is 600mm or the 500mm f4 II worth upgrading from 400 f5.6? (1 Viewer)

Hi everyone, I have been shooting with a 400 5.6 for the past 7 years. I shoot mainly small song birds, and sometimes medium sized birds (egrets, heron, vulture, hawks, water fowls, etc), I do find the 400 a tad too short and the 5.6 a bit slow, the lack of IS is not a huge problem but at times I do wish I could have had it, especially at dawn or dusk where the shutter speed was ~400 to 200th of a second, I could barely get sharp image hand held with 1/200 of a second. I walk around quite a lot, and I don't really like to carry a tripod when shooting birds. The body I use is a full frame 1ds mark ii and it produces great images at a moderate file size (i only shoot raw and each file is ~8 to 12MB). I have been doing a lot of research for the 500 f4 and 600 f4 ii. I know they both had weight reduction yet much heavier than the 400 5.6.
I am debating if the 500mm is really that much better in terms of reach over the 400, or should I go with 600 instead.

Anyone here that went from 400 5.6 to the longer lens, what's your opinion?

Best,
J

I've had a 600 F4 for just over a year and not regretted buying it for a second. If you're happy to carry the extra weight and can afford it, go for it.
I don't carry a tripod around either, I have it on a sling strap with a monopod attached and I can walk around like that all day

Even though the series 2 500 and 600 are less weight than the series 2 versions, they are still heavy, and considerably bulky... A LOT bulkier than your 400/5.6... I've been shooting with a 500 now for about 10 years, and adore it... the lens with and without a 1.4x converter is tack sharp. I think you'll find the 600 too difficult to walk around with although I do know people who do. I'm going to make 2 suggestions: first, you might consider upgrading your body to a (still old) 1D Mark IV; lots of them out there on the used market, and one of the best rugged bodies out there. An advantage is that you still get the 1Ds build quality, a better sensor, and a 1.3x crop factor which is helpful when shooting birds. A 1D4 has been in my kit for at least 5 years.

Now to the lens. Since you're going to be looking at one of the "big boys", I might suggest taking a step downward in price and look up the 400mm f4 DO Series 2. The lens is magnificent!! Tack sharp, handholdable, and has a 4-stop IS which is very helpful in the field. It also takes 1.4x and 2x converters with virtually zero loss of IQ. 400+1.4x = 560mm, f5.6; 400+2x = 800mm, f8 I have seen some remarkable images with this lens.

Feel free to contact me directly...

It is very much a matter of personal opinion as to whether that extra few mm, sharpness and a stop of light are worth it - to me the extra is well worth the cost.

I used to have the Canon 600 F4 L IS and it really opened up a lot of new photographic opportunities for me, it also closed some! With the associated tripod, head etc etc you are not walking too far with one of these! After owning the 600 for a few years I sold it to buy the Canon 800 F5.6 L IS. This gives me more native reach and is OK with the 1.4 extender (forget the 2 x) plus it's lighter!

I would consider the Canon 800mm if you are buying second hand as they can, sometimes, be had for sensible prices. If you are buying new then try both the 500 and 600 Mk2 lenses - they are both superb - but quite different in handling. The 500 is quite easy to use hand held as it is quite a bit slimmer than the 600 + a little lighter. The 600 is quite a fat lens which makes hand holding a little more difficult though entirely feasible. Support requirements are similar though you may get away with a slightly lighter tripod with the 500 - but it will only be very slightly lighter! The 500 is better for air travel as well.

The IQ and AF performance of any of these lenses is superb but you really need to handle them before you decide as your shooting style and mobility requirements will determine your chioce.

Have fun deciding!

I have both a 600 and a 500 which is admittedly unashamedly OTT. I bought the 500 first, it's a better all round lens as it is, as John has already pointed out, much easier to hand hold and more suitable for air travel due to weight and volume.
Why did I get a 600 ? Basically when I went from the 1.3 crop of the 1D4 to the 1DX I missed the reach.
From what you suggest is your style I think the 500 would be the choice for you. You don't need a tripod although I take better shots when I use one.You can factor in a substantial cost to get a decent tripod and head combination and you will probably need a new camera bag too.
What will you gain ?
Not just 100mm. That's a massive increase in itself but you will be able to use a 1.4 and a 2.0x TC ( more additional cost) which give you 700mm and 1000mm to play with.
You will also have IS which the 400 f5.6 doesn't have.
Minimum focus distance between the two lenses is similar, the 400 having a slight advantage.
That all said I do tend to take my 600 out in preference to the 500 for most occasions. Reach is so important so much of the time we become obsessed by it.
Good luck in your choice but I'm sure you won't regret it whichever way you go.

Great advice here, guys!

I used to have the excellent 400mm F/5.6L but now have the 100-400mm L II (on a 7D Mark II). I also sometimes use the 1.4x III.

I am seriously considering adding the Canon 500mm F/4L II to my arsenal and already have a Gitzo S3 tripod and monopod.

Some of my photos here.... https://www.flickr.com/photos/114775606@N07/