Canon 500L vs 600L

[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!