500mm vs 600mm?

Adam2 wrote:

Dave wrote:

Don Lacy wrote:

jjl wrote:

I'm in the market for one of these lenses, and looking for feedback from people who have one or both, and perhaps wish they had the other one. I'm just looking for insights that I might not have thought of. I know all the specs, weight, etc... I will probably rent one first just to get a better sense of it.

At the moment, my longest lens is the 400 f4/DO (plus a 1.4x extender). It's been a great lens, but I crop most of my final photos with it. Seems I can never have enough length. I'm at a place in life where I can afford a 500 or 600, but not both (let's not get silly). I'm mostly shooting birds, and it's all for fun (though I do professional work in unrelated areas).

I'm leaning toward the 600 (new generation lens), because I feel I can never have enough length. The number of times it's "too much tele" will outweigh those where it's not enough. One of the reasons I picked the 400 f4 years ago was that it was light & I could use it hand-held if needed. But, in practice, I almost always use it on a monopod anyway. So, why not have a longer lens?

I've considered going with a used first-generation, but feel like I'll have regrets. I've also considered going with a refurbished 600mm to save ~$2000 or so, but at this price range, I'm not sure if that's a risk worth taking... or is it a risk at all? Maybe a refurbished 600 is totally fine, and it's just a vanity thing? Anyone out there have a refurbished 600?

Any insights, lessons learned, etc that anyone can share before I pull the trigger on this? thanks in advance!

On a crop body the 500 is more then enough lens for birds I rarely find myself focal length limited. If I was using a full frame body I know I would want a 600 it makes little sense to me to either crop for reach or buy a lens that a TC is going to live on.

What do you say to someone trying to increase reach while sticking to a budget and considering the 400 f/5.6 + EF 1.4x III combo?

One is hard pressed to improve on that combination given the price. Any step up will be significantly more expensive. A 100-400mm will give you a bit more flexibility and more modern optics but it’s the same on the long end and 2x the price. A 300 f2.8 with a 1.4x or 2x is a reasonable alternative but again it’s 3-4x more expensive. The same holds for a 400 do ii. A 400 f/2.8 runs around $10k and doesn’t offer any advantage for you over the 500 f/4 ($9k), Sigma makes a 500mm but it runs $6k and quite frankly I haven’t been all that impressed.

So, if it were between a 400 f/5.6 + 1.4 iii combo vs. 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 ii is, I would scrape together the $ for the later because of the more modern optics, flexibility, and is.

I'd buy a 100-400 II if my son didn't have one that he let me use.  And I'd probably use it at FL other than 400mm if I didn't have a 70-300L.  So the 400mm prime recognizes what I already have and the low likelihood of my shooting in the 300-400mm range.

While I know I could ditch the 70-300L and replace it with a 100-400II, I like the former's lower weight and its range is perfect for shooting tennis.  The 1.4x III can also be used on my 135 f/2, giving me added flexibility.

Will Canon ever update the 400mm with IS and even better autofocus?  I'd be willing to pay more for those, and will still be way, way under the cost of a 500mm or 600mm.  Those lenses are awesome and should be used by those who appreciate them and are willing to make the investment.