Canon 500L vs 600L

[bob williams]

As an aspiring wildlife (wannabe) photographer, I can't help but do a little dream surfing of the Canon 500L and 600L lenses. Recently, I was revieweing Bryan's reviews of these lenses and noticed that the ISO 12233 Crops seem to be much sharper on the 500 than on the 600. Though I can't realistically consider purchasing either of these lenses, I am considering renting one of them in November. If anyone has experience with both of these lenses, I would be very interested in your opinion regarding image quality.





Thanks.


Bob

[peety3]

As an aspiring wildlife (wannabe) photographer, I can't help but do a little dream surfing of the Canon 500L and 600L lenses. Recently, I was revieweing Bryan's reviews of these lenses and noticed that the ISO 12233 Crops seem to be much sharper on the 500 than on the 600. Though I can't realistically consider purchasing either of these lenses, I am considering renting one of them in November. If anyone has experience with both of these lenses, I would be very interested in your opinion regarding image quality.

I've never shot with either lens, but as a dreamer myself I'd go with the 500 first unless you have the budget, time, and practice environment to get really familiar with the 600 ahead of time. The 600 is big, heavy, requires a tripod in almost all situations, and will be a challenge to transport.


My wishlist (far too long for my own good), unfortunately, has the 'even hundred' primes at the bottom of the list (200/2, 400/2.8, 600/4, 800/5.6), mostly because the 'odd hundred' primes (300/2.8, 500/4) are lighter, more hand-holdable, and more affordable than their even brothers.

[bob williams]

Peety, I have never classifed the telephotos in the even/odd catagory, but you are correct. Thanks for the perspective.





Bob

[Dallasphotog]

My wishlist (far too long for my own good), unfortunately, has the 'even hundred' primes at the bottom of the list (200/2, 400/2.8, 600/4, 800/5.6), mostly because the 'odd hundred' primes (300/2.8, 500/4) are lighter, more hand-holdable, and more affordable than their even brothers.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

I like your list. The EF300mm f/2.8 might be the best lens Canon makes. I have used it and the EF400mm f/2.8 a lot and they are just stunning.








Canon 1D MKII, Canon EF300mm f/2.8 L IS USM, Av, F/4.0, 1/1600, ISO-400

[crosbyharbison]

The EF300mm f/2.8 might be the best lens Canon makes.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

I'm of the opinion that the 200 f/2 is the best lens in the lineup but the 300 is right next to it.

[lculpin]

Yeah I'd have to say that the 200 f/2's pretty high on my wishlist. Then again I don't shoot sports so I haven't given much thought to the 300.

[peety3]

The EF300mm f/2.8 might be the best lens Canon makes.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

I'm of the opinion that the 200 f/2 is the best lens in the lineup but the 300 is right next to it.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

I find the 200/2 a very hard-to-justify lens though, unfortunately. It's got amazing image quality, but it's only one stop faster than a zoom lens I have (as well as a prime for SIGNIFICANTLY less money). The 300/2.8 is more than a stop faster than the 100-400 (maybe two stops); the 400/2.8 is two whole stops faster, and the 500+ aren't covered in a (Canon) zoom. If I was doing more portrait work, the 200/2 would pop higher in the list, but it's tough to lay down that much cash given the margins on portrait work.

[Feanor]

I keep drooling over the 500 myself. Some people at another forum were advising that the 300 f2.8 would be a better option, but I don't think it'd be worth the cost for me.


I have a 5DII and 70-200 f2.8 IS as well as a 2x Extender. As a lot of people warned me before I bought it, quality with the 2x Extender is poor - so poor that I'm almost better off just cropping from a 200mm shot. I've also often found that 400mm isn't enough for me, otherwise I'd save my bank balance / house deposit and get the 400 f5.6 prime.


I do want a long telephoto though and I figure that the best option would be the 500 with a 1.4 TC. Then, if the 200 wasn't long enough but the 500 was too long, I could stick the 1.4 TC on the 70-200 and crop from there, assuming the combo is sharp enough - I reckon the difference in 100mm at these lengths is much less than the scope for cropping with 21MP.


I'd just have to find a way of getting a 500 f4 from the States somehow - at US$5,800 you guys can get them a lot cheaper than our GBP &pound;5,000!

[Daniel Browning]

Recently, I was revieweing Bryan's reviews of these lenses and noticed that the ISO 12233 Crops seem to be much sharper on the 500 than on the 600.

Agreed. The difference disappears by f/5.6, but wide open it is more apparent if you stick a 1.4X or 2.0X TC on there:


500 vs 600 f/4


500 vs 600 f/5.6


500 vs 600 with 1.4X TC


500 vs 600 with 2.0X TC


It's possible that it could be explained by some unit-to-unit variance on these lenses. Another factor to keep in mind is that the 600mm would be sharper if the 500mm image were cropped digitally to match the AOV.


They are close enough in image quality that I wouldn't let that weigh into the the purchase decision. Weight and size are more important factors.

[bob williams]

Thanks Daniel, Sound Advice. Personally I wouldn'tconsider purchasing either of these lenses without solid support and a high quality Gimbal type head. Niether of which I currenly own.





Thanks again,





Bob