500mm F/4L II vs 600mm F/4L II

[Richard Lane]

I have been waiting on these lenses for some time. My question on deciding which to go with was which would give me the longer focal length using an extender, and still give IQ good enough to be acceptable.

It appears that the 500mm will be able to give decent IQ at 1000mm, and the 600mm will not at 1200mm. In some ways this makes the 500mm the longer acceptably usable lens.

Thoughts?

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...mp=2&APIComp=0

I agree the center is sharper on the 600mm +2X @1200mm in the "above comparison," and it looks like the 500mm +2X@1000mm is sharper in the mid-frame and corners.


http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=459&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API= 1&LensComp=748&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp =1&APIComp=2

It also looks like the 600 +2X is sharper (link above) than the bare 800mm at the center, so just based on the above crops, it seems like the 600mm is pretty darn sharp at the center.

I guess you have to decide which focal length you need. I thought I had it all figured out too, but if you think you will eventually get a 1DX, then that has to be taken into consideration too. I think the 500mm would be better for the 1DMKIV and the 600mm would be better for the 1DX.

I'm torn too, I wanted the 1DX two years ago, and as you know I bought the MKIV about 1 and 1/2 years ago, now I don't know which lens that I would buy either. I like the reach of the MKIV, but I would eventually like full frame and I know bodies don't last forever.

I would like f/2.8 so I would like the 400mm f/2.8L IS II, but I think it's a little too short for birds, wildlife, and surfing, but I could always add the 1.4X as a compromise for the focal length since I can't add f/2.8 to the other lenses.

I originally bought the 300mm f/2.8L IS for the 7D (1.6X) and then when I upgraded to the MKIV, I just added the 1.4X extender, so now if I go FF, then I would need the 400mm or 500mm. I was also thinking that if Canon came out with an improved 7D MKII, then I could always keep my bare 300mm f/2.8L IS for sports. I know I could still use my current 7D, but I prefer the MKIV.

I would love to decide between a 400mm, 500mm, 600mm or 200-400mm Extender 1.4X zoom. I may eventually sell my 300mm f/2.8L IS too. The 500mm seems very attractive to me because of the weight, but I don't want to own a 400mm and a 500mm, or a 500mm and a 600mm. I can eventually (in a couple of years) see owning 2 of the lenses on my wish list and one has to be f/2.8 for when that is needed.

If I keep the MK IV, then I would want a 300mm f/2.8L IS and 500mm f/4L IS II.

If I bought a 1DX, then I would want the 400 f/2.8L IS II and a 600mm f/4L IS II, which would be my ultimate goal.


I hope I didn't confuse you even more!

Rich

[HDNitehawk]

Rich

I think the only hope is if Canon releases a replacement to the 7D that has the focus system of the 1D X and a extremely good crop sensor.

Nah...I think Canon's plan is that we have to buy longer and longer lenses.

This kind of scares me away from the 600mm, it looks huge;2012-Canon-Big-White-L-Lens-Family-Picture-with-Hoods.jpg by hdnitehawk01, on Flickr

Rick

[jrw]

The number in the weight column had much the same effect on me. Who says the 300mm is too big?

Has Nikon come out with a really good C sized sensor body yet to put more pressure on Canon to actually do something about cleaning up their image?

[HDNitehawk]

I am going to give the wife $10 and send her down to get 5 random Power Ball ticket draws. Tomorrow I will buy one of each.

[Richard Lane]

Not, only that but I don't think that the weights listed in the comparison charts include the hoods, you have to add that separately as is listed under the individual lens specifications and if you're going to add extenders, then don't forget to add that weight too!

I would like to get off of this Canon Upgrade Merry-go-round!

I'm gonna take my time with this decision!

[jrw]

It seems to me that we have had over a year to look at MTF charts, review our current photos, and really think about what focal lengths we could most benefit from. Had no idea that it would be this long for the lenses to actually ship, but have been busy in the meantime figuring this stuff out.

Myself, in the past year I've gone from having crop bodies and FF to FF exclusively. Have had the opportunity to play with other people's big lenses and TCs as well. An emphasis on sports events (running and cycling mostly with road side access), wildlife, landscape details, and limited bird usage is what drove the decision to start with the 300. Of course picking up a used f4 version, which I intend to keep for its size and weight for hiking trips, sealed the deal on that length as a 'must have'. The number of shots in the 400mm area from when I had the 100-400 also was a good clue that I'd be using the 1.4 TC a lot to still be in the same ball park, which I have been. The number of shots taken at the maximum of 400mm led to the conclusion that something longer was going to be wanted as well. The amount of cropping indicated that a range up to 800mm was where I want to be headed. So, adding the 500mm is a logical choice for filling in as many gaps as possible. I am really grateful that the new lenses work as well as they do with the extenders, particularly the 1.4. Of course if the TCs were built into the lens on a rotary dial....

Winning the lottery, buying one of each with a body on it and hiring an assistant to do all the carrying has a certain appeal as well.

[Jonathan Huyer]

I just took delivery of my new 500 f/4 II, and I'm a very excited kid on Christmas day. I went out for a quick session today, and here are some results. Both are taken with my 1DIII.

"Hey, nice lens!" Rocky Mountain Sheep on the roadway in Banff.
I shot this at f/4 as a bit of a focus test. I haven't made any micro-adjustments yet. ISO 200, 1/400 sec, handheld.



Next I added the 1.4 TCII (I haven't upgraded to the III yet), and popped over to the local Osprey nest. This shot is at f/8, as a bit of a sharpness and bokeh check. Tripod mounted. The final image is cropped by about half.



I had rented the version I of this lens a few weeks ago for my trip to Spitsbergen, because it became clear that the new lens wasn't going to arrive in time. So I am able to offer some subjective comparisons between the two lenses. First of all, image quality for both is spectacular. I am absolutely delighted with the results that I got from the version I lens, and I'll be hard pressed to find any improvement in that department with the new lens. The biggest difference however is with the weight. The new lens is astoundingly light, and I could hand-hold it for quite a while longer than the old lens. It is clear that Canon went to every possible measure to reduce weight. Even the knob to tighten down the hood is lightweight. The lens is half an inch shorter than the old one, and when you combine with the lighter hood, it means the centre of gravity is a lot closer to the camera. This makes a huge difference in hand-holding. Focusing is crazy fast. Actually, it's pretty much instantaneous, which is remarkable to behold. You could notice a bit of reduction in focusing speed with the 1.4 TC attached, but it was hardly an issue. The stabilizer is nearly silent --- I had to hold my ear to the lens to hear the motor. I like the mode 3, especially when you're on a tripod and fine-tuning your focus on a single point (as I was for the osprey shot). The power focusing mode is cool but I will probably never use it unless I get into video.

Overall I'm obviously over the moon with this lens (but who wouldn't be). Stay tuned for more!

[HDNitehawk]

Congratz Jonathan, looks like it will be all they advertised.

Im jealous, not of the lens, but you go out for a "quick session" and bring back closeups of Rocky Mountain Sheep. Nice

[Steve U]

That sheep shot is very good Jonathan. The new 500 might become your favourite portrait lens.

[Kayaker72]

Drool.