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...
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.
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.Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
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
Last edited by Richard Lane; 08-09-2012 at 01:40 AM.
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.
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.
Last edited by Richard Lane; 08-09-2012 at 03:23 AM.
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.
- Trowski
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote