Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: PORSCHE917 on February 17, 2009, 01:15:07 pm
-
Dear Mr. Reichmann:
A few years ago you wrote an article in which you compared the Canon 500 f/4 EF L IS lens to the Canon 600 f/4 EF L IS. After extended use of both lenses, you concluded in that article that the 500 f/ EF L IS lens was a better compromise from the standpoint of weight, portability, and optimizing use of the lens. The high quality of the two lenses was a draw. At this point, I own a 500 f/4 EF L IS, which I use for wildlife photography and motor sport (American LeMans Series) photography. Do you still feel that for overall use, the 500 f/4 EF L IS is a better compromise? Having just photographed some bald eagles in the Grand Teton National Park two weeks ago, I had the feeling that a little bit more reach would have been desirable, but the extra weight of the 600 f/4 EF L IS is a factor that cannot be ignored. Maybe the answer is simply to "zoom" a little with one's feet.
Best regards,
Roman
-
Roman: Michael's away right now... Just so you know.
Mike.
-
Note that the 800mm lens weighs only 1 1/2 pounds more than the 500...and that the 600mm weighs almost 2 pounds more than the 800!
-
Roman: Michael's away right now... Just so you know.
Mike.
For what is worth...
I have used both extensively over the years (thank you CPS) to shoot MotoGP and SBK races and while I agree that they are both equally brilliant, quality wise, I always end up with more 'keepers' with the 600. It's a pain to lug around but if I was lashing out my own money that's what I'd be getting.
-
For what is worth...
I have used both extensively over the years (thank you CPS) to shoot MotoGP and SBK races and while I agree that they are both equally brilliant, quality wise, I always end up with more 'keepers' with the 600. It's a pain to lug around but if I was lashing out my own money that's what I'd be getting.
-
Thank all of you veery much for your input. I like the Canon 500 and 600 f/4 EF L IS lenses because of their high quality, speed, reach and "relative" affordability. The difficulty for me was in deciding whether the weight "penalty" of the 600 f/4 EF L IS was something that I could accept. When hiking in the woods or mountains or walking around on a big road racing circuit(Sebring, Road Atlanta, etc), every pound of weight makes a difference. As I am relatively fit (6'3" tall and 190 lbs), it may be that I have overblown the weight issue.
In a later post I will let you know how I finally sort out this issue.
Warm regards,
Roman
-
Thank all of you veery much for your input. I like the Canon 500 and 600 f/4 EF L IS lenses because of their high quality, speed, reach and "relative" affordability. The difficulty for me was in deciding whether the weight "penalty" of the 600 f/4 EF L IS was something that I could accept. When hiking in the woods or mountains or walking around on a big road racing circuit(Sebring, Road Atlanta, etc), every pound of weight makes a difference. As I am relatively fit (6'3" tall and 190 lbs), it may be that I have overblown the weight issue.
In a later post I will let you know how I finally sort out this issue.
Warm regards,
Roman
Just my 2 cents-
I went for the 500 f:4 IS in part after reading Michael's review, and I must confess some buyer's remorse. Yes, it's optically stellar and remarkably compact. But I have repeatedly found myself wishing for a bit more reach, and end up using it with the 1.4x teleconvertor more often than not. The 600 f:4 is indeed significantly heavier, but once you factor in the weight of a good backpack, solid tripod, and a 1Ds III body the difference dwindles. If I were starting over, I'd probably go for the 600.
Back when I shot film I used a colossal Pentax 600 mm f:4 lens that was optically fabulous, albeit with slower autofocus using Pentax's in-body motor. Its biggest drawback otherwise was that it weighed a good 20 lbs., no exaggeration. Yet it was still worth lugging around.
-
Just my 2 cents-
I went for the 500 f:4 IS in part after reading Michael's review, and I must confess some buyer's remorse. Yes, it's optically stellar and remarkably compact. But I have repeatedly found myself wishing for a bit more reach, and end up using it with the 1.4x teleconvertor more often than not. The 600 f:4 is indeed significantly heavier, but once you factor in the weight of a good backpack, solid tripod, and a 1Ds III body the difference dwindles. If I were starting over, I'd probably go for the 600.
Back when I shot film I used a colossal Pentax 600 mm f:4 lens that was optically fabulous, albeit with slower autofocus using Pentax's in-body motor. Its biggest drawback otherwise was that it weighed a good 20 lbs., no exaggeration. Yet it was still worth lugging around.
-
Dear Geoff:
Thank you for your reply. The analysis you expressed is very similar to my own thoughts about the Canon 500 f/4 EF L IS vs 600 f/4 EF L IS decision. As you noted, the 500 f/4 EF L IS is a superb lens that is tack sharp. But when you are photographing wildlife at a distance, the 20 percent greater reach of the 600 f/4 EF L IS does have an impact. Further, with certain types of wary, skittish or dangerous wildlife(e.g., eagles, wolves, grizzly bears), "zooming with your feet" is not a viable option.
It appears that you still have your 500 f/4 EF L IS. Are you still considering switching to the 600 f/4 EF L IS?
Best regards,
Roman
-
Dear Geoff:
Thank you for your reply. The analysis you expressed is very similar to my own thoughts about the Canon 500 f/4 EF L IS vs 600 f/4 EF L IS decision. As you noted, the 500 f/4 EF L IS is a superb lens that is tack sharp. But when you are photographing wildlife at a distance, the 20 percent greater reach of the 600 f/4 EF L IS does have an impact. Further, with certain types of wary, skittish or dangerous wildlife(e.g., eagles, wolves, grizzly bears), "zooming with your feet" is not a viable option.
It appears that you still have your 500 f/4 EF L IS. Are you still considering switching to the 600 f/4 EF L IS?
Best regards,
Roman
I have never owned the 600mm, however I can say that the 500mm is a superb lens. I use it most evertime that I am out and about, and find it a joy to use. This image was shot with my 500mm and with my 1.4 in place.
(http://www.jerryclement.ca/photos/397616749_rKdzr-M-4.jpg)
-
I have never owned the 600mm, however I can say that the 500mm is a superb lens. I use it most evertime that I am out and about, and find it a joy to use. This image was shot with my 500mm and with my 1.4 in place.
(http://www.jerryclement.ca/photos/397616749_rKdzr-M-4.jpg)
Dear Jerry:
Thank you very much for your post and the photo. Like you, I am amazed at the high quality of the 500 f/4 EF L IS, and like the lens very, very much. Hopefully, I will be able to take mine out this weekend to photograph a nesting pair of bald eagles and their eaglets in Pembroke Pines, Florida, a town about fifty miles from my home. If I can make a good image or two, I will post one here.
Best regards,
Roman
-
Dear Geoff:
Thank you for your reply. The analysis you expressed is very similar to my own thoughts about the Canon 500 f/4 EF L IS vs 600 f/4 EF L IS decision. As you noted, the 500 f/4 EF L IS is a superb lens that is tack sharp. But when you are photographing wildlife at a distance, the 20 percent greater reach of the 600 f/4 EF L IS does have an impact. Further, with certain types of wary, skittish or dangerous wildlife(e.g., eagles, wolves, grizzly bears), "zooming with your feet" is not a viable option.
It appears that you still have your 500 f/4 EF L IS. Are you still considering switching to the 600 f/4 EF L IS?
Best regards,
Roman
At this point I can't justify the cash outlay; I don't shoot as much wildlife as I used to, probably because I'm getting a bit older & slower, mostly because my day-job doesn't permit the time required. Instead I bought an Eos-50D for use with the 500 f:4, which effectively makes it an 800 mm lens (I know, it's only cropping not really longer focal length, yadda yadda yadda). Works for me for the time being.
-
At this point I can't justify the cash outlay; I don't shoot as much wildlife as I used to, probably because I'm getting a bit older & slower, mostly because my day-job doesn't permit the time required. Instead I bought an Eos-50D for use with the 500 f:4, which effectively makes it an 800 mm lens (I know, it's only cropping not really longer focal length, yadda yadda yadda). Works for me for the time being.
Dear Geoff:
I fully understand. Super telephoto lenses are very expensive -- period. As I previously indicated, I enjoy my 500 f/4, will continue to use it, and don't intend to move to the 600 f/4 unless a new version of the 600 f/4 comes out and the economy meaningfully improves.
Best regards,
Roman
-
Hi Roman,
Have you considered the Sigma 300-800 f/5.6. By all reports it is a very sharp lens. Certainly wouldn't be as well built as the Canons, but a superb sounding telephoto zoom. It has has excellent reviews, and I'd be happy to have one if I could justify the expense. I also think the ability to zoom for composition is highly desirable.
Kind regards,
Andrew
-
Hi Roman,
Have you considered the Sigma 300-800 f/5.6. By all reports it is a very sharp lens. Certainly wouldn't be as well built as the Canons, but a superb sounding telephoto zoom. It has has excellent reviews, and I'd be happy to have one if I could justify the expense. I also think the ability to zoom for composition is highly desirable.
Kind regards,
Andrew
Dear Andrew:
Thank you for your post. "Yes," I considered the Sigma, but ultimately concluded that I would prefer to: (A) stick with a prime lens; and ( stick with Canon. As I indicated in a response to a prior poster, I am going to hang on to my 500 f/4 EF L IS for the time being.
Yesterday I was fortunate enough to find a bald eagle's nest near my home. The eagle was cooperative, and the light was good. Please find attached a copy of one of the photographs I took of that bald eagle with my 500 f/4 EF L IS, Canon 1.4 TC and Canon 1D Mk III.
Best regards,
Roman