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

[HDNitehawk]

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.

[HDNitehawk]

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.

[scalesusa]

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.

[JJphoto]

well said, scalesusa, I couldn

[HDNitehawk]

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]

[Richard Lane]

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

[HDNitehawk]

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

[JJphoto]

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

[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!!!!!

[HDNitehawk]

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