Canon Long Lens dilemma (600mm Vs 500mm)

stylgeo

stylgeo

Messages
832
Edit My Images
Yes
I have been pondering this for a while now. I wont be making any purchases in the near future due to the fact that i spent all my savings on a 15 day trip around Europe (8 countries total(y)). The thing is that after purchasing the Sigma 120-300 2.8 I started getting serious about wildlife photography. I always liked it but the results I got from this lens showed me how rewarding it is and brought this huge love for wildlife to the surface.
To make a long story short, I find 300mm very limiting for most wildlife, especially small birds. You may say that I could use a TC to get more reach. I have used a 2x but the results are dissapointing. There is a great loss in IQ with the 2x and I need to step down a lot (normally at f/9 to f/11) to get the sharpness I am used to getting from this lens, which means lower light gathering capabilities and weird bokeh effects. I haven't tried the 1.4x, which seems to be a LOT better from what i read around but tbh it still doesn't give me the reach i am after. You may also say that with wildlife you can never have enough reach. But the 600mm I get by using the 2x is really great fom what I need, not to mention the ability to use the TCs with even less loss in IQ, as most people say (better glass, prime etc) if I get one of these babies.

I considered the Sigmonster 300-800mm f/5.6 but I think that having an IS at that lenghts is a must, as I learned from my personal experience. I have to use a sturdy tripod, remote shutter and mirror lock-up to get the results I am after, since most wildlife is more active during the early or late hours of the day. IS on a lens that works on a tripod sounds like a free lunch to me.

Anyhow, the big question. The 600mm or the 500mm??

It is actually a compromise between weight, length and cost. I made a lot of reading, a lot of searching around and I came up to a final cost for everything I'll need for both lenses.

Canon EF-600mm f/4L IS
Due to its enormous size and weight this baby needs a strong and sturdy tripod. From what I read around (please tell me I'm wrong about this) I'll need a Gitzo Carbon fibre tripod, probably the GT5540LS, which is legs-only £610. And they say that I will deffinitely need a Wimberley Gimbal Head, which is £500. That's £1100 without paying for the lens yet. Then there is the p50 lens plate, the 2x and 1.4x TCs, and the LowePro LensTrekker 600 AW. Cheapest price I could find for everything (from UK stores, either on the internet or local), including lens is £6235.

Canon EF-500mm f/4L IS
This lens is quite lighter than its big brother. At 3.8kg (compared to a massive 6kg of the 600mm) I can get away with a lighter tripod (probably the Gitzo G1500 at £330) and the Gimbal head is not absolutely necessary, I've read that a lot of people use this lens with the Manfrotto 393 which is only £105. Ceteris Paribus I can get everything including lens for £4858.

So, do I pay £1500 more for 100mm difference? And I've read somewhere that the 500mm is a bit sharper than the 600mm. Is this any true?

I really want some advice from people who own one of these lenses, or have used them, or more preferably have used both. Those who have one of two, why did you opt for the one you have?
And some questions for those who have them. What kind of tripod/head combo you use and what kind of carry bag?

Thank you all in advance for your replies. I really need it!
George
 
Should the 800mm be worthy of consideration, with the extra length whilst the weight is between the other two?

500mm f/4: 3.87kg
600mm f/4: 5.36kg
800mm 4/5.6: 4.5kg

Of course, it is shiny and new, so there might be a bit of a price premium...

Andrew
 
Why not get the 300mm F2.8 L IS USM and the 2X and 1.4X converters and save some money.
 
PapaLazarou said:
Why not get the 300mm F2.8 L IS USM and the 2X and 1.4X convertes and save some money.
Click to expand...
And save some weight too. That's what I'd do. The 300mm f/2.8 takes a converter like it's not there.
 
Why not hire one initially and see how much better it is ?

You will always get better IQ from a prime, so the 300 mentioned above will be better than your current zoom.Lensesforhire have a 500mm f4 L IS available
 
I can understand saying the 300 2.8, and yeah it does take t/c`s extremely well, however personally I think that one of the larger lenses is the better choice. The extra reach is much better for small birds.

As to the lenses I think it comes down really to two things...focal length and weight, the 600 has that extra 100 mm and I know a lot on this and other boards swear by that extra reach. But then I also know of many who also swear by the weight of the 500 (which is remarkably light for such a big lens). The 600 is not handholdable.....the 500 is (albeit not for long).



Both are great lenses and any photographer would love to have either in their kit, most can`t but for the few who can it comes down to weight or reach.



I think you just need to decide which you wan`t. Oh and don't rule out the sigma`s, I have seen excellent results from the 500 and 300-800, allright your sacrificing IS but cost wise they are a lot cheaper.


Mark



You might wan`t to get in touch with Kerso reguarding the best prices, he can normally get gear quite a bit cheaper than anywhere else in the UK, for instance I enquired about the 500 a couple of months ago and was quoted 3500 (though his prices do fluctuate), the closest UK price was 3800.

kerso1123@msn.com
 
:agree: I find that I use pick my 300 f/2.8 + TC's more than I do my 500 f4.

The 300 is more versatile, lighter for hand holding, cheaper.

I would suggest that you consider this combination 1st - if it doesn't do what you want you can always sell the 300 - its very sought after and look at the 500.

You could also try renting from StewartR before you commit to a purchase decision.

Lowe Pro no longer make the AW600.

Tom
 
I have the EF 300mm F2.8L IS lens and a 2x converter. I do not take many shots at 600 but love the lens full stop. I think I might understand your concern regarding the quality however. At 600mm with IS on the BOKEH is, well, different. Not bad but what ever is moving inside the lens translates to a different feel in the oof areas.

I use it at 300mm with IS off most of the time and get good results, whether you could do that at 600mm chasing a small target I am not so sure.

Sorry if that does not help but is my experience thus far with this lens.
:shrug:
 
I use the 500mm with the 393 head and really rate it, I had the same dilemma about 8 months ago. I went for the 500 due to it's hand hold ability, many say this can't be done, but then some people whimper when asked to carry a 40d with a 50mm lens:shrug:.

I was using the 500mm hand held on Sunday for some impromptu water skiing shots and was really pleased with the outcome.

The 500 is great with converters I use the 1.4 and 2 x regularly on a 5d and 10d body (which will shortly make way for either a 1d or 1ds mk111) I have seen no reason to move up to either 30d or 40d as they were'nt a big enough jump in improvement over the 10 / 20d / 5d combination I had then.

Like you I really enjoy the wildlife photography, and I use mostly primes, 85mm f1.2, 100mm f2.8 . 135mm f2, 200mm f2.8, 300mm f2.8 although I have the 100 - 400 it now mostly sits at home ( I will be selling ths on here sometime soon) having had the 500mm for 8 months I can see why people use or need the 600mm often I have wished I had more reach, however with proper planning and stealth I am often able to get closer to the subject than I first thought was possible, this and the ability to handhold if necessary the 500mm is why it was my choice.

The 393 head is a steal at £100 and is every bit as good as a friends Wimberley IMHO, his seems unstable and I like to look after my kit, the resounding click of the safety catch applying when you mount the lensgives me faith that I made the right choice, and once set up properly the head swivels and tilts effortlessly.

I always mount my lenses with a piece of plastic between the lens foot and tripod mount to stop scratching of the lens foot, it's a me thing but so simple to make and saves those nasty looking marks(y)

The 600 will fit in the Lowepro bag but without body attached, a far better bag IMHO is the Kinesis, which come from the States and can be customised to suit your needs HTH
 
percymon said:
Why not hire one initially and see how much better it is ?
Click to expand...

Thats exactly what I was going to say after reading the OP. Try them both out for yourself with a range of TC's too to see which you prefer. I know you can call it 'dead' money, but it wont be if you end up with the lens you want, and advice will always be conflicting depending on peoples experiences. You could also hire the 300 mentioned to compare.
 
Hi,

not used it by have spent enough time on the net to know that the 500mm is THE birding/wildlife lens, the 600mm is good but too heavy to be very portable, i would regard it as a sit and wait lens whilst the 500 would be ok for a wander about as well as sit and wait.

Has to be the 500mm plus a decent tripod.

Oh and you can forget about the 800mm its £9000 or thereabouts :D


Mike.
 
Thanks everyone for your replies. I must say that I am a little bit more confused now that the 300mm was thrown into the picture, even though I think I will stick to either the 500 or the 600 in the end. Since I already have a 300mm lens at 2.8 (I know, it's a zoom without IS and the Canon one is considered as one of the best lenses out ther) and since the reach is my main issue here I still need to decide between the two.
So, the bottom line, in my opinion after reading all of your comments is that, if I were to decide between the two I should consider the possibility that I wouldn't use the 600mm so much due to its weight, right? It's more for a stationary kind of photography, while the 500mm can be carried around for some impromptu photography aswell.
I don't know if I will miss out anything from that extra 600mm reach. The thing is that the 500mm f/4 gives me with TCs 700mm f/5.6 and 1000mm f/8, while with the 600mm f/4 I can get 840mm f/5.6 and 1200mm f/8. Considering these figures now, the difference seems more pronounced.

I am not afraid of some leg work to try and get closer to the subjects. But since whenever I go out for wildlife I almost always opt to choose a place and stick to it for the wait, I think I wont lose out too much in that respect. But then again it comes the times when staying at the same spot is not an option and the possibility of the lens stayin at home or in the car due to its shere weight.

I think the best thing to do is hire both, or if I can't find both I might just use them in the store just to see the weight difference myself. The problem is that, even though my tripod and head can probably cope with the 500mm for a single session, I doubt if they can lift the weight of the 600mm. I'll just have to go in the store to check it out myself really.

The 800mm at £9000 is indeed out of my reach (so are the other two at this time but this is a longer term decision).

Again thanks everybody for your replies.
 
It might also help if we knew where you are located, I have shown mine on numerous occasions to interested people at Slimbridge, personally I don't go for the hire, that to me is a waste of my money as I know plenty of friendly togs who are willing to show off their kit (y)
 
Have a read of this article which gives one man's comparison between the 500mm and 600mm lenses and the reasons for his final choice.

CLICK

Don't forget either that you'll get longer reach with a crop sensor camera.
 
I would go for the 500mm, which is exactly what I did a month ago. It is great, and at my advancing years, the 600mm is just too heavy, having borrowed on from a friend.
the results are great with both TCs as well,and I use the 393 but need to get a sturdier set of legs, without a centre column.

George
 
Having owned both the 500 and 600mm, if its length you want get the 600mm you cant beat it that extra 100mm is worth the extra weight, and the converters are nice on it too.

You don't need a 5 series Gitzo for the 600mm a 3 (3540 whatever) series will be plenty as they have made them stronger than the last model.

As for heads you dont need the Wimberly as your probably paying a large premium for the name, have a look around there are much cheaper alternatives, Kirk, Jobu, manfrotto, and a few others.

As for a bag you will struggle with the 600mm in the AW600 but the 500mm will fit ok.

Look to buy from the USA and or Kerso to save yourself wads of cash.

If you have plenty of dosh an 800mm + 300mm, (That 800mm will be in my bag soooooon:love:)
 
Sorry, George, forgot one point. The 500mm case will not legally fit in the UK hand baggage gauge for airlines, the feet make it just too big, but so far I naven't been stopped (and it is not going as hold baggage!!) but I suspect the 600 would just be too obvious and therefor to take it by air really is a no no unless you take it out of the case.
CT's article really sums everything up for me, and I think it is an excellent review.

George
 
I went for the 500. As others have said, it is handholdable for short periods, light enough to walk with and takes the 1.4 and 2x extenders well.

I have carried it to Africa as handluggage several times with no problems in a ThinkTank back-pack.

I use my 500 with a Wimberley Sidekick and a Kirk ballhead.

Paul
 
them both together (picture linked from The Digital Picture, all rights to the image are theirs)

Canon-500mm-600mm-Lens-Comparison.jpg
 
Thanks again everyone for your replies.
Thanks Agger for the offer, I will probably take you up on that one, since I will be moving to Coventry this October and it's how much? a 2 hour drive?
Thanks CT for the article. I have read that one before and it is quite convinsing on going for the 500mm. I just don' know really. Will i be upgrading after that? I'll really need to try both of them and see how they both feel to decide. And it comes down to the cost in the end doesn't it?
Thanks George. If I do go for the 500mm I'll definitely go for the 393. That will save me some serious cash really. I have actually read an article from a Nikon guy that says that he uses the 393 for his Nikon 600mm f/4 and his quite happy about it. I guess that both nikon and canon lenses weigh about the same right? I don't think I would trust the 600mm on the Manfrotto but who knows? If others say that it's ok too I might think about it. As for the airline travel, I do travel a lot but I don't think I'll be travelling with the provided case for it since i have other expensive gear to think about too. I'll probably go for a thinktank carry on bag that might fit th lens. it really depends on what I'll eventually decide.
Thanks mho, grumpybadger and sportysnaps for your thoughts.
I don't think I'll go for the 800mm mho;). I really can't justify 10grand for just the lens! Thanks for the photos btw. Aren't they beautiful?:love:

So, the first thing to do for now is start to save some serious money and I'll decide on the way. I will probably visit a couple of my local stores to see if they have either lens in stock (I doubt it but it's worth a try). I won't be able to use them since my tripod and head can't support them (probably the 500mm but not the 600mm). If they were so good as to take them out, put them on a good tripod with a good head... dreaming again!
 
If I was starting from scratch with gimbal heads I'd go straight for the 393 which I use all the time with the 500mm. It's a simple design and all the better for it. I bought a Dietmar Nill gimbal head which was mega expensive and it's beautifully engineered. I don't regret the purchse, but in some respects the 393 is better than the Nill, in particular the amount of forwards and backwards tilt is enormous which is great for birds in flight when they're approaching near overhead height.

Another advantage of the 393 is that it comes with it's own lens plate, so you'll save the cost of a p50 plate which isn't cheap. A slight niggle is that Manfrotto for some silly reason best known to them have gone for a lens plate wider than the usual generic Arca Swiss type, so it can only be used with the 393 head, but that's no big issue if you only intend to use one lens or you don't mind swapping the plate now and again.

The safety device built into the 393 is very nice too and removes all risk of the camera and lens sliding out of the shoe if you have a blonde moment and forget to tighten up - easily done, daft as it may sound.
 
CT said:
If I was starting from scratch with gimbal heads I'd go straight for the 393 which I use all the time with the 500mm. It's a simple design and all the better for it. I bought a Dietmar Nill gimbal head which was mega expensive and it's beautifully engineered. I don't regret the purchse, but in some respects the 393 is better than the Nill, in particular the amount of forwards and backwards tilt is enormous which is great for birds in flight when they're approaching near overhead height.

Another advantage of the 393 is that it comes with it's own lens plate, so you'll save the cost of a p50 plate which isn't cheap. A slight niggle is that Manfrotto for some silly reason best known to them have gone for a lens plate wider than the usual generic Arca Swiss type, so it can only be used with the 393 head, but that's no big issue if you only intend to use one lens or you don't mind swapping the plate now and again.

The safety devoice built into the 393 is very nice too and removes all risk of the camera and lens sliding out of the shoe if you have a blonde moment and forget to tighten up - easily done, daft as it may sound.
Click to expand...
Hi,

I totally agree with that CT has said, although I've not used anything else to compare it with ;) I love my 393, it's basic, simple to use but is so effective I noticed a big jump in quality from my images as soon as I started using it on my tripod.

For £100 plus postage it's a no brainer really (y) In fact my dad was so impressed that he made me buy one for him too although I managed to pick it up S/H from someone on the Birdforum for a great price :D

You better get saving, I am planning on getting the 500mm lens too but will need to wait until I retire I doubt, mind you that's only 5 years away and they be giving them away by then :LOL:

Mike.
 
I have the 600, and take it everywhere with me, i even lugged it round Skomer (ask Hypnotic and Grendel just how big a task that is lol) and found it never came off the camera really, i did have the 20D and 100-400 with me as well, but only took 20 pics using it. It is heavy, there is no doubting it, and you cant handhold for a decent shot, although you can rest it against solid things, like hide shelfs, fence posts etc etc have used this method a lot and it works fine. As Mark (MHO) says you dont need a 5 series tripod, i have a GT3540LS with a Wimberley head and it works a treat.

If you are moving to Coventry soon let me know, im in Northamptonshire so isnt so far if you want to see just how big a beast a 600 is :)

I honestly dont think you would be disappointed with either lens, specially if you stick with a 1.6 crop body as it gives that better field of view than a 1 series, CT produces some excellent stuff with his 40D and 500 :)
 
I might be field testing a prototype gimbal head in the very near future, which hopefully should be marketed at a very good price. ;)
 
(y)Absolutely no problem, yep about 2 hours, I'm a member so I can go just about anytime really, hope the info I have given is helpful.



Anyone know if you can get spare plates for the 393 ? and how much ?


stylgeo said:
Thanks again everyone for your replies.
Thanks Agger for the offer, I will probably take you up on that one, since I will be moving to Coventry this October and it's how much? a 2 hour drive?
Click to expand...
 
Agger said:
Anyone know if you can get spare plates for the 393 ? and how much ?
Click to expand...

That's a very good question - let us know if you find out the answer, or if they make them in different lengths which is probably unlikely.
 
Anyone know if you can get spare plates for the 393 ? and how much ?
Click to expand...

Hi,

not sure of the cost, but the S/H 393 I bought for my dad came with a 2nd plate, the seller must have gotten it somewhere I will email him and ask.

Mike.

Edit: have now emailed seller and awaiting reply.
 
Hi,

had a quick hunt myself and found this Manfrotto 357 Plate but I don't think the dimensions are right, the plate I have is 140mm x 55mm ( at widest point 47mm at narrowest) x 10mm, but it shows that they must be available on their own somewhere.

Have also noticed that buyers of the 393 from Morris Photographic also bought the Manfrotto 357 Pro Video Sliding QR Plate Adapter at the same time, so you it might be the right one...... check HERE


Mike.
 
so slooowwww lol

You can get the plate separately by the looks of it for £20, as seen at the very bottom of the page that I linked to in the post above. I think the QR part is £35, although looking at all the pics it maybe comes with a plate too but a waste if already have the 393 mount as it comes with the QR part anyway.

Mike.
 
Well done Ian. (y) I like that longer WE one assuming it's the right width.
 
But I'm old LOL it like making love to a beautiful woman, the young guys are 2 grunts and a shunt whilst I like to pleasure my ladeeees and am still at it after 2 hours (y)(y)

PMSL


many thanks to all looks like we found it (y)


mikeyb said:
so slooowwww lol

Mike.
Click to expand...
 
Am I reading this right - it looks to me like the complete kit with the plate and QR mount is standard width Arca plate size?
 
Agger said:
But I'm old LOL it like making love to a beautiful woman, the young guys are 2 grunts and a shunt whilst I like to pleasure my ladeeees and am still at it after 2 hours (y)(y)

PMSL


many thanks to all looks like we found it (y)
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with 2 grunts and a shunt especially if repeated :LOL:

The long one that Ian has posted is listed on 1st link I provided but its only 38mm wide so think it's too narrow as my plate is as mentioned above is 47mm on top edge and 55 at the bottom.

So not convinced either are right, however the fact that buyers of the 393 are buying the 357 plate along with it would say it IS the right one.

Mike.
 
Ok I'm off for a manual shunt now as been on the PC too long today already :LOL:

Mike.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top