Considering a 600mm gen 3 lens instead of 500mm gen 2

I know the price difference is large, but with the r5 and a 600 I just feel my shots would be !!!! My concern never shooting a 600 always a 500 will I be limited for birds in flight by what I can see. Curious what anyone’s experience has been. Thank you.

The 600 III has the same weight as the 500 II. Plus, for birds, reach is everything. If you want to hand carry and you can afford it, it's a no brainer. If you are shooting from a tripod only, I would save some cash and get the 600 II as it is quite a bit cheaper and just as good.

I shoot 90% handheld. Tripod only occasionally.

Then get the III. I have a 500 II and I would love to have an extra 100mm with the same weight. Just need to convince myself to spend the big bux.

I just picked up a 600 VIII today. I'm upgrading from a 500 VI and am absolutely blown away by the weight reduction. Can't wait to see how the AF response and image quality is improved. Now I'm off to order new a lens coat and replacement tripod foot.

Lt Colonel wrote in post #19213648
I just picked up a 600 VIII today. I'm upgrading from a 500 VI and am absolutely blown away by the weight reduction. Can't wait to see how the AF response and image quality is improved. Now I'm off to order new a lens coat and replacement tripod foot.

Congratulations O-5.

Either one is a superb choice, congrats on your upcoming ownership! Whichever one you go with, you'll feel like a kid on Christmas that first time you pull that super tele Big White lens out of the box! It's an unforgettable, exciting moment that I wish every photographer could experience

I was loving the 500 II, but there was always that pull towards getting a 600, just to see what it could offer to my birding. So, I upgraded to the 600 II, and eventually the 600 III. It was a fun journey Were I to come back to Canon for birding today though, I'd probably pick up a 500 f/4 II + a 90D, but I'd also want to wait to see what they do on the RF side of things, as a lightened RF 500 f/4 on the R5 would be pretty awesome.

Lt Colonel wrote in post #19213648
I just picked up a 600 VIII today. I'm upgrading from a 500 VI and am absolutely blown away by the weight reduction. Can't wait to see how the AF response and image quality is improved. Now I'm off to order new a lens coat and replacement tripod foot.

Congratulations!!!

Recommend either the Hejnar or Wimberely replacement feet. As for lens coat, search for Huga Nature. A bit more affordable than the LensCoat brand, and comes in some better patterns, IMO. The guy is from Poland though, so shipping takes a little bit of time, but the product is top quality.

ClarkinBabler wrote in post #19213632
.
I know the price difference is large, but with the r5 and a 600 I just feel my shots would be !!!! My concern never shooting a 600 always a 500 will I be limited for birds in flight by what I can see. Curious what anyone’s experience has been. Thank you.
.

.
It is actually easier to keep a flying bird in the frame with 600mm than it is with a 500mm, given equal framing. . The bird filling X amount of the frame with a 600 will be a bit further from you than a bird filling the same amount of the frame with a 500mm. . Therefore, the angle will change more slowly, which means it will require less fine muscle control and hand-eye coordination to keep the bird in the frame.

I have a 300-800mm zoom, and tend to focus on birds that are further out, at 800mm, because it is easier to keep them in the frame than it is at 300mm or 500mm. . The longer your lens, the easier it is to shoot birds in flight.


.

ClarkinBabler wrote in post #19213632
I know the price difference is large, but with the r5 and a 600 I just feel my shots would be !!!! My concern never shooting a 600 always a 500 will I be limited for birds in flight by what I can see. Curious what anyone’s experience has been. Thank you.

I've been considering the same switch, ever since I discovered that the 600mm III is LIGHTER than the 500mm II!

there were several reasons I preferred 500mm vs. 600mm since I bought my first 500mm in 2004.

Size
Weight
FOV for BIF
Cost

The Version III obviously removes weight as a reason!

BIF @ 600mm: It turns out this depends on sensor size/field of view. It is obvious, and yet it took me some time to actually realize it. When I shot 1D with 1.3x APS-H sensor size, I preferrred to shoot BIF @ 500mm, bare lens, no T-Con. Adding a 1.4x moved past a line where framing the BIF, at the distances I tended to be at, became very difficult. In fact, when I had the SIGMONSTER 300-800mm, I found 800mm was VERY difficult.

However, having switched to full frame, with the EOS 5D4 in particular, I find that shooting bif with the 500mm and 1.4X (700mm) is pretty much exactly like shooting a 1D with 500mm. (almost identical field of view, so "DUH!") It was on my last trip to Africa where I suddenly found the 1.4x glued to my 500mm. this was 180 degrees opposite of the previous trips. It finally occurred to me that 700mm fov was what i was used to with the bare 500mm on 1.3x crop sensor. This was my sweet spot/comfort zone.

By that logic, a bare 600mm on a full frame at the same working distances will be EASIER to frame BIF than a 500mm was on a 1D.

So that issue is removed as well as weight.

Now we have two obstacles left,

- Size. The MkIII is lighter than the 500mm, but it remains considerably longer physically. I am not sure of my packing scheme for long distance travel, or even local carry will still work. A new kenisis bag for local carry is an easy fix, but the all important restrictions on dimensions of carry on bags might leave me needing a 500mm just to get it to fit.

- All three 500mm I have owned I have been able to get at great deals, $2K, $3.8K and $7K respectively. I've been able to sell two of them for equal what I paid, getting years of service for "free". The price of entry into a MkIII 600mm is just a lot of $$

Anyway, to answer your question, by my math and experience, the 600mm will be great for BIF on a FF camera. If shooting "crop" still, I'd still prefer the 500mm.

P.S. my hypothesis is that Canon's first Big white for the RF mount might just be a 500nm f/4 as this is now the oldest design of the big 3.

P.P.S Speaking of the Big 3, another option that I would NOT have considered pre "R" or Pre Version III is the 400mm f/2.8
this is essentially the same optical formula that get us the 600mm f/4, but it is physically shorter. The III is as light as the 600mm. The downside of course is that one MUST use T-Cons just to get to the focal lengths we are talking about, not ideal for birding.

So since I just got the R5 the 600 just seems to be calling since it is my first full frame camera. But man that’s a lot of $$$$!!!

Yes, the price is what's kept this as "something i debate" vs. "something I buy"

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #19213973
P.S. my hypothesis is that Canon's first Big white for the RF mount might just be a 500nm f/4 as this is now the oldest design of the big 3.

P.P.S Speaking of the Big 3, another option that I would NOT have considered pre "R" or Pre Version III is the 400mm f/2.8
this is essentially the same optical formula that get us the 600mm f/4, but it is physically shorter. The III is as light as the 600mm. The downside of course is that one MUST use T-Cons just to get to the focal lengths we are talking about, not ideal for birding.

I had struggled with that too, especially after seeing all the stunning images that RobAmy posts with his. I settled on the 600 because I don't get the opportunity to shoot as often as it appears Rob does and my primary targets will be bears, swans, waterfowl and Sandhill Cranes (if I can ever get back to Bosque).

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #19213971
I've been considering the same switch, ever since I discovered that the 600mm III is LIGHTER than the 500mm II!

there were several reasons I preferred 500mm vs. 600mm since I bought my first 500mm in 2004.

Size
Weight
FOV for BIF
Cost

The Version III obviously removes weight as a reason!

BIF @ 600mm: It turns out this depends on sensor size/field of view. It is obvious, and yet it took me some time to actually realize it. When I shot 1D with 1.3x APS-H sensor size, I preferrred to shoot BIF @ 500mm, bare lens, no T-Con. Adding a 1.4x moved past a line where framing the BIF, at the distances I tended to be at, became very difficult. In fact, when I had the SIGMONSTER 300-800mm, I found 800mm was VERY difficult.

However, having switched to full frame, with the EOS 5D4 in particular, I find that shooting bif with the 500mm and 1.4X (700mm) is pretty much exactly like shooting a 1D with 500mm. (almost identical field of view, so "DUH!") It was on my last trip to Africa where I suddenly found the 1.4x glued to my 500mm. this was 180 degrees opposite of the previous trips. It finally occurred to me that 700mm fov was what i was used to with the bare 500mm on 1.3x crop sensor. This was my sweet spot/comfort zone.

By that logic, a bare 600mm on a full frame at the same working distances will be EASIER to frame BIF than a 500mm was on a 1D.

So that issue is removed as well as weight.

Now we have two obstacles left,

- Size. The MkIII is lighter than the 500mm, but it remains considerably longer physically. I am not sure of my packing scheme for long distance travel, or even local carry will still work. A new kenisis bag for local carry is an easy fix, but the all important restrictions on dimensions of carry on bags might leave me needing a 500mm just to get it to fit.

- All three 500mm I have owned I have been able to get at great deals, $2K, $3.8K and $7K respectively. I've been able to sell two of them for equal what I paid, getting years of service for "free". The price of entry into a MkIII 600mm is just a lot of $$

Anyway, to answer your question, by my math and experience, the 600mm will be great for BIF on a FF camera. If shooting "crop" still, I'd still prefer the 500mm.

https://www.canonrumor​s.com …00mm-f-2-8l-is-usm-macro/

Yes, interesting times. I'm guessing the RF version big whites will be the same lens (optically) with new mount and control.
Maybe the Gen III ef price will go down, and least for used.