# Which supertele? Any reason for 500 over a 600 except the price



## J.R. (Dec 3, 2013)

Hi Guys,

While I am presently saving up for a 300mm f/2.8L II (almost done), my mind is dwelling on its bigger cousins and I am not sure which to get first. I plan to get a 300 and a 500/600 next year in any case so it is basically an issue of which one to get first. 

I can probably get the 500mm by early February next year if I do decide on it and the 300 can follow up later. However, a 600mm will be a step too far right now and my wait will probably be longer. 

Of course the biggest differences between the two are the 100mm of FL and $$$. *Can you guys please advise whether there is any other reason to buy the 500 over the 600?*

Thanks in advance for your help! 

Cheers ... J.R.


----------



## takesome1 (Dec 3, 2013)

If Birds are your thing then the 600mm. You need as much reach as you can get.
So it depends on what your subjects are if any advantages apply.

The 500 will be lighter and a bit shorter and because of this a bit more portable.
It will be easier to hand hold as well.


----------



## takesome1 (Dec 3, 2013)

Here is some info from the spec sheet;

500mm II, 112.5 ounces, 12.14 mfd, 5.7" dia x 15.1 length
600mm II, 138.3 ounces, 14.77 mfd, 6.5" dia x 17.5 length

Keep in mind length does not take in to account the huge hood.

If you plan on packing with the lens very much the 500mm would be a big advantage.
Keep in mind the extra 100mm is only giving you about 17% more reach.
In many wildlife instances that 17% can be huge, but if it is a situation where you didn't want to carry the heavier lens then the extra reach is worthless with the lens in the trunk of your car.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 3, 2013)

The smaller size of the 500 II would make it easier to travel with, especially by air. As you say, the most significant differences are the cost and the 100mm of focal length. I'd say the 500mm would be better for wildlife and birds, whereas the 600mm is better for birds and wildlife. Since the latter more closely matches my interest, I went with the 600 II.


----------



## tron (Dec 3, 2013)

takesome1 said:


> Here is some info from the spec sheet;
> 
> 500mm II, 112.5 ounces, 12.14 mfd, 5.7" dia x 15.1 length
> 600mm II, 138.3 ounces, 14.77 mfd, 6.5" dia x 17.5 length
> ...


+1 on that. That's why I got the 500mm II. Even so it is BIG and HEAVY... at least compared to the rest of my lenses. Compared to most of the white super teles though it is a totally different matter - with a possible question mark in the use of 300 2.8L IS II with 2XIII - ... So no regrets even if I do not use it often, I have it available when I want to


----------



## coreyhkh (Dec 3, 2013)

I have the 500 f4 mk1 and with the 1.4 tc on the 7D or 1dmkiv its more then enough for me. It depends on everyone's style though. If you prefer the tripod the 600 will be better but if you like hand holding and are good at getting close to wildlife the 500 is the best.


----------



## randym77 (Dec 3, 2013)

I went with the 600 II. 

It weighs about the same as the old 500, so in comparison to the old versions, it didn't seem all that heavy. 

The extra 100 mm makes a big difference for birds and wildlife, especially if you use it with an extender. 

It's true I wouldn't want to hike Mt. Everest with it, but I wouldn't want to carry the 500mm up a mountain, either.


----------



## jthomson (Dec 3, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> The smaller size of the 500 II would make it easier to travel with, especially by air. As you say, the most significant differences are the cost and the 100mm of focal length. I'd say the 500mm would be better for wildlife and birds, whereas the 600mm is better for birds and wildlife. Since the latter more closely matches my interest, I went with the 600 II.



I had an elementary school teacher who when teaching set theory tried to tell me that 3 x7=21 was not the same as 7 x 3 = 21, some how the order of the number of sets and number in the sets was important to determining that there were 21 total items. 

Both are great lenses. Personally I went with 500mm for the lighter weight, even though my interest is birds and wildlife.


----------



## takesome1 (Dec 3, 2013)

Actually the 500mm will be slightly better when shooting birds at the mfd.


----------



## dolina (Dec 3, 2013)

Weight is a factor.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 3, 2013)

There is enough difference in weight that the 500 can be handheld by many photographers. The shorter length helps make it easier to carry. Its a personal decision based on your needs.


----------



## GuyF (Dec 3, 2013)

Quite simple - only you will know if you really need the reach of the 600 and can afford the fairly large price difference over the 500.

I got the 500mm v2 and a mk3 1.4x as the cost/weight/reach ratio met my needs. I had thought about selling my 300mm 2.8 IS mk1 to help fund the 500mm but decided to keep it as it's such a terrific lens. Which ever way you slice it, the big whites provide superb image quality - end of story!


----------



## Vern (Dec 3, 2013)

I faced the same decision last year, so I rented both of them for a week. Like Neuro, I am a bird/wildlife guy. I ended up w the 600 based on really wanting the extra 100mm. For birds, I use it w the 1.4X 95% of the time and for wildlife it hasn't been 'too long' yet when used alone (not many extra large wildlife in my neighborhood). A minor consideration was already having the 300 II and wanting more separation b/t it and a super T. I'm happy w my choice, but sometimes my shoulder/back longs for a somewhat lighter package. I have the impression that the 500 + 2X III has a better IQ than the 600 + 2X - not sure what others think. They both are great w the 1.4 III. You will be amazed by the 300 II w the 2X III, it is the only lens I have where I am generally happy w the 2X results. Take that 600mm f5.6 (300 + 2X) into account in your decision too.


----------



## Eldar (Dec 3, 2013)

I have the 600 II and I am very happy with it. I use it with the 1.4xIII extender most of the time. If you´re not used to long lenses, you´ll be surprised to how many times you´ll say 840mm isn´t enough. 

I had the 400 f2.8L IS II, but the 600 gives that extra level of sharpness at 840 vs. the 800 I could get by combining the 400 with the 2xIII extender. And with the 600 I can also go to 1200mm. But practically that is only usable on fairly stationary subjects. I combine the 600 with the 200-400 f4L IS 1.4x. A phenomenal lens you also should consider.

The 600 is a big lens and I actually find the size of it more of an issue than the weight. But from both a reach and optical quality perspective, it is awesome, but so is the 500 II.


----------



## jasonsim (Dec 3, 2013)

I have both for the time being. I got the 600mm first because I thought everything was shifting to full frame and was looking to replace an 800mm. Like others have said, for birding, I think the 600mm II + 1.4x III is the best option. If the birds are stationary, then the 600mm II + 2x III will also work nicely (super sharp). This is not a lens you want to travel that far with though, since it is big volume wise. Also hiking around with it is cumbersome at least for me. So that is something to consider. I mainly use the 600mm II on a sturdy tripod and a full gimbal head. 

The 500mm is lighter on paper, but in my hands it does not feel that much lighter. It is however, much smaller in volume. So would be much easier to take on a plain or even to hike around with. Still not sure I want to hike around with it much. If you think you might be sticking with a crop sensor body (7D, 70D and maybe the next 1.6x body) then I might suggest you strongly consider the 500mm. If not for the slight weight savings and size differences, then for the price difference. The 500mm + 1.4x on a 7D is more than enough focal length for birding. 

I also have the 300mm f/2.8L IS II and would choose to use that, if I am going to be hiking around looking for subjects to photograph. I'd use it without hesitation with the 2x III. It is much lighter than either the 500mm and 600mm and it is super sharp even with the 2x III on it.

Don't know, if that helps you any. You might even consider a nice used 800mm f/5.6L IS that can be had for around $8500 these days.

Best of luck with your decision. If you decide on a 500mm II, I might have one for you .

Kind regards,
Jason S.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Dec 4, 2013)

J.R. said:


> Hi Guys,
> 
> While I am presently saving up for a 300mm f/2.8L II (almost done), my mind is dwelling on its bigger cousins and I am not sure which to get first. I plan to get a 300 and a 500/600 next year in any case so it is basically an issue of which one to get first.
> 
> ...



Do your lenses have to be the Mk2 versions? Yes they are better (a little) and lighter but they are MUCH more expensive! I use the Canon 300 F2.8 L IS Mk1 and the Canon 800mm F5.6 L IS (the kiddie for songbirds!), both bought used (in almost mint condition) for less than a single Canon 500 Mk2 - if you are on a budget it's a bit of a no brainer really.


----------



## randym77 (Dec 4, 2013)

Vern said:


> A minor consideration was already having the 300 II and wanting more separation b/t it and a super T.



This was a consideration for me as well (though I have the old 300mm). I wanted a lens that would get me closer than the 300 f/2.8 with extender. 



Eldar said:


> I have the 600 II and I am very happy with it. I use it with the 1.4xIII extender most of the time. If you´re not used to long lenses, you´ll be surprised to how many times you´ll say 840mm isn´t enough.



Yes. This has been my experience as well. 

For me, the weight/size difference between the lenses (and the Sigmonster and similar) were not significant. There's no way I'm using any of them without some kind of support, so that wasn't really an issue. If you're a big strong guy who can hand-hold a 500mm, it might be different.


----------



## J.R. (Dec 5, 2013)

takesome1 said:


> If Birds are your thing then the 600mm. You need as much reach as you can get.
> So it depends on what your subjects are if any advantages apply.
> 
> The 500 will be lighter and a bit shorter and because of this a bit more portable.
> It will be easier to hand hold as well.



Thanks... I'm an old school type shooter who likes to shoot with a tripod. I plan to shoot with a wimberley gimbal head. 

I do enjoy birding and I guess you are right, the 600 should be better there.


----------



## J.R. (Dec 5, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> The smaller size of the 500 II would make it easier to travel with, especially by air. As you say, the most significant differences are the cost and the 100mm of focal length. I'd say the 500mm would be better for wildlife and birds, whereas the 600mm is better for birds and wildlife. Since the latter more closely matches my interest, I went with the 600 II.



Thanks... I'm more into birding than wildlife so a 600 should be better. I guess a combo of the 300 and 600 should work fine for wildlife and birding.


----------



## J.R. (Dec 5, 2013)

Eldar said:


> I have the 600 II and I am very happy with it. I use it with the 1.4xIII extender most of the time. If you´re not used to long lenses, you´ll be surprised to how many times you´ll say 840mm isn´t enough.
> 
> I had the 400 f2.8L IS II, but the 600 gives that extra level of sharpness at 840 vs. the 800 I could get by combining the 400 with the 2xIII extender. And with the 600 I can also go to 1200mm. But practically that is only usable on fairly stationary subjects. I combine the 600 with the 200-400 f4L IS 1.4x. A phenomenal lens you also should consider.
> 
> The 600 is a big lens and I actually find the size of it more of an issue than the weight. But from both a reach and optical quality perspective, it is awesome, but so is the 500 II.



Thanks Eldar, the 200-400 didn't come to my mind at all. . I think it makes good sense to get the 200-400 after the 600 for wildlife shooting where a zoom is much more handy than a prime. 

I've decided to plan on these two lenses next. For the moment 300 2.8 is being ordered today


----------



## J.R. (Dec 5, 2013)

jasonsim said:


> I have both for the time being. I got the 600mm first because I thought everything was shifting to full frame and was looking to replace an 800mm. Like others have said, for birding, I think the 600mm II + 1.4x III is the best option. If the birds are stationary, then the 600mm II + 2x III will also work nicely (super sharp). This is not a lens you want to travel that far with though, since it is big volume wise. Also hiking around with it is cumbersome at least for me. So that is something to consider. I mainly use the 600mm II on a sturdy tripod and a full gimbal head.
> 
> The 500mm is lighter on paper, but in my hands it does not feel that much lighter. It is however, much smaller in volume. So would be much easier to take on a plain or even to hike around with. Still not sure I want to hike around with it much. If you think you might be sticking with a crop sensor body (7D, 70D and maybe the next 1.6x body) then I might suggest you strongly consider the 500mm. If not for the slight weight savings and size differences, then for the price difference. The 500mm + 1.4x on a 7D is more than enough focal length for birding.
> 
> ...



Thanks Jason, I would readily buy a used lens but given the fact that I'm in India, it is not an option. The superteles don't come up for resale all that many times. Buying from the US isn't such a great idea because imports attract a customs duty of 30%. A new super tell lens, in India, turns out to be the same if not cheaper.

Carrying the lens in the wild... I'd take a couple of sherpas for that instead of breaking my back with either supertele. 

I'll go for the 600 next. The 300 should be here within a week.


----------

