Canon EF 500 f/4L IS II & 600 f/4L IS II Showing up in North America

[Canon Rumors]

Share

How do I know?
Because mine arrived in Ontario, Canada today and will be in my hands on Monday. The weather is too poor all weekend to waste 6 hours driving to get it tomorrow.

LensRentals.com is showing the 500 f/4L IS II as in stock on Tuesday.

B&H expects shipments of the 500 & 600 in the next week or so.

From Amazon
A stock note for the new supertelephoto.

Canon EF 600 f/4L IS II from 17th Street Photo for $13,599

cr

[LuCoOc]

Lensrentals said they had the 500 II available for rent on tuesday - finally

http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/canon/lenses/supertelephoto/canon-500mm-f4l-is-ii

[dla5400]

I doubt this lens is $6000 better than the previous version.  Canon has lost their marbles.

[Maxis Gamez]

I doubt this lens is $6000 better than the previous version.  Canon has lost their marbles.

I had the same mentality before I bought my 800mm but after I did, it's worth every penny!

[arbitrage]

I really hope my dealer in Calgary gets this in soon.  I've been waiting for a long while to purchase the 600II.  Sure the price is outrageous but the 600 shed 27% of its weight and gained the 4-stop IS.  That alone is worth it to me.  The 500II hasn't lost as much weight but it was already a handholdable lens for shorter periods and now should be a very portable lens and handholdable for much longer.

[dla5400]

I doubt this lens is $6000 better than the previous version.  Canon has lost their marbles.

I had the same mentality before I bought my 800mm but after I did, it's worth every penny!

There was no previous 800mm to compare it to. There is no way this new 600mm is $6000 sharper or steadier to justify the price.  There is no way it is $4000 better than the same Nikon 600mm f/4 in computer designed lens era.  Canon is just being greedy because they know there are fools who will buy this lens that don't really need it just to show off.

[dla5400]

I really hope my dealer in Calgary gets this in soon.  I've been waiting for a long while to purchase the 600II.  Sure the price is outrageous but the 600 shed 27% of its weight and gained the 4-stop IS.  That alone is worth it to me.  The 500II hasn't lost as much weight but it was already a handholdable lens for shorter periods and now should be a very portable lens and handholdable for much longer.

Huge price jump for minor improvements.

[DavidRiesenberg]

Canon is just being greedy because they know there are fools who will buy this lens that don't really need it just to show off.

If there are "fools who will buy this lens that don't really need it just to show off" then Canon is not greedy at all. They just charge as much as they could get. It's called good business. Every single company does that.

[dla5400]

Canon is just being greedy because they know there are fools who will buy this lens that don't really need it just to show off.

If there are "fools who will buy this lens that don't really need it just to show off" then Canon is not greedy at all. They just charge as much as they could get. It's called good business. Every single company does that.

They can price it and I have the right to call BS.  I use both canon and nikon and at this point I am more inclined to buy a nikon 600mm and d800 for the price of this canon 600mm.  I will get similar results with both but end up with an extra body.

[TrumpetPower!]

There is no way it is $4000 better than the same Nikon 600mm f/4 in computer designed lens era.  Canon is just being greedy because they know there are fools who will buy this lens that don't really need it just to show off.

What "same Nikon" lens? Nikon's 600 f/4 tops the scales at eleven and a quarter pounds; Canon's a mere eight and a half. Nikon isn't even pretending to play in the same league, let alone ballpark.

Hell, Canon's 600 f/4 is significantly lighter than even Nikon's 400 f/2.8. Your entire Canon kit, big gun, bodies, 70-200, and the rest may well weigh less than just Nikon's lens.

Both of these companies are making fantastic pieces of optical imaging equipment, but only one is in the business of making photographic gear for photographers.

Cheers,

b&

[dla5400]

There is no way it is $4000 better than the same Nikon 600mm f/4 in computer designed lens era.  Canon is just being greedy because they know there are fools who will buy this lens that don't really need it just to show off.

What "same Nikon" lens? Nikon's 600 f/4 tops the scales at eleven and a quarter pounds; Canon's a mere eight and a half. Nikon isn't even pretending to play in the same league, let alone ballpark.

Hell, Canon's 600 f/4 is significantly lighter than even Nikon's 400 f/2.8. Your entire Canon kit, big gun, bodies, 70-200, and the rest may well weigh less than just Nikon's lens.

Both of these companies are making fantastic pieces of optical imaging equipment, but only one is in the business of making photographic gear for photographers.

Cheers,

b&

I am just saying that I doubt it is $6000 better.  Will it be nice, sure it will.  It isn't $4000 lighter than the Nikon except for in the wallet.  I can deal with the extra weight for $4k and have a spare body on it.  Go ahead and buy it and burn your money, make the economy go round.  The fact of the matter is price does not mean it is worth the added features.  You guys also must love those new $800 24mm 2.8 and 28mm 2.8 overprices lenses too.  I have no problem paying for nice glass but only when it is justified.

[Simba]

+1
Both Canon & Nikon have their own fanboys.  However, like 5D Mark III & D800, Canon really needs to think about its pricing strategy.
    Nikon D800 + 600mm f/4G ED VR II is cheaper than Canon 600mm f/4L IS II

[dmccabe]

$13K for a lens is just gouging.

I use the 400mm all the time, and now I just rent one whenever I need it. Bill it to the customer. Yeah, it would be nice to have one at home, so at a whim I could just go grab it and shoot. With renting, you have to plan ahead. It's never been an issue for me so far.

I need a 400mm not more than 10 times a year. I can see a 600mm even less use. If I was a sports guy or a wildlife, then I might consider buying it. It's just not in my budget at this point.

If I ever need a 600mm.. I would rent as well. Let's calculate. It costs about $300-400 to rent for about 2 days. That's means you can rent it for about 35 times before you would pay for it.

I have no problem if my employer buys one for us to use... but can see then renting.

$13K buys a ton of other gear I use more often...

[stochasticmotions]

I'm just really hoping that there will finally be a few original 500 f4 going on the used market soon.  They seem to be very hard to find right now...at least here in southern Ontario.

[camerabug]

I'm just really hoping that there will finally be a few original 500 f4 going on the used market soon.  They seem to be very hard to find right now...at least here in southern Ontario.

I have a feeling the price of version 1 used is going to climb because of the price increase of v2. I bought a V1 500F4 brand new in December 2011 after I saw the anticipated increase of the upcoming. I understand there maybe a couple of stops better with the new IS and it's noticeable lighter but these long lenses now are mostly unreachable in price.

I can see most replies to this thread show disappointment with the new pricing. What really scared me is Sony just released their version of the 500F4 and they want $13,000.