If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Recommendation for a Canon lens
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Recommendation for a Canon lens
skrev i en meddelelse ... 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 Maby this is usefull: http://luminous-landscape.com/review...500vs600.shtml ;o)-max- |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Recommendation for a Canon lens
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Recommendation for a Canon lens
But a few pluses for the 600;
If most of your competition is using the 500, with the 600 then you have a little more reach then they do. And when adding extenders you have even a even longer reach. If you shoot "small" birds, for instance, shorebirds, warberlers and the like, that extra little bit could really help. Arthur Morris used the 800 5.6, early in his career. And the the images produced with the 600 can be more a little more dramatic because of Depth Of Field differences. Otherwise, I agree with everything else said. PWW -- PWW (Paul Wayne Wilson) Over 1,000 Photographs Online at http://PhotoStockFile.com On 5/25/04 12:08 PM, in article "Bill Hilton" wrote: From: 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? If you're *mainly* after birds the 600 is probably the better choice, usually with the 1.4x t/c. Though even famous bird photographers like Art Morris are gradually using the 500 more often, due to the lighter weight. For what you describe ("small and large mammals as well as birds") I'd pick the 500 though (and in fact that's what I use ... incredible lens). I probably shoot it 70% of the time with the 1.4x, 20% with the 2x and 10% without a t/c. For larger animals it's fine (sometimes I have to back up even with no t/c) and for birds it's still really good, since with IS and one of the bodies that allow f/8 autofocus (like the EOS-3 or higher) you have 1,000 mm with AF and IS. You don't mention which digital body you're getting ... with the 10D you won't have AF with the 2x converter but the 1.6 multiplier means you have a field of view equivalent to 800 mm @ f/4, which is great, or 1,120 mm fov with the 1.4x t/c and still keep AF. With the Mark II the multiplier is 1.3, which is still a nice bonus with telephotos, plus you can AF at f/8 with this body. Couple of other reasons to pick the 500 other than focal length and price ... 1) The 500 is more than 3 lbs lighter than the 600. I can carry mine around all day in the field and not get too tired ... you'll be surprised how much the extra 3 lbs adds up over a full day. 2) The 500 is compact enough to fit in a LowePro PhotoTrekker bag, which is carry-on legal on every US airline, but the 600 is too long for these bags and you need a non-legal bag for it ... often you can get by with carrying a 600 on but if not you're in for a hassle. I can fit the 500 in the center of my LowePro and have enough room for two bodies and two mid-sized lenses like the 300 f/4 L and 70-200 f/2.8 L, and it's all carry-on legal. If you travel by air this is a big consideration. I'm just not sure which lens would be the best choice for wildlife photography and would like some recommendations before spending such a lar Ideally you could rent both for a weekend and try them out. A couple of times I've wished I had the 600 but for the most part I feel the 500 was right for me. Bill |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Recommendation for a Canon lens
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Recommendation for a Canon lens
From: PWW
If you shoot "small" birds, for instance, shorebirds, warberlers and the like, that extra little bit 600 vs 500 could really help. Arthur Morris used the 800 5.6, early in his career. It's timely that you mention Art Morris and warblers since he was just at Point Pelee NP in Ontario last week photographing the warbler fall-outs and he just sent out one of his email Bulletins with sample shots to subscribers (I know several guys on this NG who get this). Art owns both the 600 f/4 L IS and the 500 f/4 L IS. He made his reputation with the manual focus 800 Paul mentions and later with a 600 f/4 L but about a year ago he wrote that he was now using the 500 more than the 600 because of the excellent image quality and lighter weight. All the warbler shots in the Bulletin I mentioned were taken with the 500 f/4 and either a 2x or 1.4x t/c on the Mark II body, and they are pretty spectacular. Anyone using Canon's long telephoto lenses would probably be well served by subscribing to his free Bulletin emails. I've certainly learned a great deal from him the past 5 years. www.birdsasart.com When he posts this Bulletin (# 137) on his website I'll post the link so non-subscribers can see for themselves. But a few pluses for the 600; If most of your competition is using the 500, with the 600 then you have a little more reach then they do. And the the images produced with the 600 can be more a little more dramatic because of Depth Of Field differences. These are good points ... I wish I had a 600 to go along with the 500 but until I win the lottery that won't happen And I think for me at least the 500 was a better choice than the 600 since I have to fly to about 80% of the places where I use this lens and it's much easier to travel with the 500. Bill |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Recommendation for a Canon lens
From: dy (Bill Hilton)
When he posts this Bulletin (# 137) on his website I'll post the link so non-subscribers can see for themselves. Here's the Art Morris Bulletin I was talking about, showing the kinds of shots he's getting with the 500 f/4 even on very small birds like warblers. As I mentioned earlier, he also has a 600 f/4 L IS but said a year ago that he was using the 500 more often even on small birds, especially when he has to fly. http://www.birdsasart.com/bn137.htm Bill |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Recommendation for a Canon lens
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. 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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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/ |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
"Normal" Canon Zoom Lens that's worth a damn? | Karl Winkler | 35mm Photo Equipment | 31 | July 14th 04 11:52 PM |
Canon EF long lens rental Florida US | Michael C. Smith | 35mm Photo Equipment | 9 | June 25th 04 12:23 PM |
swing lens cameras and focussing distance | RolandRB | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 30 | June 21st 04 05:12 AM |
200 mm IS: a hole in Canon lens line? | Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) | Photographing Nature | 4 | March 13th 04 08:18 PM |
FS: Canon "EF" Series 70-210mm AutoFocus Zoom Lens - $100.00 Shipped | Jason | Other Photographic Equipment | 0 | January 19th 04 09:33 AM |