500 or 600mm f4 (1 Viewer)

Gaz Shilton · May 6, 2009

I have been saving for nearly 2 years now.
Around September I should have enough to buy a camera, tripod, wimberly, converter and lens.
I would like to buy one of the big Canon primes.
But which one?
I understand that they are big and heavy as far as lenses go.
However, is the difference between the 500 and 600 that great?
With/without teleconverters, does the 'extra' reach make much of a difference?
I have seen people out in the field with either the 500 or 600 and they don't look that different.
One chap I asked who had a 600mm said those that owned the 500 didn't know what they were missing. If you want the reach, the 600 is all you need. He said the weight is not a problem and that it was the best buy he ever made.
However, a lot of reviews on the net are conflicting. Those that own the 500mm say the 600mm is too big and heavy, whereas, those that own the 600mm say although it is a heavy beast, the images and reach you can achieve with and without teleconverters 'outweigh' the weight of the lens.

I wouldn't want to buy the 500 and then wish I had gone for the bigger version.
On the flip side, I wouldn't want to do the opposite.

The type of birding photography I do is from hides and also walking and taking shots as they arise when I am out and about.
At the moment I have a D200 with a Tamron 200-500 lens.

But I would like some advice on an upgrade and I would really like one of the Canon lenses.......But which one???

Thanks

Marcus Conway - ebirder · May 6, 2009

I've got a 500. I love it. You need the feedback form someone has had both. At the time I could have got either, but chose the 500 and have never regretted it.

Cashie · May 6, 2009

Hi Gaz

I went through all this & ended up buying the 500f4 for about a grand less at that time.

With a 1.4x tc attached the 500 f4 is absolutely excellent at 700 f5.6, you wouldn't know it was on there, the clarity is superb.

I tried a 600 & found it quite a bit heavier for walking any distance, & besides 100mm at these sort of focal lengths when using a TC insn't that much different.

Make sure though which ever you decide on, to buget fot a sturdy tripod and gimbal head.

GYRob · May 6, 2009

IF you intend doing quite a bit of BIF then the 500 has to be the one to go for ( my choice )
i often shoot BIFs but i do have the 1.4tc on Most of the time as in the uk we nearly aways want reach .
Even the 600 will most likely need the tc too .
But what crop camera do you intend getting as that makes a vast diffrence 1.3 crop 500mm gives FOV 650 - 1.6 gives 800mm FOV now the 600mm on 1.6 goes to 960mm FOV that little 100mm 500/600 really starts to come into play big time ALL at F4 ?

FIND OUT THE WEIGHT OF THE 600mm then tape a water bottol to your tamron to make it the same .
That will give you an ider .
Rob.

Gaz Shilton · May 6, 2009

GYRob said:
IF you intend doing quite a bit of BIF then the 500 has to be the one to go for ( my choice )
i often shoot BIFs but i do have the 1.4tc on Most of the time as in the uk we nearly aways want reach .
Even the 600 will most likely need the tc too .
But what crop camera do you intend getting as that makes a vast diffrence 1.3 crop 500mm gives FOV 650 - 1.6 gives 800mm FOV now the 600mm on 1.6 goes to 960mm FOV that little 100mm 500/600 really starts to come into play big time ALL at F4 ?

FIND OUT THE WEIGHT OF THE 600mm then tape a water bottol to your tamron to make it the same .
That will give you an ider .
Rob.

I was looking at the 50D to go with it.
I am thinking the 500 would be more practical.
As you say for BIF.
Also it would make sense to have a 500 in a hide.
I would imagine it would be less cumbersome on a bean bag than a 600 would. Also for hand holding for short periods the 500 would be a better bet.

GYRob · May 6, 2009

Gaz Shilton said:
I was looking at the 50D to go with it.
I am thinking the 500 would be more practical.
As you say for BIF.
Also it would make sense to have a 500 in a hide.
I would imagine it would be less cumbersome on a bean bag than a 600 would. Also for hand holding for short periods the 500 would be a better bet.

that would be a very good combo and put extra MP onto the subject over most other camaras .
Almost like having a 1.7 crop say over the 40d regarding Pixcels on the subject .
Its aways a compromise but the 500 makes better use for handholding,
Im not a big guy but can hold my mk3 500f4isL +1.4TC up to my eye for 55 seconds plenty of time to get onto a bird .
thers lots of shots in my galley with this combo.
Rob.

Chris Galvin · May 6, 2009

I had a similar choice a couple of years back and went for the 500. Although I would have no problem carrying the 600 I made my purely & simply because I like to take my gear abroad and the 600 is just so much bigger.

You have to ask yourself the same question.

Steve Makin · May 6, 2009

Not a Canon user but

I know that Danny Green uses a Canon 500 f4 sometimes with a 1.4, its good enough for him ;-)

for me, I use a sigma 300-800, which is a truly excellent lens but frankly anymore than 2 miles with that on my back and I'm buggered, I can see me exchanging it for a Nikon 500 sometime soon

Robert_Scanlon · May 6, 2009

Even with a 600 + 1.4 combo, you will still find yourself short of reach for small birds much of the time. If you can take the extra weight, and the extra cost, 600 all the way. It is a heavy beast though, not one to lug around long distances unless you're fairly strong.

The difference between 500 and 600 might not sound much, but I seem to recall someone (Arthur Morris?) saying the 600 gives a 47% larger image of the bird compared to the 500...

just checked and here is the quote: "The amount of space occupied by a bird in a frame will be over 42% greater with a 600mm lens than a 500mm lens, since it's the lens length squared that determines the relative area of the subject on the film."

link: http://www.birdsasart.com/b45.html

Nikon Kid · May 6, 2009

Steve Makin said:
I know that Danny Green uses a Canon 500 f4 sometimes with a 1.4, its good enough for him ;-)

for me, I use a sigma 300-800, which is a truly excellent lens but frankly anymore than 2 miles with that on my back and I'm buggered, I can see me exchanging it for a Nikon 500 sometime soon

I remember I guy a pro (Wolfman) I meet at Rutland Water last year he had the same sigma lens and another big one fixed he had like a sack barrow
with him he came to take pic of the Osprey's at manton bay and if you know the walk up and over lax hill you will know what I mean.

But I digress I have also meet a few guys over the last few weeks with 500's and they all tell me they want a bigger lens.

briwig · May 6, 2009

Hi Gaz,I've got a 500,had it for a couple of years and would,nt swap it,if you want to have a go drop me a PM and we can go to potteric or wherever. regards Brian

Highcountry · May 7, 2009

I purchased a 500mm last summer and haven't looked back. The 600mm weighs about 3 lbs more than the 500mm which doesn't sound like a lot but that is about 40% more than the 500mm. Some else to consider is that with a 500mm, you use a lighter, cheaper, and more versatile tripod/head setup. The 500mm works great with a Wimberley Sidekick. That means that you can get a nice ballhead for your tripod with the Sidekick and only require one tripod setup. I use a Gitzo 1325, Arca-Swiss B-1, and Sidekick and it is perfect for the 500mm.

Have fun researching. And if possible, rent both for the ultimate litmus test.

OBXGuide · May 7, 2009

I must begin by saying I do not own the 600. I've had my 500 f/4 for a year and a half, and enjoy it. What I wanted to say about making your choice is this - When my lens package arrived and I opened the carrying case the 500 comes with, the first words out of my mouth were "What have I gotten myself into?"

I expected it to be big ( hadn't ever actually seen one in person before mine came) but I didn't think it would be quite THAT big. I often shoot from the vehicle window, and my first photography trip to the Outer Banks with the 500mm in my 4 wheel drive ZR2 Blazer was my last. I resolved to get a bigger vehicle, and the next time I went out with the lens I had a new full-size crew cab (4-door) Silverado 4WD. Even in that big old truck, with the lens mounted to the camera it still just barely fits between the seat back and the dash next to me where I can grab it quickly.

My point is this - I can't imagine having to deal with anything larger than the 500mm with a 1.4 TC - both weight-wise and size-wise. After lugging it around on the end of a tripod over my shoulder, and occasionally trying to hand-hold it for unexpected BIFs that happen my way, I am certain it's the largest thing I wish to deal with. If I can't get the shot with the 500mm+1.4 TC on a 15MP 50D, then it's too durn far away anyway. Did I mention I LOVE my 500mm and 50D? The extra size, weight and cost of the 600mm really doesn't interest me that much. I have quite all that I can handle now.

mrmarklin · May 7, 2009

I have the 600mm lens, and went on a wildlife shoot workshop last summer. It's big and heavy, but I got the shots everyone else missed, or were just not quite close enough. And these were not even birds!

One needs a pro level tripod and Wimberley mount system etc, so that alone is quite an investment. But I say in for a penney, in for a pound at this level. There may be some situations where someone is hand carrying the 500mm all over kingdom come but I doubt it happens very often. Both of these large lenses require a pro tripod and a good mounting system. That means that they are largely carried in vehicles. I use a Land Rover LR3 (Disovery 3) and it fits fine in back, mounted on the tripod. I use a Manfrotto Neotec tripod, which collapses and sets up very easily. This convenient tripod has (barely) enough capacity to handle this lens.

If you must carry the lens there are a couple of special backpacks available just for the 600mm out there. Properly done, you won't notice a few pounds extra weight.

stevo · May 7, 2009

A suggestion for you why don`t you rent the lenses then try them out in the field before you make your final decision.

Steve.

GYRob · May 7, 2009

Well i dont for the life of me understand why a big car is needed, i drive one of the smallest cars made .
My MK3 and 500f4isL + 1.4 TC sits on the passenger seat( window open ) always ready for a grab shot .
Rob.

OBXGuide · May 7, 2009

GYRob, I must assume your vehicle has a bench seat and no center console. My Blazer has a center console and stick shift, which is very much in the way when the passenger seat is occupied by the wife. She ended up cradling the 500mm in her arms for most of her vacation while I drove looking for shots. I got the truck with a front bench seat so I'd have room for my equipment next to me, and still have space for the wife to be comfortable and still get to take her own photos with the spare DSLR. Works out great, though I'm quite certain you get far better gas mileage. But then, I mostly use the truck for my photo trips and not an everyday vehicle. It was the only thing available with enough front seat room AND serious 4WD, which I needed for beach driving and the odd rough terrain, not exactly possible with any small economical car. If I had an assiatant to lug around a 600mm for me, I'd love to try one, but I'll get by with the 500 just fine.

GYRob · May 7, 2009

Well i dont take the wife lol

but not a bench seat ,the camara / lens sits facing forward rather than across the seat just in case i brake hard then it carnt roll off .
Rob.

Gaz Shilton · May 7, 2009

briwig said:
Hi Gaz,I've got a 500,had it for a couple of years and would,nt swap it,if you want to have a go drop me a PM and we can go to potteric or wherever. regards Brian

Thank you for the offer Brian.
Was at Potteric last weekend.
A pair of BNGrebes showed really well outside Cottage Drain hide.
Will PM you when I will be going there again. Possibly Monday 11th.
I will have the wife in tow.
Maybe a good thing, if she can see what you get for your money etc.
Have just noticed Andy Rouse has brought out a Viper rucksack on Warehouse Express. Seems like an excellent piece of eqpt.
The prices of everything seems to have gone up on their website.
The 600 is around £2K more than the 500.
The 300-800 Sigmonster is around the price of the 600.
Even the Mk111 is over 3 grand now.
I think I could save a couple of grand and opt for the 500.
Saw the 500 and 600 side by side at the Bird Fair last year.
Will go to the Canon tent again this year and see which one I am drawn to more.
I am liking the hand holding aspect of the 500 albeit for short periods.
Also, if I am in a hide and it is pretty busy (when Bitterns are showing in front of Piper Marsh hide in winter for example), then I think I could get just about get away with the 500 without getting in the way too much.

Thanks once again.

Gaz Shilton · May 7, 2009

stevo said:
A suggestion for you why don`t you rent the lenses then try them out in the field before you make your final decision.

Steve.

Hi Steve,
Have thought about renting.
Can you rent camera's as well?
Haven't got a Canon camera.
Wouldn't want to buy one then not like the lens(es).
Would then be lumbered with a camera.

500 or 600mm f4 (1 Viewer)

Well-known member

Well-known member

Hello folks

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Member

Well-known member

Love them Sula Bassana

Well-known member

Well-known member

Nature Photographer

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Attachments

Nature Photographer

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread