Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Canon 500 f/4 EF L IS vs 600 f/4 EF L IS  (Read 9284 times)

PORSCHE917

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13
Canon 500 f/4 EF L IS vs 600 f/4 EF L IS
« 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
Logged

wolfnowl

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5824
    • M&M's Musings
Canon 500 f/4 EF L IS vs 600 f/4 EF L IS
« Reply #1 on: February 18, 2009, 01:56:51 am »

Roman:  Michael's away right now... Just so you know.

Mike.
Logged
If your mind is attuned t

wtlloyd

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 135
Canon 500 f/4 EF L IS vs 600 f/4 EF L IS
« Reply #2 on: February 18, 2009, 03:37:09 am »

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!
Logged

phila

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 327
    • www.philaphoto.com
Canon 500 f/4 EF L IS vs 600 f/4 EF L IS
« Reply #3 on: February 18, 2009, 03:43:00 am »

Quote from: wolfnowl
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.

PORSCHE917

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13
Canon 500 f/4 EF L IS vs 600 f/4 EF L IS
« Reply #4 on: February 18, 2009, 11:31:33 am »

Quote from: phila
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.
Logged

PORSCHE917

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13
Canon 500 f/4 EF L IS vs 600 f/4 EF L IS
« Reply #5 on: February 18, 2009, 11:44:42 am »

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
Logged

Geoff Wittig

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1023
Canon 500 f/4 EF L IS vs 600 f/4 EF L IS
« Reply #6 on: February 24, 2009, 09:26:17 am »

Quote from: PORSCHE917
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.
Logged

PORSCHE917

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13
Canon 500 f/4 EF L IS vs 600 f/4 EF L IS
« Reply #7 on: February 24, 2009, 11:06:24 am »

Quote from: Geoff Wittig
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.


Logged

PORSCHE917

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13
Canon 500 f/4 EF L IS vs 600 f/4 EF L IS
« Reply #8 on: February 24, 2009, 11:15:28 am »

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  

Logged

Jerry Clement

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 26
    • http://www.jerryclement.ca
Canon 500 f/4 EF L IS vs 600 f/4 EF L IS
« Reply #9 on: February 24, 2009, 11:40:57 am »

Quote from: PORSCHE917
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.

PORSCHE917

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13
Canon 500 f/4 EF L IS vs 600 f/4 EF L IS
« Reply #10 on: February 26, 2009, 11:42:00 am »

Quote from: Jerry Clement
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.
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
Logged

Geoff Wittig

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1023
Canon 500 f/4 EF L IS vs 600 f/4 EF L IS
« Reply #11 on: February 26, 2009, 05:30:09 pm »

Quote from: PORSCHE917
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.
Logged

PORSCHE917

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13
Canon 500 f/4 EF L IS vs 600 f/4 EF L IS
« Reply #12 on: February 27, 2009, 04:56:04 pm »

Quote from: Geoff Wittig
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
Logged

Andrew Teakle

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 90
    • http://www.andrewteakle.com
Canon 500 f/4 EF L IS vs 600 f/4 EF L IS
« Reply #13 on: February 27, 2009, 11:47:51 pm »

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
Logged
Andrew

PORSCHE917

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13
Canon 500 f/4 EF L IS vs 600 f/4 EF L IS
« Reply #14 on: March 01, 2009, 06:05:35 pm »

Quote from: tesseraphoto
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  


Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up