Recommendation for a Canon lens

"Scott Fairbairn" wrote

The camera bag you need to carry it [600mm f?] on board is simply too
big to pass as a carry on

Large telephotos used to unscrew into two pieces for easy packing. Even
(or especially) the cheaper ones.

Get a Telyt? And a third mortgage...

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
Remove spaces etc. to reply: n o lindan at net com dot com
psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/

Scott Fairbairn wrote:
There is really no "right" answer. I have the 600 and I love the focal
length, when you use a digital body the reach is fantastic(I shoot mainly
birds).
BUT, the weight and size are a real pain, as mentioned by Bill Hilton the
problem of getting one on a plane is a real problem............I still have
no solution that I am happy with.
The camera bag you need to carry it on board is simply too big to pass as a
carry on, so I resorted to a separate padded bag to carry the 600 on board,
and the rest of my stuff in a separate smaller camera bag. If you planned on
doing a significant amount of air travel, then go with the 500 for sure.

I agree. I faced this decision a couple of years ago, and was leaning toward
the 600 because I wanted a big lens for astronomy too. Bill Hilton's advice
was great. I chose the 500 largely on portability and the fact the 20%
longer focal length from the 500 to 600 was not that much.
Once I found what a joy the 500 is, I started doing more and more
wildlife photography, taking it on planes a fair number of times.
For example, I had only been to Florida twice in twenty years, now numerous
times in the last two years, each time with the 500, which I carry on board.

Note too that you will need to spend a lot on tripods and heads. You need a
minimum of a gitzo 1225/1228 carbon fiber tripod for stability, and if
you are following action, a wimberly-class head. I used a pan head
for a while, and got good results (bogen 329), but with the wimberly
I found that I can track birds in flight easier with the 500 than I
can with a 300 f/4 hand held. So plan in your budget for the proper
gear to hold the lens. If you go the 600 route, you'll need the top end
gitzo carbon fiber, 1349 if I remember correctly.

The tripod, head, plus lens all add to the weight and bulk
of moving around.
The 500 is quite a bit but doable. I think the 600 would limit
mobility. And I am in reasonable shape: I hike the Colorado rockies
with a 60 pound day pack with 4x5 + 35mm or dslr equipment, sometimes
with the 500 too.

Roger
Photos at: http://www.clarkvision.com
birds, mostly with the 500 at: http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bird


wrote in message
...

I have a question for those of you that are very serious about
wildlife photography.

I currently own all Canon equipment and have recently started making
the move toward digital. My longest lens is the Canon 100-400 IS USM.
I am looking at purchasing a longer lens and am torn between the Canon
500mm f/4.0L IS USM and the Canon 600mm f/4,0L IS USM lenses. The cost
difference between the lenses on B&H's website is about $1,700.00.

I enjoy shooting wildlife photographs of small and large mammals as
well as birds. Can someone please make a recommendation on which lens
would be better for the type of photographs I would like to take?

The weight of the lens is not an issue for me as I rarely hike or
backpack to remote locations when photographing wildlife. I'm just not
sure which lens would be the best choice for wildlife photography and
would like some recommendations before spending such a large sum of
money on a lens.

Thank you,
Chuck

Scott Fairbairn wrote:
There is really no "right" answer. I have the 600 and I love the focal
length, when you use a digital body the reach is fantastic(I shoot mainly
birds).
BUT, the weight and size are a real pain, as mentioned by Bill Hilton the
problem of getting one on a plane is a real problem............I still have
no solution that I am happy with.
The camera bag you need to carry it on board is simply too big to pass as a
carry on, so I resorted to a separate padded bag to carry the 600 on board,
and the rest of my stuff in a separate smaller camera bag. If you planned on
doing a significant amount of air travel, then go with the 500 for sure.

I agree. I faced this decision a couple of years ago, and was leaning toward
the 600 because I wanted a big lens for astronomy too. Bill Hilton's advice
was great. I chose the 500 largely on portability and the fact the 20%
longer focal length from the 500 to 600 was not that much.
Once I found what a joy the 500 is, I started doing more and more
wildlife photography, taking it on planes a fair number of times.
For example, I had only been to Florida twice in twenty years, now numerous
times in the last two years, each time with the 500, which I carry on board.

Note too that you will need to spend a lot on tripods and heads. You need a
minimum of a gitzo 1225/1228 carbon fiber tripod for stability, and if
you are following action, a wimberly-class head. I used a pan head
for a while, and got good results (bogen 329), but with the wimberly
I found that I can track birds in flight easier with the 500 than I
can with a 300 f/4 hand held. So plan in your budget for the proper
gear to hold the lens. If you go the 600 route, you'll need the top end
gitzo carbon fiber, 1349 if I remember correctly.

The tripod, head, plus lens all add to the weight and bulk
of moving around.
The 500 is quite a bit but doable. I think the 600 would limit
mobility. And I am in reasonable shape: I hike the Colorado rockies
with a 60 pound day pack with 4x5 + 35mm or dslr equipment, sometimes
with the 500 too.

Roger
Photos at: http://www.clarkvision.com
birds, mostly with the 500 at: http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bird


wrote in message
...

I have a question for those of you that are very serious about
wildlife photography.

I currently own all Canon equipment and have recently started making
the move toward digital. My longest lens is the Canon 100-400 IS USM.
I am looking at purchasing a longer lens and am torn between the Canon
500mm f/4.0L IS USM and the Canon 600mm f/4,0L IS USM lenses. The cost
difference between the lenses on B&H's website is about $1,700.00.

I enjoy shooting wildlife photographs of small and large mammals as
well as birds. Can someone please make a recommendation on which lens
would be better for the type of photographs I would like to take?

The weight of the lens is not an issue for me as I rarely hike or
backpack to remote locations when photographing wildlife. I'm just not
sure which lens would be the best choice for wildlife photography and
would like some recommendations before spending such a large sum of
money on a lens.

Thank you,
Chuck

Scott Fairbairn wrote:
There is really no "right" answer. I have the 600 and I love the focal
length, when you use a digital body the reach is fantastic(I shoot mainly
birds).
BUT, the weight and size are a real pain, as mentioned by Bill Hilton the
problem of getting one on a plane is a real problem............I still have
no solution that I am happy with.
The camera bag you need to carry it on board is simply too big to pass as a
carry on, so I resorted to a separate padded bag to carry the 600 on board,
and the rest of my stuff in a separate smaller camera bag. If you planned on
doing a significant amount of air travel, then go with the 500 for sure.

I agree. I faced this decision a couple of years ago, and was leaning toward
the 600 because I wanted a big lens for astronomy too. Bill Hilton's advice
was great. I chose the 500 largely on portability and the fact the 20%
longer focal length from the 500 to 600 was not that much.
Once I found what a joy the 500 is, I started doing more and more
wildlife photography, taking it on planes a fair number of times.
For example, I had only been to Florida twice in twenty years, now numerous
times in the last two years, each time with the 500, which I carry on board.

Note too that you will need to spend a lot on tripods and heads. You need a
minimum of a gitzo 1225/1228 carbon fiber tripod for stability, and if
you are following action, a wimberly-class head. I used a pan head
for a while, and got good results (bogen 329), but with the wimberly
I found that I can track birds in flight easier with the 500 than I
can with a 300 f/4 hand held. So plan in your budget for the proper
gear to hold the lens. If you go the 600 route, you'll need the top end
gitzo carbon fiber, 1349 if I remember correctly.

The tripod, head, plus lens all add to the weight and bulk
of moving around.
The 500 is quite a bit but doable. I think the 600 would limit
mobility. And I am in reasonable shape: I hike the Colorado rockies
with a 60 pound day pack with 4x5 + 35mm or dslr equipment, sometimes
with the 500 too.

Roger
Photos at: http://www.clarkvision.com
birds, mostly with the 500 at: http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bird


wrote in message
...

I have a question for those of you that are very serious about
wildlife photography.

I currently own all Canon equipment and have recently started making
the move toward digital. My longest lens is the Canon 100-400 IS USM.
I am looking at purchasing a longer lens and am torn between the Canon
500mm f/4.0L IS USM and the Canon 600mm f/4,0L IS USM lenses. The cost
difference between the lenses on B&H's website is about $1,700.00.

I enjoy shooting wildlife photographs of small and large mammals as
well as birds. Can someone please make a recommendation on which lens
would be better for the type of photographs I would like to take?

The weight of the lens is not an issue for me as I rarely hike or
backpack to remote locations when photographing wildlife. I'm just not
sure which lens would be the best choice for wildlife photography and
would like some recommendations before spending such a large sum of
money on a lens.

Thank you,
Chuck