Quote Originally Posted by Karsaa View Post
Greetings,

I know that we have some people here who has used those 2 lenses. They are the 1st version of both of them.

Now that the used version prices here in finland are getting into some reasonable values is there any major image quality difference with those.

Naturally have read the sites reviews etc. but would like to hear opinnions from you who have used those. Is the some hundred euros worth to go for 600mm image quality wise or not?

Kinda tempted to have more millimeters since i also love taking images of moon etc. but then again if the 500mm is clearly winner on image quality wise then could easily live with less mm but better quality =)
I have used the Mk2 of both lenses and own the 500 Mk 2. What I routinely heard regarding the Mk1 version is that the weight and weight distribution of the 600 f/4 Mk1 was becoming problematic to the point where it was really best to be shooting from a mount. Transition to the Mk2, and the 600 is handholdable and pretty easy to handle in general.

If the weight is fine, then I would still consider the focal length difference. If you have not reviewed
my thread on that
, yes, there is a lot of noise as I went through the decision making process, but hopefully some useful information. Specifically related to 500 vs 600 in terms of focal lengths, you may want to look at
Bryan's
and
Art Morris's
writeups. Generally, if you want birds or something small or distant, go for reach. 600 also has better bokeh. But the 500 is a great for mammals (there is such a thing as too much reach) and is a great all arounder even for birds. I am really enjoying mine whenever I do use it.

I have never heard anyone disparage the IQ of either lens, other than there does seem to be an increase in IQ going from Mk 1 to Mk 2.

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=117&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API= 0&LensComp=336&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

I will say it looks like the 500 Mk 1 takes a TC better than the 600 Mk 1:

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=117&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API= 2&LensComp=336&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp =3&APIComp=2

That disappears with the Mk 2, as both take TCs very well. As you say, there are some forum members that have owned the Mk 1 versions.


Quote Originally Posted by Always Looking View Post
Karasa, I am also trying to decide between the Canon 500mm F4 and 600mm F4, but I'm considering version II.

For me it comes down to ability to travel with the lens. I gather the 500 will fit inside some medium to large backpacks, these packs will fit inside most overhead bins in commercial airplanes. I'm pretty sure the 600 will not fit in any backpack and will have to be carried in a separate bag/case.

Personally, if I only shot locally, I think I would much prefer the 600 as the added reach really helps. I have not used a Canon 500 F4 yet so I really can't comment on the quality.
Backpacks have come a long way in recent years. I am using the Mindshift Firstlight 40L for my 500 Mk 2. It fits with camera mounted. I have seen pictures where Bryan uses the same pack with his 600 Mk2 but it isn't mounted and, of course, takes up about half the pack. I am also a huge fan of the Gura Gear Kiboko bags. I can tightly fit my 500 in my 22 L (probably too tight, IMO, but they have a 30L option). Generally, if you have more than 30L of space for camera gear, you should be able to fit a supertele. The Firstlight 40L actually has ~32L of camera gear space. Careful when looking at pictures, many pictures do not include lens hoods, I've found that to take up a lot of space and I like my lens hoods.