500/f4 Versus 600/f4

I am somewhat torn between the Canon 500 f/4 IS and the 600 f/4 IS. I have all the usual arguments playing out in my head, weight versus reach, hand-holdable or not, etc. I can't touch either lens until I own it so I have to rely on the experts that have used both. I intend to shoot both birds and airplanes, in flight and stationary, using both tripod and hand (if possible). Please, some real world observations? Comparison and contrast?

Kelly, you might want to read this article http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/500vs600.shtml I found it very helpful. My decision was to go with the 500 due to more portability and hand holdability. On a recent trip to Africa there were photographers with both. The 600 users certainly liked the reach, but the lens was heavy and had to be used with a beanbag. I use the 1.4 TC a lot and witht he 1.3 crop factor of my 1DMK2 I get 700 mm X 1.3 = 910mm.

I am sure there will be other input, but eventually you will have to decide the trade offs for yourself. Good luck.

Kelly, I have had a 600 for quite awhile and I love the reach. That being said, with the way air travel is today I really wish I had the 500 for that reason only at this time. Give me another 5 or 10 years and the weight factor will be another reason. Of course in another 10 years who knows if we'll even be using something as antiquated as a metal tube with glass at each end?

If you intend to shoot birds, I would definitely recommend the 600. I have it and absolutely love it. As you will soon find out, the more reach you have the better.

I've been using a 600 for years and finally gave into temptation and picked up the 500 with the intention of probably selling the 600. I have not been able to do so. I love the 500 and use it for most air travel and when walking long distances but for small birds like warblers etc the difference is big. The size of the bird in the frame is 40% larger with the 600 than the 500 which calls for the 2X on the 500 more often than I'd like. If I had to get rid of one today I don't know which it would be.

500.... much better for travel, easier handling and even hand holding at times.
600.... a lot more reach.. but WAY heavier and harder to travel with and hand holding is difficult at best!

Hi Kelly,
I'd recommend to give a look to this article, written by Bob Royse:

http://www.birdsasart.com/b45.html


The image quality is the same, so I have choosen the 600 f/4 for the longer reach (I have ordered it a month ago and I plan to post my hand-on review as soon as I get it )

Hi Boss,Let me muddy the water just a bit. I shoot a 800 mm f5.6 on a day to day basis. It`s great for little birds and big ones too. It stinks for flying birds and as for the weight I`m 53 and I carry it a bunch of geer and a weiner dog for miles. You said you wanted to shoot airplanes, I just bet most of this will be at air shows where they are low to the ground. You also said that you wanted to shoot flying birds. I bet you are thinking hawks, owls, ducks or something larger than a sparrow. For what you said that you want to do I think that you will love your new 500.----Good Hunting

Thank you for all of your input. Believe me, I took it all to heart in making my decision. I ordered the 500 f/4 yesterday for all the reasons you might suspect. Size, weight, and cost seemed to be the overriding factors, and 500 with a 1.4 or 2.0 X TCII will cover my applications. Robert H is right, I'm mostly interested in shooting low-flying planes and birds of some size; hawks, owls, herons, large woodpeckers, etc. I can zoom my feet in for warblers and small birds that seem less skittish. The difference in price can go towards a 1327 pod and WH-200 head to hold the thing up!