Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
John, it's just a matter of time. You just as well admit it. We will see the 300mm F2.8L and the 500mm F4L in the "Wallet full of $100 bills" Thread[:P]
Rick
John, it's just a matter of time. You just as well admit it. We will see the 300mm F2.8L and the 500mm F4L in the "Wallet full of $100 bills" Thread[:P]
Rick
The 500mm f/4L IS, perhaps MkII, is a distinct possibility. [A]
Incidentally, Amazon has the 500mm f/4L IS II for preorder, at $9500 (and the 600mm MkII lists for $12000).
Honestly, though, if Canon releases a 400mm f/5.6L IS, or better yet a 500mm f/5.6L IS, I think I'd prefer either of those to the 500/4 I or II.
I gather you intend to pursue shooting wildlife, and that is the focus of your equipment upgrade?
Well, you are making a classic "upgrade" error. See this related article: www.bythom.com/support.htm (note: some of the specific products mentioned are out-dated, do your research before buying)
I refer you to that article, as it serves double duty. First - If you want to make stunning wildlife images, get a dedicated lens and don't take half-steps along the way. The already mentioned EF 400 f/5.6 is my recommendation as well. It out performs the 100-400 right where you need it, at 400mm. Yes, it has no IS, but you need to shoot on a tripod for a while if you really want to improve your images. IS on tripod is still helpful, but more for the true super-teles such as the 500, 600 and 800. I've owned the 100-400, shot with it for a number of years, it is excellent for a zoom of it's age. If you want to just walk around, blasting away at subjects - well, that's fun too, sometimes, and you could ignore the rest of my advice and just get one. But you won't get stunning images except by luck.
Which brings me to the second reason for linking the article - you need a serious support system, and that's what I think you should spend a goodly chunk of money on. Probably $500 - $600 on a tripod at minimum if you want carbon fiber. Get a dedicated "gymbal" type ballhead. Or, you could use a quality ballhead and something like a Wimberley Sidekick which would be appropriate to your equipment size and weight. Pick up a lens plate to mount the whole shebang....Throw $40 at a "Better beamer" flash extender.
That'll get you started, but don't ignore the most important piece of equipment, the one between your ears. There are plenty of wildlife photography websites, I personally find the free newsletters sent out by 'Birds as Art' to be the best, most informative source that exists. That will lead you to many other resources that I won't link here.
Happy shooting.
John, the problem for those f5.6 lenses are that they don't auto focus when use with the 1.4X TC on a 1.6X body, sadly enough so far, anything longer than 400mm is not cheap. I think for a guy with full of money in his wallet , a big long lens is a better choice.
I have 300mm 2.8 and 400mm 5.6 but no 100-400mm, if I want to save some money, the 400mm 5.6 is my first choice, set your Tv to 1/1250 or up, the IS is not a big deal any more and of course the tripod will help. wild life subject are almost never stop moving, why IS is such a big deal?
I have to disagree with you here. I have aMinolta 300mm f/4.5 and my Minolta 600mm f/6.3 and couldn't think the weight between the two would be a differentiationing factor.It is acompletely different class of lens. The 300mm f/2.8 weighs exactally as much is my Minolta 600mmand I have shot it handheld for three hours straightand it didn't bother me at all. The weight and size down sides evaporate when you use the lens and the pictures it produces.[] To me at least apeture is worth more than IS, most of the time I need a high shutter speed just to stop motion blur of my subject and it's usually higher the the minimum shutter speed needed to hand hold the lens. Auto focus also is worth more than IS, a shot with all the image quality in the world is useless if it's not in focus which is a big plus for the 300mm f/2.8. And to top it all off it still hasIS.[Y]
John.
John
That line was a bit out of context. I agree with exactly what you are saying and because of the great IQ of the 300mm is why I would choose to carry it around as well. I was suggesting the 300mm as a very good choice.
But to, I believe that any one considering this lens should take its size and weight in to consideration. While you and I can carry it around all day, that may not be the best choice for everyone. For instance my wife, I have let her carry the 100-400mm around on trips before, she will get tired of carrying it after a while. I know that she wouldn't last long at all with the 300mm. My brother is another example, while the size he could handle easily, would be happy with the results out of the 100-400mm and on most trips choose it over the 300mm because the IQ is satisfactory to him from the 100-400mm.
I have been taking my 300mm with me to work the last two weeks, and as hard as I try calling it a walk around lens just doesn't seem right. But it sounds like, for you and I any way, it may meet that definition.
Rick
Come on guys, were you trying to show us some muscle here? just kidding!, but seriously, if you hand held 6-7 pound all the time and think no problem, think it again!, you'll most likely have some shoulder, neck or back problem later.
I can hand hold the 300mm with no problem. But if you use that neck strap for very long, your asking for neck problems.
And why do they even put a neck strap on the 500mm....seriously. Maybe for safety if you drop the lens the strap will catch it and break your neck instead. At least you don't break your lens.
Lol, and the weaker you neck is the safer you lens will be.[]
If you use the neck strap around the camera body, it puts too much strain on the mount...plenty of pics on the web of sheared EF mounts on the lens...one reason why they added more screws to the new extenders.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote