Printable View
I have been waiting on these lenses for some time. My question on deciding which to go with was which would give me the longer focal length using an extender, and still give IQ good enough to be acceptable.
It appears that the 500mm will be able to give decent IQ at 1000mm, and the 600mm will not at 1200mm. In some ways this makes the 500mm the longer acceptably usable lens.
Thoughts?
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...mp=2&APIComp=0
Was wondering how the TC shots would work out myself. Once the MTF charts became available I chose the 300 & 500 combo relying on the accuracy of the charts. Having a 300mm already leads my preference to the 500mm as it will offer me the most versatility. 300, 420, 500, 600, 700, and 1000mm focal lengths become available all with usable IQ. Yes the 300 with 2x TC is better stopped down and the 1000mm at f8 will be MF only on my bodies but those are tradeoffs against weight and cost that I am willing to make.
From a cash outlay perspective the 500 costs less than the 600mm. The 500 weighs less than the 600 which will improve handling and lugging the beast around.
Not sure if my rationale will be similar to yours but it makes sense to me.:D
jrw; no that is my logic to. The 2x and the ability to focus at F/8 is one reason I am thinking of staying away from the 1D X as well.
Another thing that is interesting, when choosing the 800mm vs the 600mm with a 1.4x. With the ISO charts you are not loosing that much going the 600mm 1.4x over the 800mm. http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...mp=1&APIComp=2
The difference in vignetting was the most noticeable difference to me followed by distortion. Otherwise much the same to my eyes.
Given the time I spent pondering the decision it looks like the time has come to just do it. What could possibly go wrong?
Who knows, may wind up with used 1D4 or 1Ds3 if I use the one combo enough to think it is justifiable for f8 AF. Not likely though.
considering the prices difference, the IQ of version II lens with the 2X should be good enough for the price difference, on the other hand, paying this much money for the version II lenses but depending on the TCs results to decide which lens to get is kind of sad, i know, tough decision Rick, I d go with 600mm haha.
JJphoto, well it isn't the only reason to go with the 500mm but it was one of the last factors. One of things I am always thinking about when using the 500mm is I wish this thing was a bit lighter and had better IS. I can say that I was honestly glad that I didn't buy the 800mm after carrying the 500mm for the first year. I wouldn't get a lighter lens with the 600mm and it would be a bit longer. Canon really messed the plan for replacing the 500mm with the new one when they introduced the 1D X and took away our crop factor. But...there definitely wouldn't be anything sad about owning either one of these lenses. (other than the hit to your bank account)
I just about have myself convinced to put the 500mm L up for sale to help fund the upgrade.
Thinking the same thing plus.... adding in my 300/2.8 and 1DIII body I might come close to breaking even:)Quote:
Originally Posted by HDNitehawk
Actually, I have seen the 300mm selling between $4,500 and $5,200 and the 500mm selling between $6,200 and $6,900. You might be able to keep the 1D III. I am thinking about selling the 300mm as well to help fund the upgrade, but what I should do is sell the 16-35mm II and add a few dollars for the remainder. I don't use the 16-35mm at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joel Eade
If I don't use a lens much at all in a 12 month cycle, I sell it. Now I have just four (although my wife seems to think I have 10). Makes it easier (both cash-flow and mentally) to fund that next big lens purchase? So what's mine going to be....I drool over the 500 II, but it's not gonna happen any time soon.Quote:
Originally Posted by HDNitehawk
But to your earlier question, I'd get whichever lens you will use most often in the greatest number of shooting scenarios. I know that for me, between the two, I would likely use the 500 more; the 600 is pretty darn big.
BTW, I'm not fully following your conclusion that the 600II with a 2x has worse IQ than the 500II with a 2x. To my eyes the center actually looks better on the 600II with 2x; but the corners are much better on the 500II with a 2x.
I noticed this to. The corners and mid frame are very much better on the 500mm II. It appears the corners and mid frame will be unusable on the 600mm by my standards. It will probably be 10 years before we see a 500mm III, and if Canon keeps heading the direction it is going there will be only full frame high end cameras, the corners and mid frame will really matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by thekingb
That's a good point, especially about full frame vs. crop. I live in 7D world and tend to think of these lenses as single subject wildlife lenses where the center is what matters most. But we're in the same boat here. 500II!!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by HDNitehawk
I agree the center is sharper on the 600mm +2X @1200mm in the "above comparison," and it looks like the 500mm +2X@1000mm is sharper in the mid-frame and corners.Quote:
Originally Posted by HDNitehawk
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=459&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API= 1&LensComp=748&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp =1&APIComp=2
It also looks like the 600 +2X is sharper (link above) than the bare 800mm at the center, so just based on the above crops, it seems like the 600mm is pretty darn sharp at the center.
I guess you have to decide which focal length you need. I thought I had it all figured out too, but if you think you will eventually get a 1DX, then that has to be taken into consideration too. I think the 500mm would be better for the 1DMKIV and the 600mm would be better for the 1DX.
I'm torn too, I wanted the 1DX two years ago, and as you know I bought the MKIV about 1 and 1/2 years ago, now I don't know which lens that I would buy either. I like the reach of the MKIV, but I would eventually like full frame and I know bodies don't last forever.
I would like f/2.8 so I would like the 400mm f/2.8L IS II, but I think it's a little too short for birds, wildlife, and surfing, but I could always add the 1.4X as a compromise for the focal length since I can't add f/2.8 to the other lenses.
I originally bought the 300mm f/2.8L IS for the 7D (1.6X) and then when I upgraded to the MKIV, I just added the 1.4X extender, so now if I go FF, then I would need the 400mm or 500mm. I was also thinking that if Canon came out with an improved 7D MKII, then I could always keep my bare 300mm f/2.8L IS for sports. I know I could still use my current 7D, but I prefer the MKIV.
I would love to decide between a 400mm, 500mm, 600mm or 200-400mm Extender 1.4X zoom. I may eventually sell my 300mm f/2.8L IS too. The 500mm seems very attractive to me because of the weight, but I don't want to own a 400mm and a 500mm, or a 500mm and a 600mm. I can eventually (in a couple of years) see owning 2 of the lenses on my wish list and one has to be f/2.8 for when that is needed.
If I keep the MK IV, then I would want a 300mm f/2.8L IS and 500mm f/4L IS II.
If I bought a 1DX, then I would want the 400 f/2.8L IS II and a 600mm f/4L IS II, which would be my ultimate goal.
I hope I didn't confuse you even more!
Rich
Rich
I think the only hope is if Canon releases a replacement to the 7D that has the focus system of the 1D X and a extremely good crop sensor.
Nah...I think Canon's plan is that we have to buy longer and longer lenses.
This kind of scares me away from the 600mm, it looks huge;http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8154/7...d57c7586_z.jpg2012-Canon-Big-White-L-Lens-Family-Picture-with-Hoods.jpg by hdnitehawk01, on Flickr
Rick
The number in the weight column had much the same effect on me. Who says the 300mm is too big?
Has Nikon come out with a really good C sized sensor body yet to put more pressure on Canon to actually do something about cleaning up their image?
:rolleyes: I am going to give the wife $10 and send her down to get 5 random Power Ball ticket draws. Tomorrow I will buy one of each.
Not, only that but I don't think that the weights listed in the comparison charts include the hoods, you have to add that separately as is listed under the individual lens specifications and if you're going to add extenders, then don't forget to add that weight too!
I would like to get off of this Canon Upgrade Merry-go-round!
I'm gonna take my time with this decision!
It seems to me that we have had over a year to look at MTF charts, review our current photos, and really think about what focal lengths we could most benefit from. Had no idea that it would be this long for the lenses to actually ship, but have been busy in the meantime figuring this stuff out.
Myself, in the past year I've gone from having crop bodies and FF to FF exclusively. Have had the opportunity to play with other people's big lenses and TCs as well. An emphasis on sports events (running and cycling mostly with road side access), wildlife, landscape details, and limited bird usage is what drove the decision to start with the 300. Of course picking up a used f4 version, which I intend to keep for its size and weight for hiking trips, sealed the deal on that length as a 'must have'. The number of shots in the 400mm area from when I had the 100-400 also was a good clue that I'd be using the 1.4 TC a lot to still be in the same ball park, which I have been. The number of shots taken at the maximum of 400mm led to the conclusion that something longer was going to be wanted as well. The amount of cropping indicated that a range up to 800mm was where I want to be headed. So, adding the 500mm is a logical choice for filling in as many gaps as possible. I am really grateful that the new lenses work as well as they do with the extenders, particularly the 1.4. Of course if the TCs were built into the lens on a rotary dial....
Winning the lottery, buying one of each with a body on it and hiring an assistant to do all the carrying has a certain appeal as well.:D
I just took delivery of my new 500 f/4 II, and I'm a very excited kid on Christmas day. I went out for a quick session today, and here are some results. Both are taken with my 1DIII.
"Hey, nice lens!" Rocky Mountain Sheep on the roadway in Banff.
I shot this at f/4 as a bit of a focus test. I haven't made any micro-adjustments yet. ISO 200, 1/400 sec, handheld.
http://www.huyerperspectives.com/Nat...L/M37072-L.jpg
Next I added the 1.4 TCII (I haven't upgraded to the III yet), and popped over to the local Osprey nest. This shot is at f/8, as a bit of a sharpness and bokeh check. Tripod mounted. The final image is cropped by about half.
http://www.huyerperspectives.com/Nat...L/M37104-L.jpg
I had rented the version I of this lens a few weeks ago for my trip to Spitsbergen, because it became clear that the new lens wasn't going to arrive in time. So I am able to offer some subjective comparisons between the two lenses. First of all, image quality for both is spectacular. I am absolutely delighted with the results that I got from the version I lens, and I'll be hard pressed to find any improvement in that department with the new lens. The biggest difference however is with the weight. The new lens is astoundingly light, and I could hand-hold it for quite a while longer than the old lens. It is clear that Canon went to every possible measure to reduce weight. Even the knob to tighten down the hood is lightweight. The lens is half an inch shorter than the old one, and when you combine with the lighter hood, it means the centre of gravity is a lot closer to the camera. This makes a huge difference in hand-holding. Focusing is crazy fast. Actually, it's pretty much instantaneous, which is remarkable to behold. You could notice a bit of reduction in focusing speed with the 1.4 TC attached, but it was hardly an issue. The stabilizer is nearly silent --- I had to hold my ear to the lens to hear the motor. I like the mode 3, especially when you're on a tripod and fine-tuning your focus on a single point (as I was for the osprey shot). The power focusing mode is cool but I will probably never use it unless I get into video.
Overall I'm obviously over the moon with this lens (but who wouldn't be). Stay tuned for more!
That sheep shot is very good Jonathan. The new 500 might become your favourite portrait lens.
Congratz Jonathan, looks like it will be all they advertised.
Im jealous, not of the lens, but you go out for a "quick session" and bring back closeups of Rocky Mountain Sheep. Nice
Drool. :)
+1 on the drool.
Awesome Test? Shots!! Congrats on the new lens. Some people talk like me, and others do like you!
Rich
Thanks everyone --- I'm thinking that this lens is a keeper :cool:
It was definitely a stroke of luck finding the bighorn sheep yesterday. This morning I went looking for bears, but had no luck... those guys are a bit more elusive.
One other small change that I like, compared to the version I of the lens: The mode switches are all flush with the lens surface, so they are harder to move accidentally. When I was carrying the version I lens with a Black Rapid strap, the switches would often move since the lens was resting against my body. I had to check their position every time. That doesn't happen with the new lens.
Nice test subject with the ram. Just don't tell us this was taken from the backyard!
Good to hear that the lenses are making it out to people. Means there's hope for the rest of us yet.
Wow - those pics are spectacular! You must've been stoked to get such great shots on your first use. I would love to get into wildlife photography but unfortunately the wildlife here is a bit drab (seriously, kangaroos aren't as exciting as you might think).
Great stuff Jonathan, can't wait to see the next set.
I would like to go where I could take pictures of wild kangaroos, I wouldn't care how drab they were. Bighorn sheep is not that bad either and much closer, but it would still be a 10 hour drive. I guess things are always more interesting somewhere else.Quote:
Originally Posted by btaylor
If I had a lawn, I would build a fence right in the middle of it so that I always have the greener grass within reach :-)Quote:
Originally Posted by HDNitehawk
Arnt
oh then somebody's 500mm lens must be better than mine...lol...Quote:
http://community.the-digital-picture...quote_icon.png Originally Posted by HDNitehawk http://community.the-digital-picture...post-right.png
[...] I guess things are always more interesting somewhere else.
If I had a lawn, I would build a fence right in the middle of it so that I always have the greener grass within reach :-)
Arnt
I think you are right...:D
John.
I think Jonathan's new 500mm may be :pQuote:
Originally Posted by JJphoto
I'm new to the forum and joined after benefiting from reading the great reviews from Bryan and advice from the senior members.
I just returned from a week at the NC coast test driving the new Canon 500mm f4L IS II and I had a few things to share plus questions to add to this thread. Surrounding kit with this great lens - 5DMKII, gitzo tripod with Really Right stuff full gimbal, Canon 1.4 and 2X version III extenders. Needless to say, I loved the lens - I have the 300 f2.8L IS II and was struck by how light the 500mm is now - doesn't seem that much harder to handle than the 300 (though I backpack with the 300, and probably wouldn't with this lens - weight + volume too high). I used it primarily to capture seabirds in flight and wading birds. Per the 500 -vs- 600 question, I almost never took the 1.4X off this lens for these applications. The sharpness, color and contrast were great with the 1.4X (some flare trouble with backlit subjects relative to the lens alone - my impression anyway) and I used the 2X for wading birds with good IQ results as well. Questions: 1) Is 'live-view' with 5X or 10X the best means to manually focus with the 2X extender? This was challenging even with slower moving subjects and I had to use the IS set on #1 to stabilize enough to focus accurately at 1000mm, which generates a problem with tracking as it corrects for your attempts to move with the subject (windy conditions meant quite a bit of vibration, so I needed IS help while focusing). 2) What pins can be taped to permit autofocus at f8? 3) I used IS mode 3 for most of the in flight shots (lens + 1.4X) - which came out very sharp when I executed everything else properly (luckily light levels were not an issue). Should I have used IS mode 2 instead? Shutter speeds were usually faster than 1/2000, so maybe it doesn't matter?
What I learned: 1) I need the 5DMKIII autofocus ability b/c the 5DMKII focusing ability was the major limitation to good shots of birds in flight (ordered one last night). 2) Although the IQ of the 500 with the 2X was fine (when I manged to get the focus right before the subject was out of frame), not having autofocus with a 1000mm lens is a non-starter for me (too much frustration) - unless someone has advice on how to enable this without buying an older Canon body just for this purpose. 3) I think I'll buy the 600mm instead of the 500, as others here have said, "you are almost never too long..." and since the 300 works exceptionally well with both teleconverters, the 600 will give me more autofocusable reach when I can carry a bigger lens. It isn't as sharp with the 2X as the 500, but w/o autofocus, the 1200mm wouldn't be that useful anyway (I think...).
Speaking of the next edition of these lens (per Nitehawk) - why doesn't every supertele come with a built-in 1.4X converter customized to that lens (like the 200-400 that's "on the way")? For almost every application with these lens, fiddling to change the extender will lead to lots of missed shots and per the discussion in this thread, everyone tries to add as much flexibility in focal length as can be manged given the huge investment in the basic lens.
Thanks for reading.
It sounds like you had a good test drive. Whay you say you leanred, it would be a very nice kit, a 600mm II paired with a new 5D III.
Hi Vern -
Welcome to the forum! Thanks for the report on your field test of the new 500... that's a lot of good information.
I agree, if you are aiming primarily for birds and you are using a full-frame camera, you will probably be happier with the new 600. Especially since the weight of the 600 has been reduced so much that you can hand-hold it on occasion. Regarding your use of live-view to focus on a moving subject, I can't imagine how hard that must be. I use live-view for manual focus of stationary objects only (like the osprey nest in my previous post in 'Current Shots'), and that is more than fussy enough.
I have not tried my 500 with a 2x extender, and I'm not interested in that much focal length anyway. I'm going after somewhat larger targets like bears, and I also really like the reduced weight of the 500 for extended hand-holding ability. Sure it would be great to have a built-in 1.4 extender, but I'm quite delighted with the lens as-is and it already cost more than enough. I can't imagine what they'd charge for that added feature, if it ever came to pass. I don't mind swapping in the 1.4 TC when needed (unless it's raining of course). Bears don't move too quickly, so if they start getting closer then there is usually enough time to remove the extender. Or I can just run further away :p.
I like the new IS mode 3, and it will likely become my default for all shooting situations (both hand-held and tripod). Mode 2 will cover you for panning, which could work well for BIF. I will have to defer to the real bird experts on this forum to answer that properly for you. At 1/2000 second you are correct that you could probably just switch off the IS completely.
Another option for you would be to use a crop-sensor camera for bird photography, and benefit from an immediate jump in apparent focal length. A full-frame sensor is nice for many applications, but birds isn't one of them.
Thanks again for posting!
If birds are your primary interest I would look into finding a 1DMKIV body.
It will autofocus at f/8 (500mm f/4L + 2X TC) using the center point. It is slower but with wading birds it can be done, especially in good light.
The 1.3 crop factor and the 12 fps also a big advantage for bird photography compared to the 5DIII. The AF system is excellent for BIF but prob not quite as good as the 5DIII or 1DX.
As for IS on the 500mm, I have the Version I 500mm f/4L IS USM, I usually do not use image stabilization unless the shutter speed is less than 1/100 sec. For flight images I am usually at 1/1600 or faster, so I turn IS off.
Hi Vern,
Welcome and Great first post, thanks for sharing your experiences!
Since you have a 300mm f/2.8L IS II, and you stated that you always had the 1.4X on the 500mm, I would agree that you should be looking at the 600mm II.
The 300mm + 1.4 gives you 420mm f/4 which is too close to the 500mm f/4. Plus, since the 300mm is f/2.8, you can add the 2x to get 600mm f/5.6 and still maintain AF.
Live view is really only practical for static subjects, especially at 1200mm with that limited FOV.
"IS" is mainly used for slower shutter-speeds but it can also help stabilize the image in the VF. Mode 2 is continuous IS for vertical or horizontal panning which can sometimes fight or counter your own movements. Mode 3 is the new mode that you probably want for action shots, which only becomes activated when you press the shutter button, thus it doesn't fight your movements, but it still stabilizes the long lens to reduce camera shake.
I've been saying that they needed a new IS system for a while now, as I've always felt that the old IS system would fight me and it felt like someone bumped into me when it finally would kick in, causing me to miss the shot, so I'm glad to hear that you were happy with the new mode 3, as I haven't tried it yet.
Here is a little explanation:
Image Stabilizer:
The Image Stabilizer in a Canon lens works by shifting a stabilizer group of elements to compensate for motion detected by a gyroscope in the lens. There are now three IS modes – Mode 1 for general shooting, Mode 2 for panning and Mode 3 which is aimed at sports photographers.
The panning mode, Mode 2 features a modified IS algorithm as well. This new algorithm negates the IS ‘bump’ that can occur when you first start panning the lens providing a more stable viewfinder image. The new IS mode, Mode 3, only activates the IS mechanism when you full depress the shutter button to shoot an image. For sports photographers moving between shots, this avoids the lens trying to stabilize random, rapid movements and only begins to compensate while you are shooting.
Under Key Technologies tab:
http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/...L_IS_II_USM.do
Sorry, I can't help you with pin taping.
Rich
Thanks for the welcome and feedback gents.
I'll give some more thought to a cropped sensor camera like the 1DMKIV. Am I correct in assuming that the 5DMKIII images can almost be cropped by a factor of 1.3 with a resulting resolution similar to the 1DMKIV? - of course this approach doesn't give you the other capabilities of the 1D. Since backpacking with gear is a major pursuit of mine, I'm a little reluctant to have a cropped body that won't satisfy the landscape angle. I'll always choose to carry more lenses instead of two bodies. But, a cropped body for birding with the 600mm +/- the 1.4X (which is highly unlikely to go in my backpack) might be pretty useful. The technical details of explaining why I need another camera body may escape my wife's level of interest/credulity (maintaining credibility with her is getting pretty tough since I rented the 500 just to see if I really needed it and then convinced myself that I needed the 600).
I assume that the panning mode 2 does not correct for the lens motion parallel to the panning direction even when it activates (?) so maybe this would be better than mode 3 for birds in flight - which I assume tries to correct for all lens motion when it activates. At 1/2000 with a bird moving 60 kilometers/hour the motion of the subject during exposure is roughly 8mm (if my math is right? [60kilometers/h = 1K/min = 1X10e6mm/min = 16,667mm/sec divided by 1/2000sec = 8.33 mm motion) - this is enough to matter, I think. I probably wasn't shooting subjects moving this fast but I think I'll compare the two modes once I have a camera that can autofocus better than the 5DMKII - with it the comparison is hard since I can't easily distiguish image quality effected by subject motion/IS mode from shots slightly OOF.
My vision is just not good enough these days to manually focus an f8 lens through the viewfinder so I resorted to the live view..... This was barely OK for a slowly wading heron, but would be useless for a more lively subject.
Thanks again.
Stick the 600mm onto a 7D (crop body, 1.6x focal length multiplier, great autofocus) and pack a Canon 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 or similar UWA lens. With that, I don't think you'd be compromising that much to have such a long focal length at hand.
I agree with the 7D and the Canon 10-22 is a great landscape lens. It sounds like the 600mm worked for you, but that is still a pretty heavy lens for backpacking. If you got the 7D and used your 300mm f/2.8 that would give you an effective focal lenghth of 480mm and with the 1.4X, you will be at 672mm. An even lighter lens for backpacking would be the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II with 1.4X and a 7D (up to 448mm). If you need longer, then the 500mm on the 7D (800mm) would be obviously lighter than the 600mm for backpacking.
Cropping the MKIV can help, but the MKIV is pretty heavy too and then for landscapes you would need a 16-35mm and that would give you 21mm on the wide end as opposed to 16mm on the wide end for the 7D with the 10-22mm.
I believe Mode2 and Mode3 IS are the same except that mode2 is always active and mode3 is only active while shooting. It sounds like Mode2 has also been improved with a new algorithm to prevent the bump/jump in the viewfinder.
Rich
Thanks Richard and Sean for the 7D suggestion. My typical backpacking kit is the 5DMKII, 16-35mm 2.8L II (great for shots while hiking w/o taking off my backpack to work with the TS lens), 24mm 3.5L TS ( a must to me for landscapes and panos), 70-200mm 2.8L IS II, 300 2.8L IS II and 1.4X and 2X teles + Gitzo tripod w Arca Z1, pano bar and Wimberly sidekick. My wife thinks I'm crazy to carry this plus all the other gear, but as long as I can walk, I pack it along. The 600mm would be the straw that broke even this camel's back, so if I backpack where a real supertele is needed, your compromise is a great idea. If I was really disciplined, I could get by with the 24TS and the 70-200 w the tele's. Age will force this eventually anyway. I guess from a weight perspective carrying a 7D body along to use with the 300 to give a supertele equivalent with the converters and a 5DMKIII to use with the 24TS might be an flexible package (would probably still want the 70-200 for the midrange - I find myself shooting lots of panos in the 70-100mm focal length).
Cheers