that the 600 f4 is significantly sharper and more contrasty than the 300/2x combo.

[jim_mueller2]

<< The "multiplier" is really a crop factor>>

 

I think it's MORE than just a crop facter. You have a smaller sensor chip...true. But you have more pixels packed into that smaller area which will give higher resolution.

[phil]

1. There *IS* a difference, as Bob Atkins attests, between the 500/4 and 600/4 and the former is much easier to carry, even if you'd expect them to be a wash. 2. I do NOT find that the 10D is any more prone to camera shake than my EOS-3, given the same lens/TC combination, and find it hard to understand why it would be different between the two anyway. 3. Owning the 2x-II, I cannot believe that a 300/2.8+2x comes anywhere near close to a 600/4 - you can clearly see image degradation with a 2x even compared to a 1.4x on my 500/4 and many people have exactly that same experience.

[michiel_bernhard]

The biggest glass I own is a small 100-400 4.5-5.6 L USM IS so I can't give speak from experience. Lately I read on PN about someone who purchased a 600 f/4 L USM IS and warned about the additonal amounts he had to spend on a larger backpack (as far as I know only the largers Lowepro backpack is large enough,check the diameter of the lens(hood)), a larger tripod and ballhead. Since you allready have the 500 your tripod will be large enough but did you consider your bag etc?

 

Michiel, Holland

[bob stewart jacksonville]

Travel is also a consideration. As the last post indicated, you need a big back pack for the 600 f/4. I use a Lowe pro super trekker. Unfortunately it doesn't meet the airline's definition of an acceptable carry on. Given a one carry one limit, I end up with a choice of packing the 600 f/4 in a lens case and carrying it on, and checking the other lenses and bodies, or checking the 600 f/4. Neither of these are great options. If you're going to travel a lot, the additional size of the 600 is a consideration.

[jay dougherty]

Hi, all. To follow up: I *did* pick up the 600mm. I have to say, I was shocked at how little difference there is in portability of the lens compared to the 500. Given what I've read, I expected this thing to be a noticeable burden over the 500, but it's not. I'm left thinking, "gee, what's all the fuss about?" Now I know some of the older 600s were heavier. Nikon's older 600 is about 12 pounds, I believe. But this Canon 600 IS is about 9, I think. Anyway, I lift a big of weights daily, so maybe I'm just used to it. It's not a problem.

 

I'd say, given the limited experience I've had with it so far, the biggest difference I've noticed is the greatly reduced depth of field of the 600 at small apertures. I'll test the thing out a while, but it may be likely that I'll get rid of the 500 in favor of this lens.

 

I read the luminous landscape piece, which is commonly cited in discussions of 600 vs 500. I have to say, though, that I don't agree with the person's results. If you need a long lens, especially for birds, the 600 is already proving to be the obvious choice.

[jay dougherty]

News flash: I like the 500mm lens better. So I take back much of what I said earlier. I find the 600, at least my copy, to have less contrasty pictures than the 500, no sharper, and indeed the weight does get to you after a while. Lifting the 500 seems so much nicer after you trek with the 600.

 

As for reach, at this length, the extra 100 could/should be made up for by positioning, even with small birds. Yes, small birds are easier to photograph with the 600, but I was annoyed several times by the 600's MFD, on the other hand, and I have taken stunning bird photos with the 500.

 

So the jury's out, for me, on the 600. The 500 is probably simply a more versatile lens.