Jia Liu from the SF Bay area recently posted a quick review of the Canon EF 500mm f/4 IS lens versus the Canon EF 600mm f/4 IS lens on FredMiranda. His conclusion is :

“…image quality and weight should not the main factors when deciding which lens to get if you need one of these superteles. Size may be important if you need to travel a lot with the lens. But the main factor should be what you shoot, for birders, 600 is the ultimate solution, but if you shoot mixed things, such as birds, large wildlifes, sports, 500 may be a better choice.”

1. Size. This is the most noticable difference to me, you can see the side-by-side comparison of 500 vs 600 in this link. I can fit 500 + 2xTC + 1DII attached into Lowepro Lens Trekker, but for 600, I can barely fit the lens + 1DII, if I put on any TC, the bag cover won’t close. Since I will use 1.4x with the lens almost all the time, either I have to find a bigger bag or I need to take off or put on the TC frequently. Also due the size, 600 is a little more difficult to handle than 500.

2. Weight. 3lb difference is a little overrated, but I could certainly feel it after spending one and a half hours in the field, my muscles got sored quicker than being with 500. But with proper technique, it’s still handheldable. The extra weight also requires extra effort to attaching hood and putting lens on tripod/monopod, so I need to slow down and be more careful.

3. Image quality. Since I doubt I can see any difference between 500 and 600 in real life usage, I shot resolution chart to compare the two. The tests were done in room with constant lighting, lens on Sidekick and Giottos M8180 tripod, MLU, shutter release, and IS turned on. Each shot was repeated three times with re-focus (AF was used), the sharpest was picked out. The camera body is 1DII. The f/11 of 2xTC shots were definitly blurred by lens shake, I noticed that only after viewing the images on computer screen, otherwise I should’ve found better light source to get faster shutter speed. The first pic in the series is the 100% center crop, second one is the 100% crop at center bottom, no any sharpening was applied.

a) 500 vs 600 lens alone.

b) 500 vs 600 with 1.4xTC

c) 500 vs 600 with 2xTC

Again, the f/11 shots are flawed. It looks like 500 has slight edge over 600, but the difference is well bounded by my test error. So I’d say they have the same IQ with or without TCs.

4. In the field. I am glad that my handheld setup with monopod attaching to waist belt works out well with 600/4 as well. Once I put everything on, I can handle 600 just like 500. As I mentioned above, my muscles on my arms got tired after an hour or so, but I can always put the lens on my shoulder and rest arms when not shooting.

Website : Discussion Forum at FredMiranda

Website : Canon EF 500mm f/4 IS USM Review at The Digital Picture

Website : Canon EF 600mm f/4 IS USM Review at The Digital Picture

The Luminous Landscape also has an article comparing these two lenses. His conclusion is :

“Though only 100mm of focal length separates them these two lenses are vastly different in the way that they handle in the field. Though middle aged, I am fit, and of medium height and weight, but I found handling the 600mm to be a strain. Just lifting its 5.4kg bulk in and out of the car was a struggle, not to mention attaching it to the Wimberly head when trying to set up a shot quickly. Once mounted it handles like a dream, but then there’s the struggle of loading it back into the vehicle or carrying the whole tripod / lens assembly to a better vantage point. Backache city.

The 500mm lens on the other hand weighs 3.9kg, and those nearly 2kg make a world of difference. I found that I could hand-hold the 500mm for a short period of time, while it’s impossible to do so with the 600mm without a tripod, bean-bag on a vehicle hood or other support. (More on this below). And, while they both fit in a similar sized backpack, the extra weight and bulk of the 600mm makes quite a difference when trekking down long airport corridors, not to mention on hiking trails.

So, after shooting for one week with each of these lenses, and evaluating a couple of thousand frames shot over two months, on film, and with two digital bodies (Canon 1V, D60 and 1Ds), I finally selected the 500mm over the 600mm. The reach is a bit less, but the compromise is worthwhile. This isn’t the type of lens that one uses all the time unless you’re a full-time sports or wildlife photographer, so maximizing its utility is important so that it doesn’t sit at home collecting dust.”

Website : The Luminous Landscape 500 vs 600