Which to PreOrder the 500mm F4L II or the 600mm F4L II, bird and wildlife advice wanted

Canon anounced delivery dates of May for the 500mm and June for the 600mm.


I have enough gear to barter off and trade, to get either lens. But I wanted to see if any Bird / Wildlife guys had any opinions on this.


So far my 500mm is great. When I bought it, I debated between it and the 800mm, after I used it for a while I was glad I went with the 500mm. I know the extra few pounds and inches would have really mattered the way I shoot. Which is about 50% by hand and the rest of monopod or tripod. The 600mm I just discounted at the time because of its weight.


I used the 7D with the 500mm for a while. The 1.6 crop factor on the 500mm I felt was to much (800mm compared to full frame). But it gave me a feel for the longer length, and tracking BIF with the 7D x 500mm was alot harder than using the 5D full frame. When I bougth the 1D Mark IV the 500mm feels just about right.


Now with the new lenses, the 600mm is the same weight as the old 500mm. It is 2 1/2" longer. I could get it and it would be similar to the old 500mm just a little more bulky to carry around in the car for "drive by" bird shootings in the country.


I am thinking though, that the 600mm with the 1.4 ex might be to long for my liking (840mm). But the 500mm with the 1.4 ex at 700mm would be closer.


Looking at the charts, with the extenders, the IQ from the 500mm-700mm-1000mm compared to the 600mm-840mm-1200mm...and then throwing in the 800mm in the mix, the charts indicate that the IQ at each point at each of those focal lengths will probably be progresivly lower as you get further out. Meaning that the 500mm will have the best, followed by the 600mm then the 700mm (500mm with 1.4), 800mm and so on. So as far as focal length goes, its really an decision of where you want to start and stop. 500mm-1000mm or 600mm-1200mm.


The 2x ex charts actualy look as if they will have very usable IQ. Which would be great.


So right now I am leaning toward the 500mm. Loose a few pounds over what I have now. Unless any one has any diffrent thougts.


Rick

If you can afford the 600, go for it. You can never have enough reach for shooting birds...and honestly I think you haven

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sinh Nhut Nguyen

If you can afford the 600, go for it. You can never have enough reach for shooting birds...and honestly I think you haven't shot enough birds when you said you had too much focal length....

---

Nate ..Thanks and spoken like a true birder [:P]


Really I do not consider myself a birder. Really wildlife in general is my passion, I would rather be out shooting an elk over a tweety bird. But it does seem like a 50/50 mix between birds and other since birds are more plentifull. The reason the 7D "felt"to long is because I had been using the 5D for a year on the 500mm so I never really got used to the crop effect. And it only felt to long when with BIF. Only oncehave I ever thought 500mm was to much, and that was not long ago when a road runner came out about20 feet away and I couldn't get his tail and head in the same frame.Maybe a bit more practice I would get used to it with BIF.


But this might sound stupid. But 600mm might be to short to always shoot at 600mm. With the 1.4 ex it might "feel" to long at 840mm. Where the 500mm with the 1.4 ex at 700mm might be just right. Like I said to me its only going to apply to BIF. Maybe what I should do is take the 500mm and 1.4 out and shoot it with the 1D IV and 7D some more to recheck my impressions.


The other thought I had is buying a 1Ds, which in that case the 600mm would defintley be the pick.


But the chart on the 500mm has me really interested.


Rick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sinh Nhut Nguyen

You can never have enough reach for shooting birds...

---

Unless you're shooting big, metal ones...


http://www.jetphotos.net/news/media/...2646362006.jpg

John


Its interesting you posted that, speaking of big metal birds.


I have been seriously considering taking off and going to the last shuttle launch in June.

you lucky guys(I know someone else are getting those new big lenses in this forum)!, that makes me feel so excited although I don't see I'm getting any of them soon[:|]


I'll second Nate that to get the 600mm if I were you Rick. reach is always the priority for bird photography even though there is time that you do get too close. hanging a 7D with a 400mm5.6 on your shoulder might be the solution when you are shooting with the 600mm, and I wish Canon had integrated the 1.4XTC into the new big primes.


for me, the 500mm maybe the choice, cheaper, lighter smaller always attract me and I have been expecting the result(sharpness and Al Servo performance) of the 500mm+2XTCIII+1D combo will surprise me since they announced the new lenses and new TCs although the chance is low(well at least the sharpness looks pretty good so far). but we will know pretty soon.

Hey Guys,


Certainly an interesting debate, and I think a lot of people, including myself would be interested in the best possible decision.


When I bought my 300mm f/2.8L IS to be used with my 7D, I went through a similar scenario between the 300mm or the 400mm f/2.8L IS. However, the 400mm f/2.8L IS weighed nearly 12 lbs at the time, so I went for the 300mm/ 2.8L IS plus 1.4X when needed and I have been thoroughly satisfied with those results, despite losing one stop with the extender. I don

Hi Rick,


Do you intend on keeping the 500mm? You mentioned moving on some gear, so perhaps there are a couple of bodies (7D,5D) you could part with and keep the 500 and get the new 600. That way you hot it all covered.


You

Steve


The AF system on the 1D IV is so much superior to the 5D II and 7D that I would have to say yes it does. The 7D pics can be manipulated and have alot of head room to work with, where as the 1D IV come out almost as good as they can get. The contrast out of the 1D IV seems to be alot better than the 7D's and I haven't been able to duplicate the contrast with a 7D file to look as good. I have thought about keeping the 7D, to have the crop factor on my longest lens at its longest reach. But I think I will be parting with it, I have several personal friends that have asked to buy it.


The 500mm will be barterd off in the trade or sold. I just can't see having two big primes. I thought for a long time about buying a 800mm to go with the 500mm. But the problem is when you go out with one of these lenses, its like taking your wife along on a trip. You don't get to take any other girls along (or lenses). (if the wife reads this maybe I won't be getting any lens[:P])


JJ


I have been wanting the lighter 500mm. But I am used to the weight of the 500mm now, so its about the same as the 600mm. It is longer, and hand holding a longer lens is going to be a pain.


Rich


I think the IQ of the new lens is going to be substantialy better. I own several of the newer II series lens. For instance the 24mm F1.4 II which has the new Sub Wave Coating. the IQ from the new lenses are usualy pretty big jumps in IQ and Canon is stating that the new 500mm will be sharper. I am willing to bet that it will be a nice upgrade.


But there is really no way to tell for sure with IQ until we see actualy realcomparisons.I have the charts at home from the old 500mm with both the 1.4 ex and 2 ex on it. And I have spent some time looking at the charts for the new lenses, laying them all out side by side and comparing. So I think the decision is coming down to this:

• Longer reach of the 600mm is a plus, especialy if I start using a 1Ds
• The 500mm is a pound and half lighter and 2 1/2" shorter. It will be more protable.
• Going by the Charts. The 500mm appears as if it may be quit usable with a 2 ex at a 1000mm. Where the 600mm looks marginal with a 2 ex at 1200mm. Which may sound crazy, but if the 600mm doesn't meet the IQ that I expect of an acceptable pic at 1200mm, and the 500mm does meet the IQ that I expect at 1000mm the 500mm would be the longer lens. (maybe not logical but I am going to go over the charts again on this one when I get home tonight to compare again, with what I find acceptable with the old compared to the new)

Thanks for the input guys


I will be thinking this over the next few days


Rick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HDNitehawk

I thought for a long time about buying a 800mm to go with the 500mm. But the problem is when you go out with one of these lenses, its like taking your wife along on a trip. You don't get to take any other girls along (or lenses). (if the wife reads this maybe I won't be getting any lens[img]/emoticons/emotion-4.gif[/img])


Rick
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

---

That's one of the best analogiesI have ever heard. [:D]


Idid read an interview with a "pro" and he said the best investment he ever made in his business was buying his 600mm. It enabled him to get shots that others couldn't.


Good luck with your decision, but remember you may find yourself standing on a boat one day with a dozen other photographers and theperson beside you has a 600 and you have the 500 and you are left wondering what could have been.


Or maybe not.[:^)]


Steve

Rick just had another thought, since we are discussing the ultimate long lens kit for you there is another possibility.


Sell the 300 and the 500 and a couple of bodies and maybe your soul and;


Buy the 400mm 2.8 and the 600mm, then you got wildlife covered when it gets dark as well.


Just a thought.

Ok guys here is why I am thinking the 2 ex III on the 500mm is going to be very good.


The first picture of a graph, I took of the EF Lens Work III. This is the 500mm F4L Original with the 1.4 extender ( I find the IQ of this combination to be acceptable)





[img]/resized-image.ashx/__size/250x0/__key/CommunityServer-Components-UserFiles/00-00-00-47-09/IMG_5F00_9608.JPG[/img]





This is the new 500mm F4 L II with the 2x Extender





[img]/resized-image.ashx/__size/800x0/__key/CommunityServer-Components-UserFiles/00-00-00-47-09/ef500lisiiu_5F00_extender2xiii_5F00_mtf.gif[/img]


And actually the 600mm with the 2ex (1200mm) looks better than the 500mm 1.4 as well.


So to me, we might be comparing a lens that can go to 1000mm with a respectable image to one that can go to 1200mm. One of those might be enough focal length for some birders [:P]


Of course maybe the charts are lying to us.

So, it looks like the new 500mm II with the 2X III provides better image quality than the original 500mm with 1.4X II.


Very Nice!


Don

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard Lane

Don't forget that you'll have to add another $1000 to buy the 1.4X III and the 2X III, since they're $500 each. But, I guess they could always be added later.


Rich

---

The 1.4x III showed up from B&amp;H yesterday, despite the blizzard conditions. But this means I will still have to get a 2x, I always thought the 2x II I have was a waste of money.

Gees I with I had the "I think I have too much reach" problem....


My thoughts are that the extra reach will allow you to photograph wildlife from further away, limiting your disturbance on them enabling you to capture them in the most natural behaviour possible.


BUT if the bulk of the lens won

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HDNitehawk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard Lane

Don't forget that you'll have to add another $1000 to buy the 1.4X III and the 2X III, since they're $500 each. But, I guess they could always be added later.


Rich

---

The 1.4x III showed up from B&amp;H yesterday, despite the blizzard conditions. But this means I will still have to get a 2x, I always thought the 2x II I have was a waste of money.

---

In order to realize the full potential of the 500mm-1000mm or the 600mm-1200mm capability of the lens, then you'll probably want to get the 2X III eventually.


Below, are the MTF charts for the 500mm vs. 600mm with and without the extenders.





http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_500mm_f_4l_is_ii_usm





http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_600mm_f_4l_is_ii_usm





The 500mm II by itself may be the best Canon MTF Chart that I've ever seen.


Ok.., so I'm starting to get really excited about these new lenses.[:P]





Rich

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard Lane

So, it looks like the new 500mm II with the 2X III provides better image quality than the original 500mm with 1.4X II.


Very Nice!

---

not so hurry guys, though it sounds very exciting!, IQ is not everything, what about the Al Servo AF? and is the 500mmII+1.4X TCIII better than the old 600mm and the 800mm? since I don't know how to read the charts.

Basically, the higher and more horizontal the lines are (the closer to the top horizontal line 1), the better the image quality is.


According to the charts on the Canon website, the 500mm II plus 1.4X III looks to be as good as the original 600mm on it's own.


I would have to expect the AF to be just as good with the improved optics of the glass, not to mention the improved 4 stop (Mode 3) IS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard Lane

The 500mm II by itself may be the best Canon MTF Chart that I've ever seen.


Ok.., so I'm starting to get really excited about these new lenses.[img]/emoticons/emotion-4.gif[/img]

---

LOL...I was kind of passive about the new lens. Thinking I would wait to order one. Then I went and took a look at the charts and my whole perspective changed. Maybe its just good marketing from Canon and they don't pull a bait and switch on us. I spent all day yesterday reading everything I could find and pouring over the old charts. Any way I am hooked, they have me. Its just a matter of which one now.





btaylor


I think you sized up the problem very well. However both lenses will feel like your carrying a rocket launcher. I was glad at yellowstone this summer. I kept thinking every time I stopped the van and took out the 500mm, that I was sure glad I didn't get the longer and heavier 800mm. The 500mm is just a little bit shorter rocket launcher.

It seems like your decision isn't going to be made by differences in image quality between the new 500mm and 600mm, though it does look like the 500mm does hold a slight edge based on the MTF chart (and I thought the new 300mm f/2.8 had an awesome MTF chart... ok, it still does, can't wait til I get mine).


I think you need to look at some of the shots in your photo library taken with the 500mm and ask yourself if 600mm would have been too long or if you would have preferred to have more reach?


It looks like the 1.4x and 2x III will be very usable on either lens. I just got it them both last week and have yet to take anything other than test shots with them and my 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II. I was impressed with the test shots. The 1.4x was awesome, even wide open at f/4. The 2x was very nice at f/5.6, but of course stopping down to f/8 helped. I never owned the 2x II so I have no comparison, but I'm happy with my purchase. I mostly bought them with the thinking that they'll eventually be paired up with a 300mm f/2.8 II.


How was traveling with the 500mm? You mentioned going to Yellowstone with the lens. Part of the reason I was looking at the 300mm f/2.8 is that I thought paired with a 7D and maybe a 1.4x (300mm * 1.4 * 1.6 = 672mm) it would be perfect for traveling and hiking, grabbing wildlife shots when I got a chance while 300mm might actually still be useful for some far-off landscapes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trowski

How was traveling with the 500mm? You mentioned going to Yellowstone with the lens. Part of the reason I was looking at the 300mm f/2.8 is that I thought paired with a 7D and maybe a 1.4x (300mm * 1.4 * 1.6 = 672mm) it would be perfect for traveling and hiking, grabbing wildlife shots when I got a chance while 300mm might actually still be useful for some far-off landscapes.

---

Its a chore to travel with the 500mm. In yellowstone it seems like everyone toured by the road. If you wanted to find wildlife just look for people pulled over. While it would have been nice if the 500mm had more reach on occasions it seemed the 500mm with the 1.4x when needed was enough. The only time I would have liked to have more reach was in the restricted area where the baby eagle was nesting. The problem with traveling is the size of the lens. Where are you going to lay it down as you drive? It was a problem, and I could see how the 800mm would have even been harder to handle in the van.


Of course at yellowstone, the animals are not to scared of people. My brother called them "posers". The would be right next to the road and it seemed like they were coming out to pose and get their pictures taken.


I think the 300mm would be a good way to go if hiking in. I have a swing pack that I carry mine in and its not really to bad, its not a walk around lens by any means, but not bad. With the 1.4x its a good compromise if you don't want to spend all the money on a 500mm or you don't want to carry the extra weight around.


The 500mm I have a tamrac expedition 8x pack and it completely fills the back pack up with lens, camera and related gear. We packed the 500mm in with us on our overnight wilderness camp, several miles in. And unless you have a couple of mules (17 and 18 year old sons in my case) you wouldn't want to carry it in alone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trowski

How was traveling with the 500mm? You mentioned going to Yellowstone with the lens. Part of the reason I was looking at the 300mm f/2.8 is that I thought paired with a 7D and maybe a 1.4x (300mm * 1.4 * 1.6 = 672mm) it would be perfect for traveling and hiking, grabbing wildlife shots when I got a chance while 300mm might actually still be useful for some far-off landscapes.

---

Its a chore to travel with the 500mm. In yellowstone it seems like everyone toured by the road. If you wanted to find wildlife just look for people pulled over. While it would have been nice if the 500mm had more reach on occasions it seemed the 500mm with the 1.4x when needed was enough. The only time I would have liked to have more reach was in the restricted area where the baby eagle was nesting. The problem with traveling is the size of the lens. Where are you going to lay it down as you drive? It was a problem, and I could see how the 800mm would have even been harder to handle in the van.


Of course at yellowstone, the animals are not to scared of people. My brother called them "posers". The would be right next to the road and it seemed like they were coming out to pose and get their pictures taken.


I think the 300mm would be a good way to go if hiking in. I have a swing pack that I carry mine in and its not really to bad, its not a walk around lens by any means, but not bad. With the 1.4x its a good compromise if you don't want to spend all the money on a 500mm or you don't want to carry the extra weight around.


The 500mm I have a tamrac expedition 8x pack and it completely fills the back pack up with lens, camera and related gear. We packed the 500mm in with us on our overnight wilderness camp, several miles in. And unless you have a couple of mules (17 and 18 year old sons in my case) you wouldn't want to carry it in alone.

I bought a used 600mm L, nice lens, but not long enough for wildlife unless you were pretty close. I took it to a local gravel pit wherelots of eagles hang out. I thought i was pretty close, but put on the 1.4X TC. Not long enough. Tried the 2X and still to short. Tried both TC's, still nowhere near long enough to fill the frame of my 1D MK III and blurry.


It is quite a expedition to movea huge lensaround, and also carry a heavy tripod and heavy Wimberly head. I ended up sellingthe 600and just continued to use my 100-400mm L. Its a tradeoff, you can carry the lighter lens everywhere, hand hold it, and on the average get more images than you would get with all the hassle of the 600. If you are setup with a blind, and willing to wait for that one shot, the longer lens, the better.

well said, scalesusa, I couldn

Here is what I was talking about on the charts.


If the 2x is usable as it appears it may be. The IQ from each step up in length seems to go down just a little bit. Progressivly. So that no lens holds an advantage at any paticular lenght, other than they can be extended to that paticular length (if that makes sense).


So the decission seems to be where do you want to stop, hit in the middleand start your focal length. A 500-700-1000mm lens. Or a 600-840-1200mm lens.


I have gotten it narrowed down to this, the 500mm x 700mm combination fits alot of the wildlife I do. Deer, Elk and suchit is very comfortable. 700mm for larger BIF and close up birds. Now, the question is, will the 1000mm really be usable as this would be the tweety bird end, or are the charts hype.


[img]/resized-image.ashx/__size/550x0/__key/CommunityServer-Components-UserFiles/00-00-00-47-09/Charts.JPG[/img]

Hey Rick,


Good Morning!


I have to say that every one of these charts looks great to me. I believe that the image quality will be outstanding on all of the combinations above. I think you need to consider what your most common focal length will be without the extender. For full body shots of deer, the 500mm would probablybebetter, for head shots the 600mm would probably be better. I would strongly take into consideration the most common length that you will need withoutthe extender, because keep in mind, that although the image quality looks good with either extender, you will lose 1 stop of light with the 1.4X and 2 stopsof lightwith the 2X, so you will have to bump up the ISO which will decrease image quality.A 2-stoploss of light at dawn and dusk in the woods or mountains could be significant. I might as well also mention that thenew4-stop IS, high pixel density of the new sensors and the improved ISO performance of the new bodies will somewhat offset my concerns.


The other thing is that you could always crop a little bit with the shorter lens, but if youhave toomuch focal lengththen you will miss the shot. If you bring the 600mm into the field then you probably should also have a 70-200mm with your old 1.4X extender II with you, preferablly mounted on another body.


I'm sure that the 1000mm and 1200mm would get some use, but the bread and butter of the decision probably lies between the 500mm f/4 and 700mm f/5.6 versus the 600mm f/4 and 840mm f/5.6.


The extenders also add some lengthand weightand they affect the overall balance and hand-holdability of the combo.


Don't read this as I'm trying to talk you into the 500mm, because I'm just as confused about the decision as you are.


Other things you mentioned, traveling, hiking, shooting out of the car would also be easier with the 500mm.


A nice combo would be the 200-400mm f/4L with built in 1.4Xand the 600mm f/4.





Rich

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard Lane

A nice combo would be the 200-400mm f/4L with built in 1.4Xand the 600mm f/4.

---

Rich


That idea keeps poping in my head as well. But from the looks of it, it is going to be a big heavy lens. The negative I see there is carrying around a 200mm lens as heavy as the 600mm and as long as the 500mm. But if the IQ is as good as the 70-200mm II, which it will probably be greater, then IQ wise I think it might be a good alternative over owning a 300mm F2.8 to fill that range.


You mentioned the new sensors, which kind of off topic and then again in some ways maybe not with what the new charts of new lenses are showing. I wonder how much our camera's limitthe IQ now, as compared to the lenses we have. For instance how much head room would the 1D Mark III sensor have for improvement, until it passses the lenses ability to resolve the image. Is this why we haven't seen a 1Ds Mark IV yet? The camera would have been limited by the lens? Maybe the sensor's of digital cameras will advance to a point that the optics of the lens is the sole determinig factor of IQ, and at that point camera bodies drop in price.


Rick

I would probably make the decission based on the 1.4TCIII, because I have found I use my 1.4TC with the 500mm maybe 80-90% of the time. if the 2XTC is as good as the charts, it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard Lane

.


A nice combo would be the 200-400mm f/4L with built in 1.4Xand the 600mm f/4.





Rich
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

---

Sure would be nice .... probably in excess of $20K just for those two lenses.


VERY VERY nice indeed!!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joel Eade

A nice combo would be the 200-400mm f/4L with built in 1.4Xand the 600mm f/4.





Rich
<div style="CLEAR:both;"]</div>








Sure would be nice .... probably in excess of $20K just for those two lenses.


VERY VERY nice indeed!!!!!

---

Joel


Don't forget the 1Ds IV when its released, to go with these nice lenses. Just make it $30K.


Where will the insanity stop. That should put a person very close to a cure, as a kit couldn't get much better.


Or could it...........


Rick

It is hard to imagine how much things have changed .... my parents moved us (due to a better job opportunity for Dad) from a duplex in Wisconsin to a new home they had built in southern Kentucky in 1965 ... the cost of a brand new 3 bedroom split level house, 2 car garage and 1/2 acre lot was $15,000.00 ..... now we

Hmmmm, mabye sticking with your 500mm f/4 IS is not such a bad idea. But I you are going to upgrade I will second Nate

Pulled this thread out of the archives. It is One year and counting..... Maybe they will be released before the next two or three price increases.

@HD, funny you brought this thread up with the news feed that they're listed for April release.

Rick...apparently you have some pull...

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/N...aspx?News=1918

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kayaker72

Rick...apparently you have some pull...

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/N...aspx?News=1918

---

I am on Canon's most valued customers list....

But really, the biggest spreader of Canon Rumors seems to be Canon themselves. We shall see in April.

So Rick, which way are you going to jump, or would you consider the 200-400 with buit in extender, that must not be too far off.
I think Canon will need to respond with something special very quickly, because the 24-70 has left some underwhelmed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve U

So Rick, which way are you going to jump, or would you consider the 200-400 with buit in extender, that must not be too far off.
I think Canon will need to respond with something special very quickly, because the 24-70 has left some underwhelmed.

---

After having a year to think about this, I have decided I am going to wait and see how the reviews shake out once Bryan gets his hands on the two lenses. I want to see the Extender comparison of the two before I buy one. I think both will be awesome at their native length, the TC's are going to be the deciding factors. At this point I am not interested in the 200-400 at all. But then we don't know how it is going to perform either.

Everyone wanted IS, I sold my old 24-70mm because I thought it was the worst canon L lens I had. Without the IS on the new 24-70mm it has to put out some awesome IQ for me to consider it. Disappointing yes...but....not a game changer.

Will you sell your 500, no matter which way you choose to go?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve U

Will you sell your 500, no matter which way you choose to go?

---

Yes, I couldn't really see a use for it if I had the 600mm. It would be a rare pic that you would think you needed exactly 100mm less. Obviously I wouldn't need two 500mm lenses.

I own the 300mm F2.8L, I would keep most likely keep it either way unless money was tight and I needed it to fund the upgrade. At some point I may upgrade it to the II version, then maybe not. I have taken it out maybe 10 times last year, it doesn't get allot of use. When it is the focal length you need, it is an awesome lens.

Really though, for the amount of improvement we will get out of the new lenses, the improvement is fractional and the cost is in whole numbers.