Supertele choices

I'm currently debating the supertele choice. With the costs involved, it'll likely be next spring before I move forward...

My primary use is birds/wildlife, which I currently shoot with a 7D and 100-400mm. I often need to crop the resulting images a bit.

I had originally been planning on the 500/4 IS (MkI), as the longest reasonably handholdable lens. But I decided to use those funds for a 1D X, then the original 500/4 IS was discontinued anyway.

I then planned on the 500/4 II. I'd really like to use the 1D X rather than the 7D, for the lower ISO noise, better AF, and faster frame rate. But, 500mm on FF means giving back 140mm vs. 400mm on APS-C. OTOH, the 600/4 II is essentially the same weight as the original 500/4, so about as handholdable. Giving back 40mm isn't that big a deal, and with the 1.4x III, I'd gain 200mm relative to 400mm on 1.6x, and have great optical results. So now, I'm leaning toward the 600/4 II.

Of course, I've also considered replacing the 7D with a 1DIV, for the 1.3x and f/8 AF. But, the 100-400 + 1.4x won't give good enough optical results, meaning I'm back to the 500/4 II or 600/4 II (although the 300/4 IS + 2x is a possibility, I'd prefer to stay away from the 2x with f/4 and slower lenses). I'd also like to be able to use all the AF points, not just the center one.

So...it comes down to three main choices for me, and the ~$1000 cost difference isn't too important (since it's <10% of the total):

1) use 1D X, buy 600/4 IS II and 1.4x III (840mm f/5.6)

2) use 1D X, buy 400/2.8 IS II, 1.4x III, and 2x III (800mm f/5.6)

3) buy 1DIV (used/refurb), 500/4 IS II and 1.4x III (910mm f/5.6 FF-equiv for exposure, f/7.1 for DoF)

Decisions, decisions...

I don't use superteles, and I don't know anything. But if I were you, I'd want to leverage that new 1DX with its awesome af and low noise, and thus would not consider option 3. For cases when reach is so important that you need the crop factor, I'd use the 7D, which has still more reach than the 1DIV.

Also, 1) seems a better choice than 2) if reach is what you're after.

Just my gut reaction, with the disclaimer that I'm not speaking from experience.

John

I was looking foward to the 500mm II loosing a pound a half. Then Canon messed with us and introduced a FF 1D X to replace the 1D IV.

One thing to concider with the 600mm II, yes it is the same weight as the old 500mm (or close to), the old 500mm is very hand holdable. But if I use the extender which gives it the same length (or close to) as the 600mm II the center of balance gets thrown further foward. Thus it will be harder to hold because of its length, but still hand holdable.

On my trip to Yellowstone I really paid attention to the length of the 500mm and the pictures I was taking. All big game pics. At times the 500mm was to much focal length, sometimes it was just right sometimes not enough. But my overall perception for big game, is that when the 500mm wasn't enough, because of the distance the quality of the big game pics using the 600mm would have only be slightly improved. Not enough to make it completely worth while.

But then I had to think, if I go with the FF 1D X later would I want the 600mm. Unfortunately I say yes, and it shatters my hopes of getting a lighter lens.

Here are my thoughts;

If you are mainly shooting birds, go with the 600MM

1D IV owners on the forums are salivating over the new 1D X. A 1D IV might not be the way, but you might pick up a good used one from one of the upgrading members.

I am hoping for a 7D replacement that will have a 1D type auto focus that will make the 500mm a viable option again. You think one is in the works?

Birds, the 600mm with any body is the only answer.

Wildlife primarily and the 400mm F/2.8 is, NO. The 400mm F/2.8 and shooting sports YES. Carrying that heavy thing to the field, NO.

I think since you made the 1D X splash, probably go 600mm. Forget the 1D IV idea. Or wait and hope Canon gets us a 7D replacement.

Final option I know where you can get a 500mm F/4 for $6400.:p

Thanks, Rick and Jon!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HDNitehawk

Wildlife primarily and the 400mm F/2.8 is, NO. The 400mm F/2.8 and shooting sports YES. Carrying that heavy thing to the field, NO.

---

FWIW, the 500 MkI, 600 II, and 400 II all tip the scales within ~2 oz. of each other. While the 500 only had a modest weight reduction with the MkII update (8%, IIRC), the 400 and 600 both dropped >25% of the MkI weight.

In fact, I started with just choices 1 and 3, and added option 2 after looking at Bryan's dimensions table and noticing that the 400 II and 600 II weighed nearly the same.

So, with no real weight difference (the 400 II is actually a little lighter than the 600 II), the 400/2.8 II offers the most versatility (400/2.8, 560/4, and 800/5.6). Based on Bryan's comments on the 400+2xIII AF speed and the ISO 12233 shots, I'm not sure there will be a significant real-world AF or IQ difference between the 400+1.4x vs. 600 or 400+2x vs. 600+1.4x.

I suppose my main interest in the 400 is that versatility, the option to use it for sports when the time comes for my kids. But, I suppose I'd be better off with the 600 now, and adding the 300/2.8 II down the road.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

But, 500mm on FF means giving back 140mm vs. 400mm on APS-C. OTOH, the 600/4 II is essentially the same weight as the original 500/4, so about as handholdable. .

---

:confused: When I saw this picture, the 600mm handholdable as the 500mm really is questionable. My biggest complaints with the old 500mm, physically I was glad it isn't any longer. Loosing weight was a good thing because when you hand hold something that heavy off hand it is hard to steady. Two stops of IS wasn't enough.
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8154/7...d57c7586_z.jpg
2012-Canon-Big-White-L-Lens-Family-Picture-with-Hoods.jpg by hdnitehawk01, on Flickr

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

I suppose my main interest in the 400 is that versatility, the option to use it for sports when the time comes for my kids. But, I suppose I'd be better off with the 600 now, and adding the 300/2.8 II down the road.

---

The 400mm with the same weight and extra length, for me weight is a big no no for wildlife in the field.
The 400mm is probably going to be a bit long for little kids sports.

+1 for the 300mm and 600mm idea. But, wait, Bryan said expect a 200-400mm announcement shortly. 600mm + the 200-400mm???? :confused:

The 600 II is ~2.5" longer than the 500. The 400 II ~1.5" shorter than the 500. But of course, that's sans extender.

The "extra length" was a miss thought and miss type, I meant you were giving up 100 to 200mm in focal length of the 500 and 600mm with the same weight.

With the same discliamers as JR (I would like to, but will probably never, own one of those beasties), i'd be voting Option 1.

400/2.8 II with TCs is tempting, but you're going to get the better results at the 600/800 lengths with the 600L instead of the 400L.

400/2.8 II is very tempting for using as a 400mm though. It will beat the pants off the 100-400L and 70-300L, and is a bit cheaper and lighter than the 600mm.

1Div is also an nice option, but seeing as you just got the 1DX, to me it'd be no contest. The 1Div is a very nice upgrade from the 7D (i'd be buying one if I could), but compared to the 1DX it's a lot of cash for only a few minor improvements (f/8, 1.3x) and (imho) more downsides (worse IQ, worse high-iso, debatably worse AF, less fps).
And if 7D is your last 'normal' sized body, don't forget that there's times when a 1DX/iv is just going to be too much to lug, and a G1X won't cut it, 7D would be the nice middle-ground there (unless you still have the 550D or another body?)

So if you primarily want birds I'd be going the 600L II, for closer stuff you can keep the 100-400 (maybe with 1.4xTC for wider than 600mm?).
Only get the 400L II if you really would rather take 'shorter' shots, like field sports (and then you can take the 70-300L on trips instead of 100-400L).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dr Croubie

So if you primarily want birds I'd be going the 600L II, for closer stuff you can keep the 100-400 (maybe with 1.4xTC for wider than 600mm?).

---

You know Dr, I always heard that the 100-400mm push pull design is a dust magnet. I would bet if he goes for the 600mm that 100-400mm really will be a dust magnet, because it will be sitting on the shelf all the time collecting dust.

I went shooting yesterday with the 1DX and the 300mm f/2.8L IS + 2XII and I felt it was too short for most birds and I couldn't get enough reach to the Osprey nest. I was also not too pleased with the decreased sharpness, and slower AF speed on the 2XII on the 300mm version I. I know that the 300mm version II and 2xIII are better, but it still must be a compromise.

The 1Dx is pretty heavy and now I was using the 300mm with 2X, and I used to use the MKIV 300mm + 1.4X. I definitely felt the difference.

Ok, so the new super-telephotos got lighter and our camera got heavier. In case anyone didn't notice the 2XIII also gained about 3 ounces.

I went from the 7D (1.6X), to the MKIV (1.3X), and now the 1DX (FF).

"It seems the more I spend, the further back I get, financially and figuratively!"

John, If I were you I wouldn't get the MKIV, because you've already experienced the 1DX, and the MKIV is a slight step backwards in AF speed. I would rather see you put the MKIV money into longer glass. If you don't need f/2.8 for indoor events or night games, then you should also pass on the 400mm f/2.8L IS II.

So, it comes down to the 500mm or 600mm. Most people say to go for the longer lens for birds, and now that is especially true with the FF 1DX. With the MKIV, I think you could make an argument for the 500mm with and without the 1.4X, but then 700mm will be the longest reach without giving up AF, as compared to the 600mm +1.4X @840mm. If 700mm is long enough, then 500mm would be a nice compromise, considering cost, weight, and flexibility. If are more interested in sports, larger game wildlife, and portability, then the 500mm would be the way to go.

Canon will eventually come out with a new 1.6 Crop Camera with the improved AF and noise capability, then the 500mm would suffice.

I think with these new high ISO, low noise cameras, that the 500mm will become more popular for sports. Keep in mind that the 400mm on the MKIV was 520mm. Everyone needed f/2.8 for for speed to keep the noise down. Now, people will be able to shoot at 25,600 max instead of 12,800 max, because we've gained a whole f-stop over the MKIV. Of course if people choose the 400mm f/2.8L on the 1DX then they will lose the focal range from 520mm to 400mm. Then if people add the 1.4X to the 400mmm to bring the focal range back up to 560mm (which also gets a little long for sports), then they will be giving back that f-stop again, and slowing down their focusing speed with the extender.

I see the 500mm/4L IS II as becoming more popular for field sports with Canons new flagship FF 1DX and even with the 5DIII. Now, for small children, the 600mm will still be pretty good for field sports to get those cute isolated sports portrait shots. As they get older, and faster, then it will be a little too long.

If Canons 70-200mm II and new super-telephotos are any indication of which direction they are headed in, then I think we will be able to look forward to a new sharper 100-400mm, as well as the new 200-400mm +1.4X @ 560mm. The only downside to the 200-400mm @560mm is that it won't be long enough on full frame with smaller birds. I could see the 200-400mm being great for sports and air shows.

Rich

If they (Canon) would see fit to allow f/8 AF then it would be a no brainer for birds .... the 800mm +/- the converters:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joel Eade

If they (Canon) would see fit to allow f/8 AF then it would be a no brainer for birds .... the 800mm +/- the converters:rolleyes:

---

You know we should think that, because all the other supertele's with the 1.4 converters are fairly usable. My impression of the charts is that the 800mm with the 1.4x is kind of weak. Naked lens though it would be great way to go.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...mp=0&APIComp=0

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HDNitehawk

You know we should think that, because all the other supertele's with the 1.4 converters are fairly usable. My impression of the charts is that the 800mm with the 1.4x is kind of weak. Naked lens though it would be great way to go.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...mp=0&APIComp=0

---

@HDNitehawk (Rick), I agree, its not that impressive.

The 600mm II +1.4x looks a little sharper, with less vignetting than the 800mm f/5.6

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...mp=1&APIComp=1

@Joel, I also wish the new bodies handled center AF f/8 maximum aperture, but couldn't you still use that combo in live view mode for "stationary" birds on a tripod at 1000mm-1200mm?

Rich

Rich

I was hoping that the 500mm II with a 2x III would give reasonable IQ. According to the charts it looks as if it will be border line.
It does appear to me that the 600mm II might give the longest reach at 840mm, at least that I would find acceptable. It does look impressive. Plus with the 600mm you get the new cool white paint job.

Rick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

I suppose my main interest in the 400 is that versatility, the option to use it for sports when the time comes for my kids. But, I suppose I'd be better off with the 600 now, and adding the 300/2.8 II down the road.

---

Well, the 400 would definitely be more versatile, and it might be my choice for exactly the reasons you mentioned, but then I don't photograph birds. On the other hand, if you're thinking of adding the 300 later... well... that's a tough choice.

Hey, I have an idea... why not just get 'em all? ;)

Spent some time with the ISO 12233 charts this morning (on my new Apple 27" Thunderbolt Display :D, which for some strange reason shows a lot more detail than the iPhone I was using last night) and the 2x III results in a pretty big IQ hit - the 400 II + 2xIII loses out to the 100-400 @ 400mm (yes, that's 800mm vs. 400mm, but that lets me compare it to what I have now), and the 500 II and 600 II with 2x III also lose out to the 100-400 @ 400mm. OTOH, with the 1.4x III, the 500 II and 600 II are still better than the 100-400, and natively they are much better.

So, I think that eliminates the 400/2.8 II from my list. I just need to figure out if the 600 II is actually handholdable for me, or if the small weight reduction with the 500 II makes that much of a difference. It's the difference between 12.7 lbs and 11 lbs - not sure if that's meaningful. Note that when I refer to 'handholding' the mostly means walking around with it on a Blackrapid strap and lifting for shots along the way. With my 100-400mm, I often bring a monopod (would need to replace the Manfrotto 234 tilt head with something like the RRS MH-02 for the increased load), and use that when I'm going to be in one place for a while.

Jon, I like your idea but I only have two kidneys... :p

I had just this debate over the last year myself and have ended up with the 300 2.8 II (which I shipped to Canon today for the firmware update), ordered the 600 4 II and I have the version III teleconverters. I had hoped to buy just one lens from the new supertele group, but this is where I ended up.

Renting the 500 and 600 showed me this - the 500 II feels incredibly light for its size and performed great with the 1.4X III on my old 5D MKII in terms of IQ. I can certainly see hand-holding a few shoots with this lens. AF was not so good with that body for BIF shots. Manual focusing with the 2X tele gave decent images in terms of IQ (contrast suffers most to my eye) - it's just too hard to make this work with moving subjects though and buying an older model body to get AF for just this combo at f8 seems a waste. If hand-holdability:) is a key, this is a great choice.

Just got the 5DMK III and tested with a rented 600 II. Although the 600 lost a lot of weight, it feels much heavier than the 500 II but I loved it on a monopod or tripod with the 1.4X for hummingbirds. I don't see myself shooting many handheld shots with this lens - too front heavy for my back. I carried it on monopod/tripod over about 5 miles last Saturday in the NC heat and found it portable but at the top of my limit for a day hike.

I spent this w/e shooting with the 300 2.8 + 2X from similar locations as the 600 - IQ of this combination is actually very good at f8 (one stop down, so two stops away from the 600 f4, and using the center of the image circle - hummers just don't fill my frame when in motion...) and is a very portable set-up when weight is the main issue. The other great thing about the 300 + 2X is the close focus distance if you can work from a blind.

The 600 + 1.4X (840) was about as long a lens as I could productively use for shooting hummers in flight - maybe I'll get better at tracking them and get a 7D one day (or 7D MKII?). A 7D would also help for other applications - thinking about renting one after the 600 arrives just to see how I like the set-up. From Bryan's ISO charts w the 400 2.8 II, it doesn't look good with the teles at all - striking difference from the 300 f2.8 II, so I ruled that out early since a single focal length option at this price just isn't worth it for me. As Bryan noted, the 800 f5.6 seems to have been obsoleted by the 600 + 1.4 performance.

I really benefited from this site's reviews and the commentary from the senior members - many thanks. I linked as many purchases as I could for a smll payback.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

So, I think that eliminates the 400/2.8 II from my list. I just need to figure out if the 600 II is actually handholdable for me, or if the small weight reduction with the 500 II makes that much of a difference.

---

John, the extra length doesn't sound like much nor does the extra weight. These lenses are big and awkward, I think you might find it a bigger deal than you think, just my opinion from dragging mine around for almost three years now.

So how about this idea, wait till they are both in stock and load up and take a road trip to B&H. 4+ hour ride from where you are right? I think it would be a journey well spent.

Second idea, assuming Adorama has a wonderfull return policy like B&H. Buy the 600mm and if it is to heavy and long, send it back and get the 500mm. I would have suggested renting one from lensrental but the return idea is cheaper:rolleyes:.

Rick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HDNitehawk

So how about this idea, wait till they are both in stock and load up and take a road trip to B&H. 4+ hour ride from where you are right? I think it would be a journey well spent.

Second idea, assuming Adorama has a wonderfull return policy like B&H. Buy the 600mm and if it is to heavy and long, send it back and get the 500mm. I would have suggested renting one from lensrental but the return idea is cheaper:rolleyes:.

---

Good points, thanks, Rick! I do think a visit to the B&H Wonderland is in order - and it wouldn't even need to be the 4+ hour drive, since I fly into Newark 1-2 times per month for business (I'd just have to book a later return flight, rent a car and drive up there - I'd feel a little guilty telling the car service driver to take me to B&H and wait on the corporate dime :o; actually, I think it would be easier to just take the train - it's a 30-minute run between EWR and Penn Station, and it's a short walk from there to B&H).

I did check out lensrentals, and my immediate reaction was that a 4-day rental cost would cover the 1.4x III teleconverter - that sort of thing is why I'm not a fan of renting a lens 'to try it out'.

John,

Shouldn't we be able to use Live View for auto focus for f/8 or greater max aperture for stationary birds using a tripod?

Since 1000mm-1200mm is too long for BIF, it would still be nice to get some long range static shots with this combo.

Yes, live view will work. I've done that with the 2xII and my 100-400 at f/11.

Hi Richard, I used live view with the 500mm II and the 2X to shoot wading herons. I used the 1st magnification setting. It worked fine as far as getting in focus shots but was pretty challenging to execute - would be pretty easy with a stationary subject. I needed IS mode I to calm vibrations from the wind enough to focus too. This was the only way I could get a manually focused in focus image - I just couldn't do it through the viewfinder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard Lane

John,

Shouldn't we be able to use Live View for auto focus for f/8 or greater max aperture for stationary birds using a tripod?

Since 1000mm-1200mm is too long for BIF, it would still be nice to get some long range static shots with this combo.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

Yes, live view will work. I've done that with the 2xII and my 100-400 at f/11.

---

One thing that I really liked about the 1D IV, it is much easier to shoot in manual AF than it is with the 7D or 5D II. A lot crisper view. If you haven't tried any shots in manual mode with the 1D X yet you might be pleasantly surprised. I have read it is supposed to be the best yet as far as digital goes. With the 1D IV I wouldn't completely miss AF with a 2x extender on it, manual would suffice. I would miss it for moving objects though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard Lane

@Joel, I also wish the new bodies handled center AF f/8 maximum aperture, but couldn't you still use that combo in live view mode for "stationary" birds on a tripod at 1000mm-1200mm?

Rich

---

Yes you could and I have used manual focus on the 1D4 at 1000mm because AF had trouble with the specific circumstance....low light, small bird standing in rushing water. Probably for anyone who concentrates on birds more focal length is better, I do not own a 1DX (yet) but I think using the new 600 or the 800 would be the way to go for birds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

. I just need to figure out if the 600 II is actually handholdable for me, or if the small weight reduction with the 500 II makes that much of a difference. It's the difference between 12.7 lbs and 11 lbs - not sure if that's meaningful. Note that when I refer to 'handholding' the mostly means walking around with it on a Blackrapid strap and lifting for shots along the way. With my 100-400mm, I often bring a monopod (would need to replace the Manfrotto 234 tilt head with something like the RRS MH-02 for the increased load), and use that when I'm going to be in one place for a while.

---

I hand hold the 500 very frequently. I have not been on any long treks but I walked around Fort DeSoto beach with it for a few hours, no strap, monopod or anything. I just hold it by the foot and carry it around but I do switch hands occassionally. As long as you stop and take some shots or set it down briefly on your knee it's very do-able.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard Lane

Shouldn't we be able to use Live View for auto focus for f/8 or greater max aperture for stationary birds using a tripod?
Since 1000mm-1200mm is too long for BIF, it would still be nice to get some long range static shots with this combo.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vern

Richard, I used live view with the 500mm II and the 2X to shoot wading herons. . This was the only way I could get a manually focused in focus image - I just couldn't do it through the viewfinder.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HDNitehawk

With the 1D IV I wouldn't completely miss AF with a 2x extender on it, manual would suffice. I would miss it for moving objects though.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joel Eade

Yes you could and I have used manual focus on the 1D4 at 1000mm because AF had trouble with the specific circumstance....low light, small bird standing in rushing water.

---

Thanks guys!

Just to clarify, I was referring to using "Auto-Focus" via Live Mode on the LCD at a max lens aperture of f/8 or smaller, and all of your responses were that Manual-Focusing in live view @1000mm was not a problem.

So, it sounds like the answer is no, that AF won't work whether it's in live view mode or through the VF. I wasn't sure if live view would be more sensitive than manually focusing with the VF.

Rich

Contrast detect AF works at any max aperture, f/8, f/11, etc., as long there's sufficient contrast. How fast it works, that's a different story.

So, you could Auto-Focus by pressing the AF-ON or shutter-button and Auto-focus with Contrast detect which is slower and what Live View uses, as opposed to the more accurate phase detect? Plus you also have manual focus with the focus ring.

Thanks John, that's the point I was trying to discuss!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard Lane

Thanks guys!

Just to clarify, I was referring to using "Auto-Focus" via Live Mode on the LCD at a max lens aperture of f/8 or smaller, and all of your responses were that Manual-Focusing in live view @1000mm was not a problem.

So, it sounds like the answer is no, that AF won't work wether it's in live view mode or through the VF. I wasn't sure if live view would be more sensitive than the VF an possibly work, but if it uses the same AF sensors then I guess the answer is no.

Rich

---

Rich, my comments really weren't aimed at this. I was saying based on focusing with the view you see in the view finder, with or without confirmation. Just on how crisp your subject is from just what you see, kind of like the film days before AF existed. I have had pretty good luck shooting wildlife in the bushes doing this. Live View not used in the scenario, although it could be. The 1D IV does very well in manual through the viewfinder and I have heard the 1D X is even better.

Correct, Rich, except that contrast detect isn't less accurate than phase detect (it's as accurate or better, since focusing is done directly using the image sensor). It's just a lot slower...

Thanks for the clarification Rick and John,

I just wanted to reaffirm that we could still use the 2X from 1000-1200mm with Live View and AF on the LCD screen. Sure, I remember those days with Manual Focus on my Pentax ME Super 35mm, but it had a split focusing screen. Maybe we would eventually need to add one of those aftermarket.

John, I'm a little concerned myself that the 600mm is a bit too heavy for hand-holding for a few hours, and I'm a weightlifter. The 1DX is pretty heavy by itself and then factor in the added 2X and it was noticeably heavier than the MKIV with 1.4X. I'm not concerned at all on the monopod.

To take my own advice I think the 500mm would work for me for sports, travel, and handholding, and then add the 1.4 @700mm and it's nice to know that I could use LV with the 2X @1000mm on a tripod for nesting and stationary birds or use the MKIV.

The 1d MKIV will autofocus at f/8 using the viewfinder or live view but it is slow and doesn't do well in a low light or low contrast situation or if there is movement in the BG.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

So...it comes down to three main choices for me, and the ~$1000 cost difference isn't too important (since it's <10% of the total):

1) use 1D X, buy 600/4 IS II and 1.4x III (840mm f/5.6)

2) use 1D X, buy 400/2.8 IS II, 1.4x III, and 2x III (800mm f/5.6)

3) buy 1DIV (used/refurb), 500/4 IS II and 1.4x III (910mm f/5.6 FF-equiv for exposure, f/7.1 for DoF)

Decisions, decisions...

---

Tough to imagine any of these being a "bad" choice. But that is part of what makes the decision so difficult. In other threads, one of your themes has always been the "packability" of the 100-400L, meaning that it compresses and both packs away nicely and travels well. With that in mind, and I am sure you have thought about this, another option would be a 500 mm II and use it primarily with a 1.4x III on the 1Dx. This would give you the option of 500 mm f/4, 700 mm f/5.6 (very comparable to your current 640 f/5.6), and 1,000 mm f/8 (AF issue). If I were having this debate (and hopefully I will in a couple of years), it would come down to this and the 600 mm. But, in another thread, Rick has pointed out that the 600 mm with the 2x III loses some resolution. So, with the 600 mm you have a larger, less packable/hand holdable (how often will it need to be attached to a tripod?) supertele giving you 600 f/4, 840 f/5.6, and 1,200 f/8 (slight hit to IQ plus AF issue with 1Dx) vs a slightly more packable/hand holdable 500 mm.

While everyone always wants longer, if I was in your shoes, I would probably be thinking of getting the 500 and using it with the 1Dx and 1.4 III (700 f/5.6) as the primary option, but keeping the 7D for those times when you want even more (800 mm, 1,120 mm, and 1,600 mm f/8-usable AF) reach. It terms of being able to go out and have fun shooting, that seems to be the most flexible approach.

Of course, if you want to become a serious birder and plan to head out with a tripod a good portion of the time, that could easily tip the scales back to the 600 mm.

I like the idea of heading down to B&H (would Hunts have the supertele's?). Good luck...

I came up with an idea, let me know what you guys think!

To rent the 500mm II is $375 for 4 days.
To rent the 600mm II is $506 for 4 days.

To rent both would get expensive!

But to rent the older 500mm I, is $262 for 4 days.

Since we know that the IQ of both version II Super-telephotos will be outstanding and one of our main concerns is weight and hand-holdability, then how about renting the 500mm Version 1, which is about the same weight as the 600mm II. If 500mm Version 1 is too heavy then we know that 500mm II will be more acceptable. I've heard a lot of people of say that the older 500 feels like the newer 600.

However, since the 600mm II is approx 2.5 inches longer than the 500mm II which will affect swing weight, what if we just add the 2X extender to the older 500mm I, then we could increase the length of the 500mm by about the same length difference as the new 600mmII.

I know it wont be exact, but I think it's a good way of not spending too much money on renting and testing, as $262 plus insurance and shipping is at least reasonable. Sure, you could go to B&H and try it in the store and you still may want to do that, but how about trying it out for a long weekend. I think I will strongly consider this plan for myself.

Rich

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard Lane

I came up with an idea, let me know what you guys think!

To rent the 500mm II is $375 for 4 days.
To rent the 600mm II is $506 for 4 days.

To rent the 500mm I is $262 for 4 days.

Since we know that the IQ of both version II Super-telephotos will be outstanding and one of our main concerns is weight and hand-holdability, then how about renting the 500mm Version 1, which is about the same weight as the 600mm II. If 500mm Version 1 is too heavy then we know that 500mm II will be more acceptable. I've heard a lot of people of say that the older 500 feels like the newer 600.

However, since the 600mm II is approx 2.5 inches longer than the 500mm II which will affect swing weight, what if we just add the 2X extender to the older 500mm I, then we could increase the length of the 500mm by about the same length difference as the new 600mmII.

I know it wont be exact, but I think it's a good way of not spending too much money on renting and testing, as $262 plus insurance and shipping is at least reasonable. Sure, you could go to B&H and try it in the store and you still may want to do that, but how about trying it out for a long weekend. I think I will strongly consider this plan for myself.

Rich

---

It would give you an idea of the weight and some about size but there are other factors.

The 600mm is a bit bigger in diameter. Also you will not get a sense of how the 600mm actually balances, and that is the most important aspect of handholding such a long lens. The farther you move your hand from your body that is holding the lens the harder it will be to hand hold.

I have tried the 2x on my 500mm, the balance point changes and it is much harder to hold than the 500mm without it.

One thing else to think about, if you use the black switches at the end of the barrel, they will be harder to use hand held on the 600mm. I use these all the time and they are very useful.

Just my thoughts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HDNitehawk

The 600mm is a bit bigger in diameter. Also you will not get a sense of how the 600mm actually balances, and that is the most important aspect of handholding such a long lens. The farther you move your hand from your body that is holding the lens the harder it will be to hand hold.

I have tried the 2x on my 500mm, the balance point changes and it is much harder to hold than the 500mm without it.

---

That's why I thought by adding the 2X to the 500mm I, it would make it longer and harder to hold to simulate the 600mmII.

I was thinking the 600mm might be harder than the extender on the 500mm combination, the 600mm is larger diameter on the long end and it may be more front heavy because of the larger glass.
Just a thought, it may be wrong.

Valid points!

Edited: I heard a few people suggest that the 500mm I, felt similar to the 600mmII.

Just a couple weeks ago I received my 600/4 IS II. I actually got it from Amazon.com! I pre-ordered at Amazon, B&H, Adorama, and Crutchfield and they delivered first (I was shocked too... though B&H probably would have delivered first had I not missed them opening pre-orders for a few days).

I've found the lens to be very hand-holdable for usable periods of time. I'd love to show you some real-world photos with it... but sadly all I've done with it so far is test it out. I've been so busy with other work that I haven't had the time for it's intended use: photographing birds from a blind. After seeing Bryan's ISO12233 charts with the 1.4x extender, I'm very glad I decided to wait and pick up the 600/4 II instead of the 800/5.6.

One problem with the 600/4 II is that it's still the same size as the original 600/4. This means traveling with the lens is a bit of a challenge. I originally was thinking I would eventually pick up a 500/4 II for trips. I'm planning on a trip to Glacier/Yellowstone next year, and hopefully many more to come after that. However it seems silly to own a 500mm and 600mm lens, so now I'm considering picking up the 200-400/4 1.4x when it becomes available. This seems like the perfect lens for trips because of it's slimmer profile. Other times, it would be a complement to the 600/4 II. I could see myself having both lenses in the blind, whereas it would seem silly to pack a 500 and 600. I don't want to hijack your thread, but if anyone has any thoughts about the 500/4 II vs 200-400/4 1.4x I'd be interested in hearing them, and perhaps so would John.

I saw this image some time ago on Dan Carr's Blog (dancarrphotography.com) comparing the sizes of Canon's new super telephoto lenses. Some food for thought.

http://dancarrphotography.com/blog/w...comparison.jpg