500 f4 vs 600f4...does 3 lbs make that much of a diference?

I've read a lot of posts where people seem to have an issue, or are always mentioning that the Canon EF600mm f4L I.S. lens is SO much heavier than the Canon EF 500mm f4L I.S. lens, when it's only 3 lbs heavier.

I was just wondering if the 3 lbs makes THAT much of a difference, and if it is really THAT much heavier? (All other things/equipment being carried being equal.)

Esp if a tripod was going to be used for either lens.

Just curious.

Hold it up to your eye for a period of time or hike around with it over your shoulder...3 pounds makes a big difference.

I'm sure it would for an extended period. I was out for 5 hours yesterday with the 100-400 and by the last hour I had to get out the tripod.

Especially when it's at the end of the lens. The 600 is almost 3 inches longer as well. Now put that extra three pounds that much farther away.
It doesn't seem like much on paper, but give it a shot. Rent both lenses and see for yourself.

Thanks. I appreciate the feedback. However I didn't appreciate some of the snarkiness. I was just asking a simple question. I also mentioned that both lenses would be used on a tripod, so "HOLDING IT UP TO YOUR EYE" wouldn't really figure into the equation, since they'd be on a tripod. Also if a person were planning on "lugging" all their equipment over miles and miles of terrain, than perhaps they could remove a couple of lenses or other equipment that they know they wouldn't be needing, to "lighten" their load by 3 lbs or more.

Sorry I asked.

3 pounds in a lens is a lot of weight. Try holding it up with your left arm for a period of time, you notice a difference.

Besides the weight, you have to consider other factors. 600mm is also longer than the 500mm. The length means that center of mass is further out from the fulcrum point, making the weight "appear" heavier than it is. I have held both on a number of occasions as I own multiple copies of each. The difference is substantial.

Canonswhitelensesrule wrote in post #5087590
I've read a lot of posts where people seem to have an issue, or are always mentioning that the Canon EF600mm f4L I.S. lens is SO much heavier than the Canon EF 500mm f4L I.S. lens, when it's only 3 lbs heavier.

I was just wondering if the 3 lbs makes THAT much of a difference, and if it is really THAT much heavier? (All other things/equipment being carried being equal.)

Esp if a tripod was going to be used for either lens.

Just curious.

the 100-400L weighs 3 lbs .

ed rader

500= 8.5 lbs.
600=11.8 lbs.
----------
3.3 lbs

Canonswhitelensesrule wrote in post #5087813
Thanks. I appreciate the feedback. However I didn't appreciate some of the snarkiness. I was just asking a simple question. I also mentioned that both lenses would be used on a tripod, so "HOLDING IT UP TO YOUR EYE" wouldn't really figure into the equation, since they'd be on a tripod. Also if a person were planning on "lugging" all their equipment over miles and miles of terrain, than perhaps they could remove a couple of lenses or other equipment that they know they wouldn't be needing, to "lighten" their load by 3 lbs or more.

Sorry I asked.

Whoa dood....take a chill pill....the point is...3 pounds does make a difference, even with a lens mounted on a pod. Most people don't set a lens up on a tripod on their veranda and never move it again. Snark on!

yes it does.

Thanks again everyone for your responses. Much appreciated.

i have the 400 2.8 11.70lbs i would never want to hand hold that thing

wow lol start doing finger strengthing!

Things weigh more when hiking.

Law of hiking-physics....