600 IS V1 Question......

I am looking to get a long tele for birding and the price of the 600 II is incredible. I have found a gently used 600 I online from a reputable seller. The lens appears to be in exquisite condition and another mutual friend who I made online posted (without knowing I was even looking at his friends lens) said that he had a friend who is selling his 600 and what good care he takes of his equipment. My question is, the lens is 10y/o by date code. Is that getting to old for a lens? Is there a lot of difference between the I and II? Just trying really hard to do my due diligence on these lenses. My other option is a 300 II and a 1.4 TC and 2.0 III. Thanks all!

I bought a 10 year old 500mm lens from a pilot who used it once on a trip to Africa. The lens looked and performed like a brand new lens. I think that condition is far more important then age. Some people on forums act like a lens that is a few years old will suddenly deteriorate and fall apart.The version II 600mm has slightly better IQ, less weight, four stops of IS and a very hefty price tag. The 300mm f 2.8 is an excellent lens but more of a compromise then anything else. It works well with teleconverters but it will not be as sharp or focus as quickly as a 600mm version 1.

Heya,

The glass is glass. Gonna last a long time.

The issue is mechanisms when it comes to an old lens. That wears out over time. So long as you can test it out, it shouldn't be a problem. I would not fear a 10 year old lens. I would fear 10 year old heavily used mechanisms, but if I attach it and it works, then I would stop fearing right then.

Very best,

First, there are quite a few 600's available for sale used, some much newer. Also look on FredMiranda.com. They have a somewhat more active for sale section. You've missed the boat a bit, only because right after the II version came out, a lot of people sold there older ones.

One of the biggest differences is the weight. The new one is a LOT lighter than the old one which makes a huge difference.

Also, take a look at CameraCanada.com. They and another trusty Canadian retailer have the 600 II for over 2,000 cheaper than any reliable store in the States, and that includes BH and Adorama. Even with shipping and duty, you'll save over 1500. Just a thought. You may also want to consider the 500. Plenty of those are for sale, and they are considerably smaller and lighter and much easier to travel with. And if you look at the difference in focal length, it isn't that great. The price of that lens is also over 2,000 cheaper in Canada.

Thanks everyone!

Remember, if you decide to take 600mm route there will be another extra cost for gimbal/ball head and very good strong tripod, that beast is super heavy. They will cost you around 800 bucks unless you wanna use it with monopod which is much cheaper.

If I were you, I would get 300mm II + 1.4X TC III + 2X TC III. It will be cheaper especially if you can buy them used or refurbished, and it's hand holdable. I always shoot with it 100% hand held.

Having a Canon 300 F2.8 L IS I can confirm that it works very well with the Canon 2 x Mk3 (better than the Mk2) extender and is much more portable than a 600. However I also used to own a Canon 600 F4 L IS Mk1 and the 300 F2.8, whilst excellent, is not really a substitute unless you regularly need the extra mobility. The AF is much faster than the 300 + 2x and the IQ is better.
As 2loose states you will need to budget for a top quality tripod and head - don't skimp - it will cost more in the long run!
The extenders do increase the versatility of Canon Superteles but they are always better at their native focal lengths, so I would suggest that if you need 600mm then buy a 600 rather than compromise.
The 600 F4 is a behemoth of a lens but it does give excellent results - personally I think it is worth the extra weight and cash over the 500mm as the extra 100mm of reach does make a difference! As I stated I used to have a 600 F4, it has now been traded for a Canon 800 F5.6 L IS - so you can guess my views on focal length!

Personally I opted for the 500/4 IS instead of the 600/4 IS, mostly due to the difference in size and weight.

The 500/4 is usable on a standard, heavy duty ballhead in combination with a gimbal accessory such as the Wimberley Sidekick. The larger 400/2.8 and 600/4 (Mark I's) are not recommended with that, really should be used with a full size gimbal head. That head is more expensive and it's not as quick and easy to swap the head on the tripod, so the tripod is more dedicated to long-lens-only use.

I use Gitzo 1325 and 1348 tripods with my big teles (among other things). Those are now discontinued models that are still excellent and fully usable, can sometimes be found used at a considerably more reasonable cost than the current models.

Aside from the size and weight, my biggest concern with oine of these older lenses is repairability. Canon will only support a discontinued lenses for a limited period of time, so if something breaks it might not be possible to get the parts to repair it. There is no set period of time... it can be many years, or just a few. This occured with the 200/1.8L. Shortly after it was discontinued parts supplies for it's AF mechanism were exhausted, so if a lens' AF happened to fail, it became a big, expensive paperweight. That's a rather extreme example and other lenses have had a longer repair history after being discontinued, thanks to adequate stock of spare parts.... but it's always a bit of a risk.