500 f/4L vs. 600 f/4L

[jhga22]

I have been saving for over a year now (and still have about a year to go) to invest in a Super Telephoto for the purpose of professional wildlife photography. I have read Bryan's reviews and done some research. Iwas wondering if anyone else has used these lenses to know which is a better choice. It seems like the 500 f/4L is about the sharpest lens Canon makes, and while the 600 f/4L has the extra 100mm (very useful for wildlife), it wieghs much more (bad for backpacking), and costs $1,400 to $1,600 more (bad for my wallet). I am also looking to do some full field sports photography, primarily football. Is the 600 f/4L worth the extra money and weight? Any advice, or additional expertise would be great. Thanks.

[piiooo]

What body are you going to use the lens with?


What kind of wildlife are you planningon photographing?

[jhga22]

1D MKIII


Rocky Mountain Wildlife mostly...some bird photography, but mostly elk, deer, bear...

[Dallasphotog]

I can't wait to read the replys from all the people who own both!! I've never even seen a 600 in person. To me, they are both mythical. I did see a EF400mm F/2.8 at a high school soccer game last week. The owner was sitting about 30 rows up in the stands. I simplybowed politely to the owner as I passed.

[Jon Ruyle]

Did you bow to the owner, or to the lens? []

[Daniel Browning]

For wildlife, yes, the 100mm is absolutely worth the extra $1600. It might help to know that the 600mm gives you more glass for your dollar; it costs 9% less per square millimeter of aperture:



$5800 500mm f/4, 125mm aperture, 12272 sq.mm, $0.47/sq.mm



$7600 600mm f/4, 150mm aperture, 17671 sq. mm, $0.43/sq.mm


The really difficult question is the weight. 3.3 pounds makes a big difference when you're backpacking and most other situations as well. Higher weight and longer focal lengths also require higher standards from your tripod (which may take yet more weight to improve), technique, and (sometimes) atmospheric conditions (e.g. big animals from long distances).

[adam]

Rent a 500mm f/4 for a week (LensRentals carries it), take it out for a spin, and see how you like it. That will give you a much better feel for whether or not you want to spend the extra money on (or want to carry) the extra 100mm. Depending on the kind of light you get, you might do ok with the 500 f/4 and a teleconverter. Or maybe not...it's easier to make an educated decision once you've used it.


Also, keep in mind that you're probably going to spend another $1200 on a tripod setup to hold a lens like that, if you haven't already...

[ShutterbugJohan]

If you have the 100-400, the 600mm would probably be the better choice.

[peety3]

I've seen the 600 in person, "unfortunately". I'd staked out a place to catch Lance Armstrong riding in the Tour de Gruene near San Antonio in early November, talking with a few others who were asking about my 70-200/2.8IS. Then, up comes one of the paid photogs with a 600 on a super-low tripod (short legs, no center column) and Wimberley head. Boy did he get some nice shots (until the crowd got in his way, since they just didn't comprehend what he was shooting). Boy was I outgunned.


For those who will listen to me long enough, I say that I want a decent selection of zooms (mostly because my girlfriend isn't comfortable with primes yet), perhaps the 16-35, 24-70, 70-200 (have 2 of the 3, and have the 24-105), and then plan to go for a wide spread of "affordable" L primes (14, 35, 85, 300/2.8, 500/4). When I hit the lottery, I'm come back for the "even" white primes (200/2, 400/2.8, 600/4, 800/5.6), but probably not until then.

[Dallasphotog]

Did you bow to the owner, or to the lens? [img]/emoticons/emotion-1.gif[/img]



<p style="CLEAR: both"]

Ok, probably to the lens. But hey, I bow slightly when I pass a 1DMKIII at football games. I feel so inadequate with my lowly MKII now.