But a few pluses for the 600;

If most of your competition is using the 500, with the 600 then you have a
little more reach then they do. And when adding extenders you have even a
even longer reach.

If you shoot "small" birds, for instance, shorebirds, warberlers and the
like, that extra little bit could really help. Arthur Morris used the 800
5.6, early in his career.

And the the images produced with the 600 can be more a little more dramatic
because of Depth Of Field differences.

Otherwise, I agree with everything else said.

PWW
--
PWW (Paul Wayne Wilson)
Over 1,000 Photographs Online at
http://PhotoStockFile.com


On 5/25/04 12:08 PM, in article
"Bill Hilton" wrote:

From:

I have a question for those of you that are very serious about
wildlife photography.

I currently own all Canon equipment and have recently started making
the move toward digital. My longest lens is the Canon 100-400 IS USM.
I am looking at purchasing a longer lens and am torn between the Canon
500mm f/4.0L IS USM and the Canon 600mm f/4,0L IS USM lenses. The cost
difference between the lenses on B&H's website is about $1,700.00.

I enjoy shooting wildlife photographs of small and large mammals as
well as birds. Can someone please make a recommendation on which lens
would be better for the type of photographs I would like to take?

If you're *mainly* after birds the 600 is probably the better choice, usually
with the 1.4x t/c. Though even famous bird photographers like Art Morris are
gradually using the 500 more often, due to the lighter weight.

For what you describe ("small and large mammals as well as birds") I'd pick
the
500 though (and in fact that's what I use ... incredible lens). I probably
shoot it 70% of the time with the 1.4x, 20% with the 2x and 10% without a t/c.
For larger animals it's fine (sometimes I have to back up even with no t/c)
and
for birds it's still really good, since with IS and one of the bodies that
allow f/8 autofocus (like the EOS-3 or higher) you have 1,000 mm with AF and
IS.

You don't mention which digital body you're getting ... with the 10D you won't
have AF with the 2x converter but the 1.6 multiplier means you have a field of
view equivalent to 800 mm @ f/4, which is great, or 1,120 mm fov with the 1.4x
t/c and still keep AF. With the Mark II the multiplier is 1.3, which is still
a nice bonus with telephotos, plus you can AF at f/8 with this body.

Couple of other reasons to pick the 500 other than focal length and price ...

1) The 500 is more than 3 lbs lighter than the 600. I can carry mine around
all day in the field and not get too tired ... you'll be surprised how much
the
extra 3 lbs adds up over a full day.

2) The 500 is compact enough to fit in a LowePro PhotoTrekker bag, which is
carry-on legal on every US airline, but the 600 is too long for these bags and
you need a non-legal bag for it ... often you can get by with carrying a 600
on
but if not you're in for a hassle. I can fit the 500 in the center of my
LowePro and have enough room for two bodies and two mid-sized lenses like the
300 f/4 L and 70-200 f/2.8 L, and it's all carry-on legal. If you travel by
air this is a big consideration.

I'm just not
sure which lens would be the best choice for wildlife photography and
would like some recommendations before spending such a lar

Ideally you could rent both for a weekend and try them out. A couple of times
I've wished I had the 600 but for the most part I feel the 500 was right for
me.

Bill