Would you rather have 600mm IS1 or 500mm IS2? (f/4)

I am doing birds and planes with a 300mm f/2.8 IS Mk I. I have both extenders in Mk III versions. Usually using a 7d.

It is doing pretty well but I want more. Neither the 7D nor the lens are going quite as clear as I would want. Thinking about making the step to something longer, which means two main choices:

• 600mm f/4 IS Mk I which goes for $5200-$5500 lately if you can live with some beat-up paint
  
• 500mm f/4 IS Mk II which I could have for $7500 like new
  

I tend to go for newer lenses as they are optically better....in your case, I would think the newer EF500 F4L IS USM II would be a great lens to have.

You can check out the better sharpness of the newer lenses for yourself.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=0

Aswald wrote in post #17570321
I tend to go for newer lenses as they are optically better....in your case, I would think the newer EF500 F4L IS USM II would be a great lens to have.

You can check out the better sharpness of the newer lenses for yourself.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=0

Yeah, I did for some time. That's where the trouble started. 500mm IS2 is clarity personified. Ignorance was cheaper.

Bastard thing. And lighter, too. Screw the body. Who cares about camera bodies if the photos get all confused on the way through the glass?

Sigh.

Hahaha......I feel you although it's a nice problem to have.

I looked at the 600 mk2 and was astounded by it's sharpness too!

Unfortunately short of winning the lottery neither is an option for me. If I could afford, I'd go with the 500II. Reasons - it is almost 5lbs lighter, sharper (so they say), and some say takes the MKIII TCs very well (so should still be absolutely excellent with a 1.4X).

I haven't used a 600, but the 500 II is very easy to handle and not bad to travel with. It also pairs very well with both of Canon's MK III extenders.
I sold my 300 when I bought the 500 and I do miss it, but it was the right choice for me.

I owned the Canon 600 F4 L IS Mk1 for quite a while and it is a great lens. However it is not the sharpest of the Canon Sup[erteles, the 500 F4 L IS Mk1 is sharper. In practice this makes little difference as they are both very sharp, what it does mean though is that the 500 Mk1 works better with extender which tend to reduce sharpness contrast. Much as I love the 500 Mk1 it was going in the wrong direction for me so I sold my 600 Mk1 and went for the 800 F5.6 L IS = much lovelyness!

Anyway back to the OP's quandary! Regardless of sensor size I would go for the 500 F4 L IS Mk2 if you can afford it. There are several reasons for this.
1. The 500 Mk2 is much lighter = lighter tripod + lighter head + lighter backpack = MUCH greater mobility.
2. Better with extenders. The Mk1 is better with extenders than the 600 Mk1 - the 500 Mk2 is just more so.
3. Hand-holding. The 600 F4 Mk1 is GREAT fun to hand hold - NOT! I can do it but not for long. The 500 Mk2 is over 2 kilos lighter!

Against the above is the fact that the 600 Mk1 is a superb lens (though not quite as superb as the 500 Mk2) and it is 100mm longer. Now I know 100mm is only 20% but in practice the 600 does offer significantly higher magnification of subjects at practical ranges so if you go for the 500 you will be more dependent on extenders. I have a friend who uses the 1D4 + 500 Mk2 and is getting simply excellent bird images but his 1.4 Mk3 extender is pretty much a permanent fixture.

You are looking to spend a LOT of money here so you really need to think about your personal needs. I primarily shoot birds/wildlife and although I would not be happy about the reduction in focal length I would go for the 500 Mk2 out of your 2 options. Whilst the 600 is longer it does restrict your mobility and after a mile or so it becomes really noticeable! If you are parking close to a hide then who cares?

I notice that you are considering going to a 1.3 crop body, 1D3/1D4. Whilst the 1D3 is now pretty cheap the 1D4 is a significantly better body in all respects. AF, tracking, ISO, resolution, etc etc are all a step up with the Mk4. Additionally check out the 5D3 as well. I do know of one or two wildlife photographers who own both and prefer the 5D3 over the 1D4. I don't but you should still consider it.
On the off chance that you have a cash windfall have you considered a new/used 1DX? I know they are horribly expensive but they are awfully good. I owned the 1D4 and 1DX alongside each-other for 3 months - the 1D4 is a brilliant camera but it simply can't live with the 1DX. Even the 1.3 "Crop" factor is useless the 1DX out ranges the 1D4 despite the fact that it's sensor is something of a pixel desert! Not to mention that I am quite happy shooting at 8000 ISO and will go to 12800 if necessary, and no I do not use NR software.

I hope some of the above wanderings help. I just love spending other people's money!

Heya,

Given those two options, I'd go with the 500 MK II. It's only 100mm difference, but the compromise is better overall image quality, faster everything, lighter weight, and recent enough to not worry about it being rendered "unservicable" at some point. Also is actually able to be used without a tripod setup if you needed to go handheld. Throw a TC on, and it plays nice with TC's, and you have a 700 F5.6 that is still sharp and fast. I'd couple with the 1D4 for sure.

Very best,

It would be almost exclusively for birds and maybe some individual airshow shots and autocross events.

In practice, I would say that color representation is more important to me than just sharpness. Think about the 85L and what it does to colors. I wonder whether these lenses differ significantly? The sharpness difference is obvious.

The body is just that. I am a bit hesitant to park gearslutting money in camera bodies since they age a lot worse than quality lenses. I had hoped that by now we would be one more generation along the 1D line but that didn't happen. I wonder whether Canon is also affected by all that sensor making turmoil around Sony and Nikon.

uOpt wrote in post #17570313
Also on how much, in practice, the 500 IS2 is easier to lug around.

I have never owned any of the 3 lenses mentioned, but I can easily relate to the facts:
Compared to your current 300 2.8:
500 II 25% heavier
600 I is 210% heavier
That puts the 500 II a long way in front for practical reasons (IMHO0