Index  •   • New Posts  •   • RTAT  •   • "Best Of"  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New Posts  •   • RTAT  •   • "Best Of"  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses
Thread started 12 Aug 2007 (Sunday) 17:45
PREV/NEXT

Canon 500 vs. 600 (again)

 
blonde
Buck Naked Floozies
blonde's Avatar
8,405 posts

Joined Oct 2005

Boston, MA
MORE INFO

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.

Aug 12, 2007 17:45



LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
morehtml
Goldmember
morehtml's Avatar
2,987 posts

Joined Aug 2005

Murfreesboro, TN
MORE INFO

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.

Aug 12, 2007 18:19

---------------
"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
8,405 posts

Joined Oct 2005

Boston, MA
MORE INFO

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)

Aug 12, 2007 18:22



LOG IN TO REPLY
morehtml
Goldmember
morehtml's Avatar
2,987 posts

Joined Aug 2005

Murfreesboro, TN
MORE INFO

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

Aug 12, 2007 18:36

---------------
"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
8,405 posts

Joined Oct 2005

Boston, MA
MORE INFO

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?

Aug 12, 2007 18:37



LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
morehtml
Goldmember
morehtml's Avatar
2,987 posts

Joined Aug 2005

Murfreesboro, TN
MORE INFO

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

Aug 12, 2007 19:05

---------------
"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
8,405 posts

Joined Oct 2005

Boston, MA
MORE INFO

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

Aug 12, 2007 19:37



LOG IN TO REPLY
mrmarklin
Senior Member
485 posts
Joined Aug 2006

People's Republik of Kalifornia
MORE INFO

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:

Aug 12, 2007 20:07

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
14,720 posts

Joined Oct 2005

Southern California
MORE INFO

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

Aug 12, 2007 20:56

"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
2,063 posts

Joined Oct 2005

Kellyville, Baulkham Hills, Cumberland, NSW, Australia
MORE INFO

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.

Aug 12, 2007 22:54 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
485 posts
Joined Aug 2006

People's Republik of Kalifornia
MORE INFO

cwphoto,

I'm coming around to your way of thinking.

Aug 13, 2007 00:15 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
16,927 posts

Joined Jan 2006

Ajman - UAE
MORE INFO

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.

Aug 13, 2007 09:04 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
40,975 posts
GALLERY: 47 photos
Joined Apr 2003

Providence RI
MORE INFO

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

Aug 13, 2007 09:55

GEAR LIST
CDS' HOT LINKS
Jake Hegnauer Photographyexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
JC4
Goldmember
JC4's Avatar
2,610 posts

Joined Apr 2007

Columbus, Ohio
MORE INFO

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

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

John Caputo

LOG IN TO REPLY
busterboy
Goldmember
busterboy's Avatar
1,437 posts

Joined Jan 2005

Yorkshire Born n Bred.
MORE INFO

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..:)

Aug 13, 2007 11:04

[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

5,115 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 THE FORUMS
Registered members get all the features: search, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, own reviews...




SEND FEEDBACK TO STAFF    •   JUMP TO FORUM    •   FORUM RULES    •   Index    •   New Posts    •   RTAT    •   "Best Of"    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

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 browsers' data storage methods.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.1version 1.1
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00109 for 4 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.02s
Latest registered member is michaelstr
981 guests, 883 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 3341, that happened on Dec 11, 2014