Not even sure why I stumbled into this thread and then followed it all the way thru. Oh, yeah, I'm avoiding the sort/selection process of 1 pix each of out 4 x 600-800 shot events to make a deadline. As a lowly PJ and landscape/"art" photog, I kind of feel like a the Chevy pickup driver who stumbled into a raging war between Ferrari and Lamborghini owners. Would love to have the "problem" of deciding which is better.
Kind of reminds me of a junior high "mine's bigger than yours" in the locker room after PE
Speaking in a general sense, I believe that the winning lens is the lightest, smallest and the least expensive one which can still allow one to obtain desired results. I also believe that for many wildlife photographers such lens might be 500 MkII, or 500 MkI if on a more restrictive lens budget.
shutterbug guy wrote:
My unscientific analysis says the first one is with the 600
Actually, the first one is with the 800mm. You can see that there was slightly more magnification on the second image, which accounts for the extra 40mm in focal length. I think both results are acceptable. So, I am again having a hard time deciding which way to go. From a cost standpoint, the 800mm at prevailing used prices for an excellent specimen is hard to beat.
I imagine though once an 800mm II is released, the 600mm II will seem like an excellent buy. :-)
dehowie wrote:
Well ive got an 800 so its definitely the biggest!
The 800 may be longer, but the 600 has a larger diameter!
Ah yes, the old thicker vs longer argument. I have it on good authority from a number of women that thicker/longer concerns are a purely male problem. (As in "How stupid do they think we are?") Most women are concerned with results
p.8 #12 · Canon 600mm F4 IS II vs Canon 800mm F5.6
mitesh wrote:
I imagine that once an 800mm II is released, most family sedans will seem like an excellent buy
The current 800mm is the MK II. It was the first of the new line of super teles from Canon. It just didn't have a predecessor to give it the MKII designation.
p.8 #14 · Canon 600mm F4 IS II vs Canon 800mm F5.6
Mickey wrote:
The current 800mm is the MK II. It was the first of the new line of super teles from Canon. It just didn't have a predecessor to give it the MKII designation.
It also got the ball rolling on obscene prices for superteles. This is why I don't think an 800 mk II will be any dearer than a 600 II. There would be absolutely zero justification for it to be any dearer. All they could improve are weight and mfd. The lenses are so close in every aspect such as size, diameter, no doubt weight on the mk II, any price increase would almost certainly see sales plummet and the 600 II + 1.4 make it almost irrelevant except for a few serial hoarders of gears.
Oh, yeah, I'm avoiding the sort/selection process of 1 pix each of out 4 x 600-800 shot events to make a deadline. 
As a lowly PJ and landscape/"art" photog, I kind of feel like a the Chevy pickup driver who stumbled into a raging war between Ferrari and Lamborghini owners. Would love to have the "problem" of deciding which is better.
