Budget dictates either a 600mm f/4 prime without IS or a 500mm f/4 with IS? (1 Viewer)

[Bird Companion]

Hi, having read some articles regarding this question it looks like a 500 with IS would be the better choice. But, I sure like the reach of a 600. Using the 600 might make the use of an extender less likely so the f/4 could be taken advantage of more often. If there is someone out there who has actually had the opportunity to compare these two lenses it would be great to hear what you think. Both of these lenses would be used. I would purchase "L" series Canon lenses that seems to me to be the best choice considering my minimal experience. Or, if someone has a suggestion about something better? Thanks for any light you could shed on this. Chris

 

[Owlbarred]

The 600 is a beast to carry and very limiting in my opinion. Yeah, it's fantastic in some situations: great for 'once you get there you stay there' scenarios. Otherwise you're stuck with carrying around a heavy tripod with a heavy, unwieldly lens and God help you if you stumble while walking. The old 600s are heavy as hell. Great optics -- non-IS is not that big a deal anymore with the better mirroless cameras and their ability now to shoot at even 3,200 (higher shutter speeds) without noise. But IS/ISII are nice to have during early morning and evening when the light is low.

I sold my 600 and now shoot with a EF 400 IS ii DO (super lightweight and great optics even with EF Canon teleconverters), an EF to RF converter for my mirrorless body, and also use a Cannon 100-500 RF lens (superlightweight, great optics, but sadly f/7.1 at 500 mm). Good luck.

P.S. Yes, a 500 f/4 is a good option. I borrowed a friend's 500 IS II and was really impressed. Much lighter than my old 600.

 

[Bird Companion]

The 600 is a beast to carry and very limiting in my opinion. Yeah, it's fantastic in some situations: great for 'once you get there you stay there' scenarios. Otherwise you're stuck with carrying around a heavy tripod with a heavy, unwieldly lens and God help you if you stumble while walking. The old 600s are heavy as hell. Great optics -- non-IS is not that big a deal anymore with the better mirroless cameras and their ability now to shoot at even 3,200 (higher shutter speeds) without noise. But IS/ISII are nice to have during early morning and evening when the light is low.

I sold my 600 and now shoot with a EF 400 IS ii DO (super lightweight and great optics even with EF Canon teleconverters), an EF to RF converter for my mirrorless body, and also use a Cannon 100-500 RF lens (superlightweight, great optics, but sadly f/7.1 at 500 mm). Good luck.

P.S. Yes, a 500 f/4 is a good option. I borrowed a friend's 500 IS II and was really impressed. Much lighter than my old 600.

Thank you Owlbarred. I appreciate your input. What you say seems to be the general consensus and will probably be the way I go. Weight is certainly a consideration. Others have said that IS is also handy for focusing in between branches etc. where pinpoint accuracy in necessary. Thanks again!

 

[mike nesbitt]

Thank you Owlbarred. I appreciate your input. What you say seems to be the general consensus and will probably be the way I go. Weight is certainly a consideration. Others have said that IS is also handy for focusing in between branches etc. where pinpoint accuracy in necessary. Thanks again!

Also the 600f4 non IS is now probably of such an age that Canon will no longer support the repair of it.

 

[Bird Companion]

Also the 600f4 non IS is now probably of such an age that Canon will no longer support the repair of it.

Good point. Thanks Mike. I looked at your attachment. Great stuff! Either you must live where there are a lot of birds or you have taken many trips to get the variety of species you've shot.