Wildlife/Bird Photography Poll

I also chose 500mm as a compromise between focal length, weight, and size.

Tim Zurowski wrote:

KK Hui wrote:Weight is the prime consideration here for me.

Same here, which is why I really want a 600 f5.6 I suspect a 600 5.6 would be smaller and lighter than a 500 f/4. Anyone know?

Shooting from the hip, I'd guess that the weight is proportional to the area of the front element.  A 600mm f/5.6 would approximately require 75% of a 500mm f/4.  The Nikon 500mm f/4 weighs 6.8 lbs, so the 600mm f/5.6 could weigh around 5 lbs - about the same as a 300mm f/2.8.

500/4 area (sq in) = 3.14 * (500 / 4.0 / 25.4)²     = 76 in²
600/5.6                = 3.14 * (600 / 5.6 / 25.4)²     = 56 in²

It could be even less if it used diffraction optics.

Thanks Rory

I am very surprised that I would be the only person interested in a 600 f/5.6 that is around the same weight as a 300 f/2.8. For me that would be a very sharp reasonably lightweight 600 mm, and my dream lens. Obviously the lens manufacturers do not agree. IMHO, Sigma should have done a 600 f/5.6 rather than another 500 f/4 on the market.

The manual focus 600m f5.6 weighed in at about six pounds. An auto focus may weigh more.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/600f56.htm

Joe

SantaFeJoe wrote:The manual focus 600m f5.6 weighed in at about six pounds. An auto focus may weigh more.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/600f56.htm

Joe

I'm not sure about that as lenses are much lighter in weight now.  A 600 f/4 of that era weighed in around 13lb and today with AF and IS it weighs in at under 9lb. In general, in this regime of lenses you approximately halve the weight for a 1 stop aperture change.  I think worst case it would be 5lb.

The newer Pentax 560 5.6 weighs in at 6.7 lbs.

Mike in O wrote:The newer Pentax 560 5.6 weighs in at 6.7 lbs.

And the Nikon 500 f/4 weighs just 6.8lb.  Pentax isn't exactly at the leading edge of professional super tele materials and manufacturing . Canon and Nikon have dropped the weight of their super teles about 25% without sacrificing ruggedness through advanced materials.  If either were to make a 500 and 600 f/5.6, I would expect them to use that construction technology and possibly even include PF/DO lens elements which would drop the size and weight even more.  Along those lines, the Canon 400 f/4 DO weighs about 4.6lb.  Usually a 400 that is a stop faster than a 600 has about the same weight all else being equal.

Since the Pentax is closer in focal length to the Nikon 600 f4, why not use its weight?  It is 8.4 lbs, so I would surmise that the Pentax 560 is using modern materials.  The old Minolta cast iron 400 f4.5 while marginally slower than the 400DO weighs less.

Not sure what the point of the argument really is but Pentax does not make lenses with the modern super-tele construction techniques of Nikon and Canon. Their materials are much more like the previous generation. As for which to use for the comparison, a 600 f/4 has a 150mm wide front element while a 500 f/4 has a 125mm front element. A 600 f/5.6 would have to have a 108 mm front element so a 500 f/4 is a much more valid comparison than a 600 f/4 and a 400 f/4 with its 100mm front element is an even more valid comparison. Super tele lens weight within a certain brand is most closely proportional to front element size.

Tim Zurowski wrote:Thanks Rory

I am very surprised that I would be the only person interested in a 600 f/5.6 that is around the same weight as a 300 f/2.8. For me that would be a very sharp reasonably lightweight 600 mm, and my dream lens. Obviously the lens manufacturers do not agree. IMHO, Sigma should have done a 600 f/5.6 rather than another 500 f/4 on the market.

Maybe I should drop by and lend you the 400DO + 1.4X.     I guess I'd have to throw in a body too.  

Tim Zurowski wrote:

KK Hui wrote:Weight is the prime consideration here for me.

Same here, which is why I really want a 600 f5.6 I suspect a 600 5.6 would be smaller and lighter than a 500 f/4. Anyone know?

You probably already know this, , but (non-prime), the 150-600 Tamron G2 (which I have) /Sigma C are both relatively light and pretty good at 5.6-Tamron actually works better at f/8 @ 600mm most of the time. 

For many years the 600 was my go-to lens (lots of birds then). Last year I went with 500 IS II (great lens) but after analyzing which photos worked best I'm now considering the newer 400DO with 1.4 for an almost (560) 600 5.6. There are so many great choices for us.

Just like in drag racing, in bird and wildlife photography "there's no replacement for displacement".

The 800 rules!

billg71 wrote:Just like in drag racing, in bird and wildlife photography "there's no replacement for displacement".

The 800 rules!

Except in today's modern world of drag racing a smaller displacement motor with exceptional breathing (turbo, supercharger, both) can outrun a bigger motor without the power adders. Yes, once you add those power boosters to a bigger displacement motor, things can change! Top Fuel dragsters in NHRA are limited to 500 CI, but they manage to pump out 10,000 horsepower and go 325 mph (upper 3 sec.) in the 1,000 ft. race!  It's all about getting air and fuel into and out efficiently in the engine.  An 800mm on a moose at 100 feet is useless unless you want tight head shots. That's where the shorter lenses shine! 

billg71 wrote:Just like in drag racing, in bird and wildlife photography "there's no replacement for displacement".

The 800 rules!

For convenience  sake, I would take a sony 99II or Canon 5dr shooting with a 400 to a 1dxII or D5 shooting a low resolution 20mpix on a 800.  Of course, the monster 800 and its huge support can mount a high resolution camera but it isn't very convenient.

Mike in O wrote:

billg71 wrote:Just like in drag racing, in bird and wildlife photography "there's no replacement for displacement".

The 800 rules!

For convenience  sake, I would take a sony 99II or Canon 5dr shooting with a 400 to a 1dxII or D5 shooting a low resolution 20mpix on a 800.  Of course, the monster 800 and its huge support can mount a high resolution camera but it isn't very convenient.

Maybe, but only if I can shoot at ISO100/200 all the time If shooting at "high" ISO, 1600+, then any cropping will start to show up the noise. Re-sampling a 5Dsr shot down to 20MP works great but only if you are using the whole sensor. Otherwise give me the 1DxII and 800...and some weight lifting supplements

To me the best "general" purpose lens is the 500mm and the 600mm is a bird specialists lens. That does not mean I don't use the 600mm lens for other things but generally it is birds or where I think the extra reach will come in handy. Much of the differentiation is based on size and weight. When the 600DO becomes available, I'm going to be interested in how the effects the differentiation for me between a 500 and a 600. The 400DO to me is a flight-hand held lens or must travel very light lens.

Mark Picard wrote:

billg71 wrote:Just like in drag racing, in bird and wildlife photography "there's no replacement for displacement".

The 800 rules!

Except in today's modern world of drag racing a smaller displacement motor with exceptional breathing (turbo, supercharger, both) can outrun a bigger motor without the power adders. Yes, once you add those power boosters to a bigger displacement motor, things can change! Top Fuel dragsters in NHRA are limited to 500 CI, but they manage to pump out 10,000 horsepower and go 325 mph (upper 3 sec.) in the 1,000 ft. race!  It's all about getting air and fuel into and out efficiently in the engine.  An 800mm on a moose at 100 feet is useless unless you want tight head shots. That's where the shorter lenses shine! 

Marc,

I agree with your observations but there's a difference in supercharging a 350 and slapping a 2x TC on a 400 or 500mm. With the 350 boosted you get a net gain in overall performance, with the lens you get the reach but lower IQ.

I based my comment on what I've shot with my 400 and 800 in the last 3 years of one or two annual trips to Yellowstone and GTNP. You can't get close to predators and opportunities for other species can range between too close to shoot to too far away for even the 800/1.25 combo. Out of 4500 shots that have been more or less culled(and should properly be down to 500 or less) I have less than 700 shot at 400mm.  The rest were shot with the 800 or the 400/2xTC combo.  I did a Winter trip in 2015, took the 400 since it was easier to haul than the 800 but shot most of the time with the 2x mounted(108 vs. 662 after a pretty brutal cull). So when I went back this year in February I took the 800. There were a couple of occasions shooting bison that I would have liked to have a shorter lens but i got some nice headshots and I had the D500/300PF combo for the short range shots.

And last Fall I got my moose headshot, it was around 100' with the 800/1.25TC on the D5:


Best,
Bill