Full Frame 500mm - 600mm

[Ian Colley]

I currently shoot an Olympus with a 50-200 and 1.4 TC, which is fine for birds used to people, but most times still to short. For the wilder birds a full frame to 60% full frame shot is a chance every month or so. At this stage I don’t use a hide but I am thinking I need to go down that path sooner rather than later.

I still rate myself as an amateur with lots of room for improvement, but I have decided to upgrade to a 1D Mark111 with either a 500 or 600mm. After a lot of research via the www I was leaning towards the 600 with a 1.4 tele converter. But after further research I am a little concerned about the weight, but would put up with it if I had to.

I have had some great advice from a forum member already which has been a great help (thank you).

I live in regional Australia and I don’t have the opportunity to rent or even look at and handle both of these to get a feel for the weight or closest distance required for a full frame shot.

I managed to find some information re the 500mm suggesting that to fill a frame for a sparrow sized bird with the 500mm you would need to be approx. 15ft from the bird.

I was wondering if someone could give me an idea of how close you would need to be for a full frame shot of birds similar in size to a sparrow, pigeon and Ibis/spoonbill/heron.

Hopefully this will allow me to make the right choice and avoid saying a few months on, I wish I had…………………….

Any advise on what is required with a Gitzo tripod would also be helpful.

Thanks in advance.

Ian

[Robert O'Toole]

Hi Ian,

For small birds as subjects the 600 is the way to go. I have owned both the EF 500 and EF 600 IS lenses. The 600 has been my standard lens for 4-5 yrs now. The weight is not really a problem at all. I have carrying the 600 around the world for years now, Australasia, Africa, Europe, Japan, and South America. The 600 has the advantage of giving you extra working distance and the smaller angle of view for more control of backgrounds.

I use a Gitzo GT3530LSV with my 600 and I find it stable and secure.

Robert

[Ed Cordes]

I agree that for the little guys a 600 will be best esp with a full frame body. However, if you are getting a 1DMark III it is a 1.3 crop, which to me is a good compromise between full frame and 1.6 crop. The 500 on a 1.3 crop is 650. As far as the lens weight goes the 500 is 8.5 lbs and the 600 is 11 lbs. That is a tremendous weight difference. So, if your little bird shooting is mostly static the 600 may be OK. However, if you are planning on hiking with the rig or moving about a bit, it may prove too heavy.

Check out this discussion on Luminous Landscape

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...500vs600.shtml

[Robert O'Toole]

I don't think a 23% (8.5/11) difference in weight is tremendous.

Don't forget that some people travel and use a Camera/lens/tripod rig with loads of accessories hanging off there tripod. So the total weight of a rig is what really matters. Many people stack on 10+ lbs of gear, battery pack, flash brackets, etc. I have seen people mount a 300F2.8 hanging off a tripod leg. People with a 500F4 mounted on an old Wimberely and old style Gitzo ask me how I like carrying my "heavy" 600F4 on a Gitzo GT3530LSV and M3.5 head. They are very surprised when I let them lift my rig and its lighter. A M3.5 moongoose, my standard travel head, is 1 lb 4 oz vs a 4.5 lbs old Wimb head, so a 500F4 on a WI or II is practically the same as a 600F4 on GT series gitzo and a mongoose.

Speaking from personal experience the 600 weight isnt a problem for me. Your mileage may vary.


Robert

[Alfred Forns]

Ian the difference in image from a 500 to a 600 is 40% more It is significant

For little birds the 600 rules If that is your main interest would go for it When I used Canon I had both lenses but used the 500 most of the time One the beach for shore birds is easier to maneuver and has a shorter minimum focus distance Weight is an issue when traveling I found them different enough to get both I think you need to asses you use before purchasing Will be fun

[Ian Colley]

Thanks for the feedback everyone, appreciated. I am thinking the 600 is the right choice. A steep learning curve for me coming up.

[Arthur Morris]

I have always recommended the 600 over the 500 for folks who are young, strong, dumb and rich... I own both and rarely use the 600 as I do not meet the first two qualifications any more... The 500 is lighter, focuses closer, travels much better, and costs a lot less than the 600 (which I think BTW weighs more than 12 pounds...

later and love, artie

[Jan Wegener]

I consider myself young and strong, can't agree on the other two conditions :D, but still own a 600 IS. I was the best choice I ever made to buy it !
My targets are birds and it made shooting them easier !
The weight is also not an issue for me. I walked for more than 10 km with it in Norway, sure it's hard, but a 500 will hurt almost as much as the 600 after such a hike...

The only thing I miss the 500 for are hand held flight shots

[David Kennedy]

I have always recommended the 600 over the 500 for folks who are young, strong, dumb and rich... I own both and rarely use the 600 as I do not meet the first two qualifications any more... The 500 is lighter, focuses closer, travels much better, and costs a lot less than the 600 (which I think BTW weighs more than 12 pounds...

later and love, artie

And I would be young, strong, smart(er), and on a tighter budget, so I use the 400 DO ;)

Hopefully this means I won't have shoulder problems in 20 years!!!