LOG IN    OR   REGISTER TO FORUMS


Canon 500 vs. 600 (again)

FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses
Thread started 12 Aug 2007 (Sunday) 17:45   
LIST NEARBY THREADS
 
blonde
Buck Naked Floozies
blonde's Avatar
Joined Oct 2005
8,405 posts
Boston, MA
[MORE/SHARE]

looks like my 500 is now sold (i am doing a favor to a friend and selling him mine when i go back home) so when i get back in 3 weeks, i will have the cash in hand to pick up a new 500mm F4. not sure why, but i have been thinking about maybe picking up a 600F4 instead. i would like to hear the opinions from people like morehtml, peteparker and all the other people that had a chance to use them both. i know all about the weight difference between the two but i also know that i have shot my 500mm handheld exactly one time and have no plans of doing that again.

Post #1, Aug 12, 2007 17:45:37




LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
morehtml
Goldmember
morehtml's Avatar
Joined Aug 2005
2,987 posts
Murfreesboro, TN
[MORE/SHARE]

Yea I have both. For birds if I plan on taking any handheld flight shots OR if I'm traveling on a plane I take the 500. Otherwise I almost always take the 600 90 percent of the time for birds.

If I'm shooting bigger wildlife I take the 600 and 300 2.8 if by car and the 300 and 500 if by air.

The 600 makes 44% more pixels on your target.

AF speed and sharpness is pretty much the same between the 2. 500 is VERY slightly sharper, not enough to sweat over. The 500 is easier to get sharp shots because you don't have as much focal length to worry about but with good technique the 600 works just as well.

600 is harder to shoot out car window but I still do it all the time and use a kirk window mount.

Most of the animals I shoot even deer, bear, etc the 600 is usually used if I go by car.

I can still handhold the 600 if need be.

As far as weight:

Here's my rig

1 Series - 2.56 Ib
Gitzo 1325 - 4.5 Ib
Wimbeley II - 3.15 Ib
Flash & Bracket + Batt pack & Batteries - estimated 3 Ib
Add 500/600 Lens - 8.5/11.8

As you can see the whole setup is

21.7 Ib with 500mm and
25 Ib with 600mm or 15% heavier which isn't the end of the world

In real world use you notice the bulky factor more.

Post #2, Aug 12, 2007 18:19:40


---------------
"Allen's Visions of Nature Gallery"external link
www.allensvisions.comexternal link

more glass than I need

LOG IN TO REPLY
blonde
THREAD ­ STARTER
Buck Naked Floozies
blonde's Avatar
Joined Oct 2005
8,405 posts
Boston, MA
[MORE/SHARE]

wow, just what i was looking for Allen!! you even listed my entire rig specs so that is even better (we use the exact same setup)

Post #3, Aug 12, 2007 18:22:43




LOG IN TO REPLY
morehtml
Goldmember
morehtml's Avatar
Joined Aug 2005
2,987 posts
Murfreesboro, TN
[MORE/SHARE]

blonde wrote in post #3715476external link
wow, just what i was looking for Allen!! you even listed my entire rig specs so that is even better (we use the exact same setup)

Cool if you need to see any side by side shots of the 300/500/600 or cases that are not covered on http://www.the-digital-picture.com ...L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspxexternal link

then let me know

Post #4, Aug 12, 2007 18:36:32


---------------
"Allen's Visions of Nature Gallery"external link
www.allensvisions.comexternal link

more glass than I need

LOG IN TO REPLY
blonde
THREAD ­ STARTER
Buck Naked Floozies
blonde's Avatar
Joined Oct 2005
8,405 posts
Boston, MA
[MORE/SHARE]

actually, if you can post a few of the two of them laying on the floor side by side that would be great. also, what do you use for a bag for the 600 and can i see it in the bag compared to the 500?

Post #5, Aug 12, 2007 18:37:53




LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
morehtml
Goldmember
morehtml's Avatar
Joined Aug 2005
2,987 posts
Murfreesboro, TN
[MORE/SHARE]

Luky for you it's so hot I can't go out and shoot anything this afternoon because of the heat :lol:

IMAGE: http://www.allensvisions.com/pics/IMG_5712w.jpg

IMAGE: http://www.allensvisions.com/pics/IMG_5713w.jpg

IMAGE: http://www.allensvisions.com/pics/IMG_5714w.jpg

IMAGE: http://www.allensvisions.com/pics/IMG_5715w.jpg

Kinesis Bags. A little deceptive because the 600 bag will hold the lens + cam attached and the 500 will only hold the lens. While taking this picture though I toyed with it a bit and i think without the hood the 600 will actually fit in the 500 bag and I could pack the lens hood in a checked bag to fly if need be.
IMAGE: http://www.allensvisions.com/pics/IMG_5716w.jpg

Post #6, Aug 12, 2007 19:05:45


---------------
"Allen's Visions of Nature Gallery"external link
www.allensvisions.comexternal link

more glass than I need

LOG IN TO REPLY
blonde
THREAD ­ STARTER
Buck Naked Floozies
blonde's Avatar
Joined Oct 2005
8,405 posts
Boston, MA
[MORE/SHARE]

holy crap that is a huge difference!!! i think that i am going to stick with the 500 :)

Post #7, Aug 12, 2007 19:37:05




LOG IN TO REPLY
mrmarklin
Senior Member
Joined Aug 2006
482 posts
People's Republik of Kalifornia
[MORE/SHARE]

blonde wrote in post #3715863external link
holy crap that is a huge difference!!! i think that i am going to stick with the 500 :)

Blonde,

Thanks for starting this thread. I'm going for wildlife in NoCal soon, and have wanted a large prime for a little while now. No matter what I do my 1-400 dosn't reach out far enough even with T/C (and I lose autofocus too). I'm assuming my T/C will still allow autofocus with either of these two lenses.

Any way the info here is very pertintent to my decision.

BTW, I like Blonde's reviews.:cool:

Post #8, Aug 12, 2007 20:07:46


Canon EOS 5D also Mk III, 24-70L, 85 IIL, 24-105L, 70-200 f/2.8 IS L, 180 Macro L, 100 f/2.8L IS Macro, 100-400 L IS, 8-15 L Fisheye f/4, 16-35 L, 50 L , TS-E 24 L, 600 L, Extender 1.4X & 2X II, Speedlite 580EX x 2, MT-24EX Macro Twin Lite, ST-E2, Angle Finder C, RS-80N3 Remote Switch, Focusing Screen EE-D, BG-E4, Manfrotto 458B Neotec tripodw/Acratech 1155 GP Ballhead.:cool:

LOG IN TO REPLY
calicokat
calicokat is BANNED
calicokat's Avatar
Joined Oct 2005
14,720 posts
Southern California
[MORE/SHARE]

Thanks for the reference, wasn't sure I put the lens coat on right :eek:

Post #9, Aug 12, 2007 20:56:41


"You are going to fall off a cliff trying to get a better shot someday"- My hopeful and loving wife :eek: :twisted:
My Websiteexternal link

My Gear

Calicokat 1990-2007 RIP My Loving Kitty

LOG IN TO REPLY
cwphoto
Go ahead, make my day
cwphoto's Avatar
Joined Oct 2005
2,063 posts
Kellyville, Baulkham Hills, Cumberland, NSW, Australia
[MORE/SHARE]

I use both regularly for sport, but I rarely shoot wildlife.

On larger football (AFL)/cricket fields I favour the 600/4 IS, but I prefer using the 500/4 IS on smaller fields as it is easier to acquire and frame moving targets.

For motorsport I prefer the 500/4 IS due to the fact that I spend all day walking around and the weight penalty of the 600/4 IS is higher, but for motorcycles I will normally put up with the weight and go for the 600/4 IS as the subjects are smaller and the races are shorter.

Sharpness is a dead heat from what I can tell. Both take TCs very well.

If I could only have one I would favour the 600/4 IS.

Post #10, Aug 12, 2007 22:54:13 as a reply to calicokat's post 1 hour earlier.


EOS-1D X | EOS 5D Mark III | EOS 600D | EOS-1V HS
L: 14/2.8 II | 17/4 | 24/1.4 II | 24/3.5 II | 35/1.4 | 50/1.2 | 85/1.2 II | 100/2.8 Macro IS | 135/2 | 180/3.5 Macro | 200/2.8 II | 8-15/4 Fisheye | 16-35/2.8 II | 24-70/2.8 II | 24-105/4 IS | 70-200/2.8 IS II | 100-400/4.5-5.6 IS.
Sundry: 600EX-RT | 1.4x III | 12 II | 25 II | OC-E4

LOG IN TO REPLY
mrmarklin
Senior Member
Joined Aug 2006
482 posts
People's Republik of Kalifornia
[MORE/SHARE]

cwphoto,

I'm coming around to your way of thinking.

Post #11, Aug 13, 2007 00:15:07 as a reply to cwphoto's post 1 hour earlier.


Canon EOS 5D also Mk III, 24-70L, 85 IIL, 24-105L, 70-200 f/2.8 IS L, 180 Macro L, 100 f/2.8L IS Macro, 100-400 L IS, 8-15 L Fisheye f/4, 16-35 L, 50 L , TS-E 24 L, 600 L, Extender 1.4X & 2X II, Speedlite 580EX x 2, MT-24EX Macro Twin Lite, ST-E2, Angle Finder C, RS-80N3 Remote Switch, Focusing Screen EE-D, BG-E4, Manfrotto 458B Neotec tripodw/Acratech 1155 GP Ballhead.:cool:

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
Tareq
"I am very lazy, a normal consumer"
Tareq's Avatar
Joined Jan 2006
16,858 posts
Ajman - UAE
[MORE/SHARE]

I was asking about that many times here or on some forums, even blonde himself posted that he prefers 500, and i think he shouldn't change what he preferred, always he prefers something then after a while of usage he wants to try something new.
I will go direct for 600, just spending my vacation now and when back i will start to save for 600, not looking for handholding heavy lenses even that 300 which is the lighter than the others.

Post #12, Aug 13, 2007 09:04:26 as a reply to mrmarklin's post 8 hours earlier.


Galleries:
http://hamrani.deviant​art.com/gallery/external link
Gear List
Facebookexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
CyberDyneSystems
Admin (type T-2000)
CyberDyneSystems's Avatar
Joined Apr 2003
40,730 posts
Providence RI
[MORE/SHARE]

Yes, it is imperative that we never change our minds.. ???

Post #13, Aug 13, 2007 09:55:24


GEAR LIST
CDS' HOT LINKS
My POTN Share Threads
Jake Hegnauer Photographyexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
JC4
Goldmember
JC4's Avatar
Joined Apr 2007
2,610 posts
Columbus, Ohio
[MORE/SHARE]

Good thread.

I just sold my 300 f/2.8, and was starting to research my next long lens. Those pictures of 500 vs 600 are excellent. The spec differences don't look as significant as the actual lenses side-by-side. That 600 is huge!

I'd like to see a DO version of the 600. I know it wouldn't accept TCs as well, but it might make a nice size/weight package. And would probably be fine at 600mm or 840mm. On the other hand, the price might be a bit scary (more so than the current 600).

Sigma doesn't make anything in these lengths with OS, do they? I think I'd love their 300-800 with OS, since my Zooms always seem to get the most usage.

Oh well. Thanks for getting this tread started. Glad to see the comparison between these two.

JohnC

Post #14, Aug 13, 2007 09:56:12 as a reply to Tareq's post 51 minutes earlier.


John Caputo

LOG IN TO REPLY
busterboy
Goldmember
busterboy's Avatar
Joined Jan 2005
1,437 posts
Yorkshire Born n Bred.
[MORE/SHARE]

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #3719005external link
Yes, it is imperative that we never change our minds.. ???

:lol::lol::lol:
---------------

Great thread BTW..:D

Cannot add anything to your thread Snir and you don't need telling how good both these giant lenses are..;)

Good luck with whatever you choose..:)

Post #15, Aug 13, 2007 11:04:31


[COLOR=blue][COLOR=bla​ck][COLOR=blue]| Canon 1DMkIII | 16-35mm f/2.8L | Canon 70-200mm F/2.8L IS | Canon 1.4X Extender | Canon 2X Extender |

LOG IN TO REPLY


LIST NEARBY THREADS
4,990 views & 0 likes for this thread
Canon 500 vs. 600 (again)
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses



NOT A MEMBER YET? CLICK HERE TO REGISTER TO FORUMS

CHANGE BODY TEXT SIZE FOR ALL THREAD PAGES
POWERED BY AMASS 1.0version 1.0
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net


SEND FEEDBACK TO STAFF  |  JUMP TO FORUM...  |  FORUM RULES


Spent 0.0009 for 4 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.02s
1077 guests, 915 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 3341, that happened on Dec 11, 2014
Latest registered member is Land Shark

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: By using this site you agree that some cookies will be stored on your browser. For unlogged users we store one session id cookie. For registered members we store (in addition to login session cookie) only cookies that are essential for required functionality, we do not store any personal tracking data in cookies or other browser's data storage methods.