Canon 500mm or Canon 600mm.

Hello everyone,

I would be grateful for any advice that can be offered.

For most of my bird photography over the past few years I have been using a Canon EF100-400 IS lens, sometimes with a Manfrotto 055 tripod.


I am now considering the purchase of either a Canon EF 500mm f/4L IS Lens or a Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS Lens.

This will involve a significant financial outlay, which I probably won't be able to repeat, so I was wondering if anyone could please give me advice as to their experiences with either lens and any recommendations.

I have also been told that I would need a Wimberley type head to cater for the size/weight of such a large lens.

If this is the case does anyone know if such a head would be compatible with a Manfrotto tripod or would I need to invest in new equipment here as well.

I'm quite new to this forum so I apologise if this subject has been discussed before.

Many thanks and kindest regards,

Doug.

First off... Welcome to BPN Doug! I think you'll like it here...

Questions to consider...

What size birds do you want to shoot?
How close will you be getting to them?
What else might you be using it for besides birds?
Will you have any issues with (extra) weight and carrying it around or traveling with it?
Cost concerns of course?

A few previous threads on the subject below... Lots of good info, discussion and very experienced opinions on the above questions and more. I've probably missed a couple, but it's easy enough to take a stroll through this forum.

Which Lenses for Bird Photography
http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...ead.php?t=2820


Discussion centering on the same choices with Nikon... Still a very valid read in terms of focal length.
http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...ead.php?t=5681


Have a 500...thinking about a 600
http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...ad.php?t=12641


600 mm f/4 lens
http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...ad.php?t=11434


Full Frame 500mm - 600mm
http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...ead.php?t=3206


Wimberley Sidekick vs. Mongoose M-3.5 Action Head
http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...ead.php?t=4520


This will definitely get you started...

Steve

I had the same doubt and in the end decided to go for the 600mm. I am happy with my decision. I also own a 400mm as a lightweight option or for BIF. However, I mostly shoot in Europe where is difficult to get close to the birds. The 600mm is also heavier than the 500mm and you need a Wimberley head, where for the 500mm you could get away with the lighter Mongoose. For both lenses you need a sturdy tripod. Finally, if you plan to shoot full frame, the 600mm would give you the additional reach.

Giulio

Big Welcome Doug !!!!

Thanks for posting the links Steve !!! Great !!!

A couple of things that you will find in the threads, the 600 is heavy how much will you be walking? 600 gives 40% more magnification I treat them as two separate lenses which complement each other.

Alfred: 40% more magnification? 600/500 = 1.2 , or 20%

Doug,
Many years ago I faced the same decision. The 600 would be nice for the reach and aperture (I do astrophotography too so bigger is pretty much always better). But the 600 is quite heavy. If you intend to travel with it, it is hard to carry on (legally) with other equipment. The 500 packs nicely into a phototrekker AW backpack along with several other lenses and a couple of bodies and is carry on legal in size (I pack mine with 40+ pounds of gear). Then in the field, with a Wimberly and tripod, the rig is pretty heavy on your shoulder if you hike/walk very far.

I will not travel by air and check my photo gear, so I'm glad the 500 is relatively small. I do know some people travel with a 600 as carry-on, but I think that is going to get harder. Perhaps those with 600s can comment.

Your tripod is not carbon fiber, correct? You'll find a big difference with a carbon fiber tripod as it dampens vibrations much better. I started with a Bogen 3021 tripod, but found the tiny vibrations really never died down and that affected image quality. So plan on a carbon fiber tripod. Then I got a full Wimberly, Some use a sidekick with the 500, but I like the full wimberly.

In retrospect, I am glad I got the 500. It gives good reach and reasonable portability. But sometimes I find it too much to carry, so last night I ordered a 300 f/2.8 for when I want to travel lighter ;-).

So plan on an addional $1500 or so for a carbon fiber tripod and wimberly.

Roger

Roger, you actually do get 44% more pixels on your subject with a 600 compared to a 500. Here's an explanation. Let's say you photographed an object with a 500mm lens and that object measured 10 pixels by 10 pixels (100 total pixels) on the sensor. With a 600, you get 20% more focal length, so the pixel dimensions of that same object on the sensor will be 12 pixels by 12 pixels (144 total pixels) on the sensor. That's how you get 44% more pixels on your subject with only 20% more focal length.

In answer to the original poster's question, I now own both the 500 and the 600. The 500 is relatively easy to travel with and can be hand held by quite a few photographers. The 600 is substantially bigger and only a brave few will consider hand holding one. The 500 can be used with a Wimberley Sidekick while the 600 requires the full Wimberley head. Both have excellent optics and quick autofocus. I think the 500 is more versatile and would choose it if I could only have one lens. The 600 is nice, and like I said earlier, I now own both. But I didn't part with my 500 to get the 600.

Certainly not trying to hyjack this thread... I think this goes to one of the OPs questions.:o

Roger...

I too have started with the Bogen 3021. It seemed a reasonably strong tripod for a reasonable price. It's very interesting however to read your comparison of that tripod (perhaps ANY aluminum tripod) to CF when it comes to vibration and IQ.

Can you really tell that much difference?

I also bought a Markins ML-20 ballhead when first getting "Kitted Up" and just recently bought an older 500 f4.5 (non-IS) and Sidekick as it was also a financially reasonable way for me to get into a 500... It is amazingly sharp when I do my part... but I'm still learning my part and it would seem that especially with a non-IS 500, anything and everything one could do to limit vibration is a step in the right direction.

Agreed?



Doug... Thank you for the explanation on the 40%... I know Alfred had explained it before, but I couldn't remember and was curious how that worked myself...:confused:

Steve

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doug Brown

Roger, you actually do get 44% more pixels on your subject with a 600 compared to a 500. Here's an explanation. Let's say you photographed an object with a 500mm lens and that object measured 10 pixels by 10 pixels (100 total pixels) on the sensor. With a 600, you get 20% more focal length, so the pixel dimensions of that same object on the sensor will be 12 pixels by 12 pixels (144 total pixels) on the sensor. That's how you get 44% more pixels on your subject with only 20% more focal length.

---

I understand the area argument, but Alfred said magnification. Magnification is a linear specification, and scales with focal length for a given sensor. So the proper way to specify it would be:

600 / 500 = 1.2 = 20% more magnification which gives 1.2*1.2 = 1.44 =44% more pixels on the subject,
not 44% more magnification.

But there are other ways to get more pixels on the subject: change pixel pitch. For example, consider a 1D Mark II with its 1.3x crop versus a 30D with a 1.6x crop, both having 8 megapixels. With the same lens, the 30D gets 1.6/1.3 squared = 1.5x more pixels on the subject. When pixel count is different, one must compute the distance between pixels. For example the 1D Mark II has a pixel pitch of 8.2 microns and the 1D Mark III a pixel pitch of 7.2 microns. Thus on the 1D3 one gets 8.2/7.2 squared = 30% more pixels on subject. Since the light gathering efficiency increased with the 1D3, that is like using a 570mm f/4 lens on the 1D2. So all those people with 500 f/4 lenses who switched from a 1D2 to a 1D3 its also like they increased to almost a 600 f/4 lens.

Roger

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve Wheeler

Certainly not trying to hyjack this thread... I think this goes to one of the OPs questions.:o

Roger...

I too have started with the Bogen 3021. It seemed a reasonably strong tripod for a reasonable price. It's very interesting however to read your comparison of that tripod (perhaps ANY aluminum tripod) to CF when it comes to vibration and IQ.

Can you really tell that much difference?
Steve

---

Certainly the difference is small to not a factor for fast exposure times, but as exposure times drop, then it does make a difference. Before getting a CF tripod, I actually stuffed wooden dowels into the bottom section of my 3021 legs. It reduced vibrations by about 50%. But even that was no comparison to a CF tripod.

Quote:

---

I also bought a Markins ML-20 ballhead when first getting "Kitted Up" and just recently bought an older 500 f4.5 (non-IS) and Sidekick as it was also a financially reasonable way for me to get into a 500... It is amazingly sharp when I do my part... but I'm still learning my part and it would seem that especially with a non-IS 500, anything and everything one could do to limit vibration is a step in the right direction.

Agreed?
Steve

---

Agreed. Without IS you are also more susceptible to vibrations, so at lower shutter speeds I'm sure you'll benefit from a CF tripod. It becomes more of an issue as you add TCs as the magnification is increasing, thus magnifying the vibrations too.

Roger

You're knowledge far exceeds mine in this area! Thanks for elaborating!

I wouldn't doubt your experience with the the CF tripods, I do intend to get one but I am still using a Manfrotto 055CLB with a Manfrotto pan and tilt head and I get good results.
I suspect you will point out that the results would be better with a CF tripod. I will get a Gitzo before too long, it will also have the benefit of being considerably lighter.
Jon

Hi Gents,

Thank you all for your input, suggestions and the provision of the links. You have all been very helpful indeed.
I have a great deal to think about but will take on board all that you have had to say before I make my decision. Thanks again,

Kindest regards,

Doug.

Easy question. If you are young, dumb, strong as an ox, rich, and love to photograph small birds, opt for the 600. Others need not apply. The 500 is lighter, easier to travel with, easier to handle, focuses closer, and costs less. Any questions???

ps: I own two 500s and one 600 so I guess that that shows that I like the 500 better...