Japan 500 or 600mm f4 legit?

Hey all, I’ve been looking for a long lens and haven’t seen many for sale locally so I’ve been watching eBay, One of my concerns is 90% of the 5 and 600’s being sold are from Japan which that alone worries a bit does anyone have any experience with purchasing one of them from eBay or should I stay away and look locally instead?

Between the two is there any reason I would want the 500 instead of a 600mm? I’m already leaning towards the 600 just because of the reach but open to other opinions as well

Thanks all

Ranger man wrote in post #19181168
Hey all, I’ve been looking for a long lens and haven’t seen many for sale locally so I’ve been watching eBay, One of my concerns is 90% of the 5 and 600’s being sold are from Japan which that alone worries a bit does anyone have any experience with purchasing one of them from eBay or should I stay away and look locally instead?

Between the two is there any reason I would want the 500 instead of a 600mm? I’m already leaning towards the 600 just because of the reach but open to other opinions as well

Thanks all

Hi Ranger man,

I found the same as you when I was looking for a 500 f4 and did buy from Japan. I was extremely happy with the lens and the service from the Japanese seller, I was however unhappy with the customs charges that I had to pay on top when it was intercepted by customs on arrival in the UK. Don't know if that's an issue for you in the US.
The main reason to get the 500 over the 600 is weight.
HTH

sid

Those are "grey market" items that are not supposed to be sold in regions outside their origin; so they are offered at a significant "discount" because the reseller has not payed any import duties, etc on the lenses. This doesn't typically fall back on to the buyer, but it does mean you're basically buying an "as is" item with no return protections and no warranty coverage should you need to get it serviced (and, in some cases, the buyer's been directed to send the lens to a repair shop in the region the lens was sold for, rather than the domestic shop doing the work as they would on a local market lens).

So, short answer, the lenses themselves are usually just fine; it's the purchase process and seller that tend to be sketch as hell.

Snydremark wrote in post #19181237
Those are "grey market" items that are not supposed to be sold in regions outside their origin; so they are offered at a significant "discount" because the reseller has not payed any import duties, etc on the lenses. This doesn't typically fall back on to the buyer, but it does mean you're basically buying an "as is" item with no return protections and no warranty coverage should you need to get it serviced (and, in some cases, the buyer's been directed to send the lens to a repair shop in the region the lens was sold for, rather than the domestic shop doing the work as they would on a local market lens).

So, short answer, the lenses themselves are usually just fine; it's the purchase process and seller that tend to be sketch as hell.

I don't know about the OP but I was talking about second hand items so there was nothing sketchy about the sellers or the process. I didn't even consider that he may be referring to new items

Thanks fella’s I was looking for used, and yes they are definitely priced a little lower then what I’ve seen but like you mentioned I didn’t even think about customs because I know there will be a cost there as well.

It’s a lot of money to throw down for a hobby but yes I’d rather spend a little more and know that I’m getting exactly what I expect to get, some of those lens look brand new which is tempting as heck.

I have gone with 500mm twice. (both IS versions, 12 years apart)

Three reasons for me;

- Weight/size
- Field Of View for birds in flight. (if the lens is too long, the field of view is so narrow that acquiring a bird in flight becomes much harder. I found 500mm on APS-H to be about the limit to how long I wanted for that kind of work.
- Price

However, Two of those reasons are easily dated in today's world!

- The Gen III 600mm weighs LESS than the current Gen II 500mm! Now the lightest option is the 600mm! Crazy.

- I was shooting on crop sensors (1D APS-H 1.3x crop) In years past, the only sensible bodies to mount these one were crop sensor bodies. This has changed. On a full frame sensor, the 600mm FOV is wider than a 500mm on a crop. Now I shoot with 5D4, R5, or 1DX, all are full frame. Now to get the same FOV I am used to I need to ADD a 1.4x t-con to the 500mm.

In a perfect world I'd get the gen III 600mm today, if I felt I could afford it.

Of course, if you aren't in the market for a Gen III 600mm due to cost, then the 500mm II retains the weight advantage.

Thank you for response and the insight the 600lll would be awesome but as a hobbiest I just can’t justify that price. Doesn’t seem to be many 600ll or 500ll out there for sale. Found a few older original 500’s for decent prices but from what I’ve read I’d something goes wrong I’m basically stuck with a paperweight. So I’m hesitant to purchase an original 500 or 600.

How do you like the R5? How does it compare to the 5dIV. I’m still shooting with a 7Dmkii and a 5Dmkii not sure where I want to go there either!! Decisions decisions

I'd also be wary of one of the older lenses as they are slowed down or otherwise performance restricted by Canon on the newest bodies, R5/6, and that is only going to get worse, as a cynical means to get you to upgrade to newer/new. This was the final straw for me as an owner of a 500 mk 1 so instead of upgrading my 7DII to a new mirrorless I sold the lot!

sidknee wrote in post #19181538
I'd also be wary of one of the older lenses as they are slowed down or otherwise performance restricted by Canon on the newest bodies, R5/6, and that is only going to get worse, as a cynical means to get you to upgrade to newer/new. This was the final straw for me as an owner of a 500 mk 1 so instead of upgrading my 7DII to a new mirrorless I sold the lot!

What evidence do you have to support this statement? I have seen no performance degradation with my 1DX3 and 500/4.

Ranger man wrote in post #19181478
Thank you for response and the insight the 600lll would be awesome but as a hobbiest I just can’t justify that price. Doesn’t seem to be many 600ll or 500ll out there for sale. Found a few older original 500’s for decent prices but from what I’ve read I’d something goes wrong I’m basically stuck with a paperweight. So I’m hesitant to purchase an original 500 or 600.

How do you like the R5? How does it compare to the 5dIV. I’m still shooting with a 7Dmkii and a 5Dmkii not sure where I want to go there either!! Decisions decisions

When i was budget limited and searching for deals on older glass, I did not let Canon's service effect my decision for two reasons;

- As an active member on this forum since 2003, I'd be aware if there was a likelihood that one of these super telephotos would suddenly die.
- There are places that will service them after Canon stops doing so. One happens to be walking distance from my house.

Loving the R5. It's a very different feel from the 5D4, but familiar enough Canon ergonomics that it felt comfortable from the beginning.
As for a comparison, what can I say, it's got this new smarter than me AF system, that really works, and it's 45 MP is even more croppable than the 5D4.

HKGuns wrote in post #19181600
What evidence do you have to support this statement? I have seen no performance degradation with my 1DX3 and 500/4.

Good question, This is the second thread is a row where I've read concerns about Canon crippling older lens compatibility. (the other one claimed that IBIS is crippled fro EF lenses, absolutely the opposite of what I have found)

In this case, would it not be more likely that the perceived differences are down to thew fact that newer lenses on newer AF systems simply perform better (they do and always have)
It doesn't take a conspiracy to understand that improvements are made. Why does this have to equate to "crippling" older lenses. they are just older.

Also, my own personal experiences is in fact just the opposite. I put the older lenses on my R5/1DXIII/5D4 and they perform better than the did with older bodies.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #19181625
Good question, This is the second thread is a row where I've read concerns about Canon crippling older lens compatibility. (the other one claimed that IBIS is crippled fro EF lenses, absolutely the opposite of what I have found)

In this case, would it not be more likely that the perceived differences are down to thew fact that newer lenses on newer AF systems simply perform better (they do and always have)
It doesn't take a conspiracy to understand that improvements are made. Why does this have to equate to "crippling" older lenses. they are just older.

Also, my own personal experiences is in fact just the opposite. I put the older lenses on my R5/1DXIII/5D4 and they perform better than the did with older bodies.

I think you nailed it, technology marches on and improvements in lens performance are going to happen, which doesn't mean they're crippling older lenses. I have a really hard time imagining how they'd even accomplish that one and why it would be worth the engineering / resource investment.

I made a pretty big jump, moving from the 1DIV, which is still an excellent camera and takes wonderful pictures, to the DX3.

- I have all of the focus points I am supposed to have
- My 500/4 is still sharp as ****
- Autofocus tracking is LOCKED on target in VF stills, LV stills and video
- This isn't limited to just the 500/4 all of my other lenses exhibit this same wonderful behavior
- My 85/1.2 ii is still slow to focus

HKGuns wrote in post #19181600
What evidence do you have to support this statement? I have seen no performance degradation with my 1DX3 and 500/4.

Well the only concrete evidence that I can find right now is page 896 of the manual for the R5 where it states that the mk1 500 f4 will not shoot at full speed where a mk2 lens will. I can't be certain but I'm sure I saw that it also cannot use all the focus points that other newer lenses can. Am I wrong in thinking also the the new 600/800 f11 lenses also cant use all the focus points? I don't know about the 1dx3 and didn't say anything about that camera in my earlier post.

sidknee wrote in post #19181769
Well the only concrete evidence that I can find right now is page 896 of the manual for the R5 where it states that the mk1 500 f4 will not shoot at full speed where a mk2 lens will. I can't be certain but I'm sure I saw that it also cannot use all the focus points that other newer lenses can. Am I wrong in thinking also the the new 600/800 f11 lenses also cant use all the focus points? I don't know about the 1dx3 and didn't say anything about that camera in my earlier post.

No, you didn't mention the DX3 but it is one of the newer bodies and the AF for the R bodies was certainly derived from it......Thanks for the response.

sidknee wrote in post #19181769
Well the only concrete evidence that I can find right now is page 896 of the manual for the R5 where it states that the mk1 500 f4 will not shoot at full speed where a mk2 lens will. I can't be certain but I'm sure I saw that it also cannot use all the focus points that other newer lenses can. Am I wrong in thinking also the the new 600/800 f11 lenses also cant use all the focus points? I don't know about the 1dx3 and didn't say anything about that camera in my earlier post.

Ah, I understand now.
This is part of advances that were made that can't be retroactively achieved with the older lenses. It was actually part of a pretty dramatic overhaul by Canon with the release of the Version II IS lenses and the new AF system installed first in the 1DXII and 5D4.

Prior to those bodies and lenses, no canon (including 1D models) could use more than the center AF point @ F/8 and any use of teleconverters imparted a speed hit to AF due to the reduced amount of light getting in.

For any of the new AF system advantages to work, it needed to be attached to equipment that was designed to do this trick. Older lenses, older teleconverters, and older bodies were not made to do this trick. They just predate the tech. It doesn't mean that the lens will AF slower on an R5 than it will on a 7D. It means that the lens is the slowest part of the chain, and it won't focus as fast as a newer lens with the updated AF tech. Likewise the old lens or old T-Con weren't designed with the ability to allow AF with all AF points @ f/8. So they prevent the R5 and 5D4 etc. from managing to do that.