A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Photo Techniques » Photographing Nature
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Recommendation for a Canon lens



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 25th 04, 04:04 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old May 25th 04, 04:11 PM
;o\)-max-
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old May 25th 04, 05:08 PM
Bill Hilton
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Recommendation for a Canon lens

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
  #4  
Old May 25th 04, 05:44 PM
PWW
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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


  #6  
Old May 26th 04, 02:30 AM
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Recommendation for a Canon lens

wrote:
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.


I made this choice a couple of years ago. I wanted the 600 for
astrophotography, and my main goal was astro; only occasional wildlife.
I mainly did large format landscape work before. Then after
looking at the portability, especially on airplanes, I decided on
the 500. I am glad I did. As Bill points out, the 500 can go
into a lowepro photo trekker AW backpack with bodies, lenses and
accessories and be carry on legal. It is so much fun carrying this
outfit around, I've now done more wildlife photography than
astro since I got it. I have also heard of others downsizing
to the 500 because the 600 is so big and heavy. But then I've also
talked to others who have upgraded from a 500 to the 600!

The other thing to consider, is you really need a good carbon fiber
tripod (e.g. gitzo 1328, 1325 minimum) and wimberly head. That
eats up most of your $1,700 price difference. With the 600 you need
an even bigger carbon fiber, like the gitzo 1348 (minimum).
Then add flash bracket and flash extender...the money keeps flying out!

Both lenses are great.

Some 500mm images:
Birds:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bird

Foxes: http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.foxes

Astro: http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...y.astrophoto-1

Roger Clark

  #7  
Old May 26th 04, 03:16 AM
Bill Hilton
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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


  #9  
Old July 7th 04, 10:03 PM
Scott Fairbairn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old July 8th 04, 01:14 AM
Nicholas O. Lindan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:24 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.