Moderator: E.J. Peiker

All times are UTC-05:00

  
« Previous topic | Next topic »  
Reply to topic  
 First unread post  | 16 posts | 
by LegalEagle on Thu Dec 13, 2018 11:54 pm
LegalEagle
Forum Contributor
Posts: 4
Joined: 13 Dec 2018
Evening folks!

I am about to bite the bullet and purchase my first big lens, likely a 500mm f/4.   I have been shooting with the 100-400mm lens for 10 years+, mostly handheld but also with a tripod and gimbal head.   

Aside from the extra weight, and the need to upgrade my other equipment accordingly, are there any other less obvious things I should be considering?   Were there any surprises when you started using your first big lens?

Many thanks in advance!
 

by Karl Egressy on Fri Dec 14, 2018 8:38 pm
User avatar
Karl Egressy
Forum Contributor
Posts: 39512
Joined: 11 Dec 2004
Location: Guelph, Ontario, Canada
Member #:00988
Based on that you a 100-400 mm lens user, I suspect that you are a Canon shooter.
You should specify this otherwise people would have difficulties to advice.
If it is really a Canon lens, then your best bet would be the Canon 600 f 4.0 L IS Mark II.
It is an amazing lens, the weight is about 8.5 lb hand hold-able, the resolution and focusing speed is amazing.
The newer 600 Mark III is coming out soon and it will be only 6.7 lb but will be very expensive.
It'll drive down the price of the used 600 Mark II so it'll be a good time to look for a good used Mark II.
Good luck.
 

by LegalEagle on Fri Dec 14, 2018 8:48 pm
LegalEagle
Forum Contributor
Posts: 4
Joined: 13 Dec 2018
Thanks Karl! My apologies for not providing all the relevant information. I am a canon shooter. I had not thought of the 600mm - the next logical step seemed to be the 500mm. I will do some research on that lens. Many thanks for the input!
 

by Mike in O on Sat Dec 15, 2018 12:46 am
Mike in O
Forum Contributor
Posts: 2673
Joined: 22 Dec 2013
Though it might be hand holdable, it won't be enjoyable. Are you ready to haul tripods around? I love my 300 f2.8, 500f4 & 600f4 but I find myself using lighter equipment more and more but don't let me talk you out of it. Pride of ownership and that certain look of good, big glass can be worth every penny.
 

by Craig Lipski on Sat Dec 15, 2018 8:56 am
User avatar
Craig Lipski
Forum Contributor
Posts: 4792
Joined: 20 Aug 2003
Location: The bustling metropolis of Fowlerville, Michigan, and the Texas Lower Rio Grande Valley
Member #:00495
I’m not old, but I’m old enough to be retired, (ok, I’m 57,).  I’m in pretty good shape overall.  I carry my 100-400 around A LOT.  I only break out the 500 4.0 (“classic” - the heavy one) at times where I know I can be at least somewhat stationary.  Add flash, flash bracket, flash extender, maybe an external battery pack, tc, extension tube, and, of course, the tripod w/ a gimbal head - it does get heavy and unwieldy - but I often *love* the results.  My best piece of advice is a cf tripod.   Gitzos are crazy expensive, I got an induro through the NSN store, and I love it (although I’ve never used a Gitzo, so I don’t know what I’m missing.)
 

by SantaFeJoe on Sat Dec 15, 2018 10:24 am
User avatar
SantaFeJoe
Forum Contributor
Posts: 8622
Joined: 28 Jan 2012
Location: Somewhere Out In The Wilds
LegalEagle wrote:Aside from the extra weight, and the need to upgrade my other equipment accordingly, are there any other less obvious things I should be considering? 
One thing to be aware of, that has nothing to do with actual equipment, is that you need to keep in practice with finding your subject in the viewfinder. The more magnification, especially with a T.C, the smaller the field of view and the harder it is to follow an active subject. It becomes second nature, as long as you keep in practice, but is harder when handholding and are not doing it all the time. A sturdy, light tripod and good head are highly recommended unless you really practice and get good at handholding. Another highly important thing is to AFFT your lens and every combination of lens/TC.

Joe
Learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist.  -Pablo Picasso
 

by LegalEagle on Sat Dec 15, 2018 12:01 pm
LegalEagle
Forum Contributor
Posts: 4
Joined: 13 Dec 2018
Many thanks for all your input. Definitely given me some additional things to think about. Don't think I'll be buying the new Canon 600mm III at $13,000, but I will keep dreaming :)

When I do buy that glass I look forward to posting some shots here for feedback.
 

by Neilyb on Sun Dec 16, 2018 7:59 am
User avatar
Neilyb
Forum Contributor
Posts: 2763
Joined: 7 Feb 2008
Location: Munich
I recently went through a clear out. Sold my 500, 600 and 200-400. 600 was a heavy beast. 200-400 was great but mostly too short especilly with closer subjects due to focus breathing and was not as good as I wanted with the TC. 500 was handholdable, easy to travel with and sharp. But I often found the need for more light and eventually bought the 400 2.8 mk II. Gives me more flexibilty, takes TCs extrordinarilly well and weighs about the same as my 500 did. Very happy. The 100-400 compliments it as my easy-carry-tele.
 

by Karl Egressy on Sun Dec 16, 2018 10:26 am
User avatar
Karl Egressy
Forum Contributor
Posts: 39512
Joined: 11 Dec 2004
Location: Guelph, Ontario, Canada
Member #:00988
I actually owned Canon 500 Mark I and Canon 500 Mark II.
The latter one combined with a Canon 5D Mark IV was an incredible combo, the best I have ever had.
I did most of my shooting  hand held despite the fact that I owned a Gitzo tripod and a Wimberley head.
Now I sold all my Canon equipment and switched to Nikon solely to lighten my gear.
So 500 especially the Mark II is a good option but the 600 is better, based on what I see published at different websites.
 

by DChan on Sun Dec 16, 2018 3:07 pm
DChan
Forum Contributor
Posts: 2206
Joined: 9 Jan 2009
Get a Nikon D500 and the new Nikon 500 f5.6.

Forget about 400 f2.8 :)

(D500 + 500 f5.6) weigh less than a Canon 400 f2.8 and cost less. They together may even be cheaper than a Canon 500 f4 alone.
 

by Bruce Sherman on Sun Dec 16, 2018 9:46 pm
User avatar
Bruce Sherman
Forum Contributor
Posts: 4421
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Location: Rockport, TX
A 600 mm lens is a beast. I have had them twice in my photo career and I don't miss having one a single bit. It's just so darned heavy.

A version 2 of the Canon 500 f4 is a great lens. Had one of those before switching over to Nikon. If you are going to stay with Canon that is what I would recommend. It's a lot more easily handled than the 600 and with TC's is does very well.

If you ever thought about switching over to Nikon what DChan suggests would be a great combo.

Another thing to think about, and it might not be thought of in very high regard by many here, is the Tamron G2 150-600. This is my current long lens and I use it with a Nikon D500 and a Nikon D850. The flexibility that this lens provides is a huge asset.
Bruce Sherman
[url]http://www.pbase.com/brucesherman[/url]
 

by LegalEagle on Sun Dec 16, 2018 11:02 pm
LegalEagle
Forum Contributor
Posts: 4
Joined: 13 Dec 2018
Bruce Sherman wrote:A 600 mm lens is a beast. I have had them twice in my photo career and I don't miss having one a single bit. It's just so darned heavy.

A version 2 of the Canon 500 f4 is a great lens. Had one of those before switching over to Nikon. If you are going to stay with Canon that is what I would recommend. It's a lot more easily handled than the 600 and with TC's is does very well.

If you ever thought about switching over to Nikon what DChan suggests would be a great combo.

Another thing to think about, and it might not be thought of in very high regard by many here, is the Tamron G2 150-600. This is my current long lens and I use it with a Nikon D500 and a Nikon D850. The flexibility that this lens provides is a huge asset.


Some fantastic shots on your website from Ecuador, Bruce.    Were some of those taken with the Tamron? 
 

by Bruce Sherman on Mon Dec 17, 2018 1:08 pm
User avatar
Bruce Sherman
Forum Contributor
Posts: 4421
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Location: Rockport, TX
LegalEagle wrote:
Bruce Sherman wrote:A 600 mm lens is a beast. I have had them twice in my photo career and I don't miss having one a single bit. It's just so darned heavy.

A version 2 of the Canon 500 f4 is a great lens. Had one of those before switching over to Nikon. If you are going to stay with Canon that is what I would recommend. It's a lot more easily handled than the 600 and with TC's is does very well.

If you ever thought about switching over to Nikon what DChan suggests would be a great combo.

Another thing to think about, and it might not be thought of in very high regard by many here, is the Tamron G2 150-600. This is my current long lens and I use it with a Nikon D500 and a Nikon D850. The flexibility that this lens provides is a huge asset.


Some fantastic shots on your website from Ecuador, Bruce.    Were some of those taken with the Tamron? 
Thanks. No. Those shots were taken in my Canon days - most likely with a 7DII and 100-400II.
Bruce Sherman
[url]http://www.pbase.com/brucesherman[/url]
 

by PopeShawnPaul on Tue Dec 18, 2018 1:11 pm
User avatar
PopeShawnPaul
Forum Contributor
Posts: 1286
Joined: 3 Dec 2008
Location: Bellevue, WA
When the new 100-400 came out I found myself using that lens about 2/3rds of the time. I use my 600II when I'm shooting small birds or mammals at distance. If you don't shoot warblers and small birds, or mammals at distance then you might go with the 500mm. The minimal focal length and extra stop might be worth it but getting on a subject and capturing a good shot is harder. I also think the difference between 500 and 400mm is slight, so 600 might be the logical step. The 1.4x does pair well with the 500mm and not as much with the 100-400 so that would give you about 700mm with the teleconverter.

Another consideration is what are you going to do with the images? If you mainly post 800 pixel images on the web then cropping an image and getting a 500mm might make some sense. But if you make large prints or need the resolution then 600mm might make some sense.

Camera choice and crop factor might be another consideration. My 7D2 with the 1.6x crop factor combined with the 600mm and the 1.4x is a challenging amount of magnification to deal with. It's still challenging with the 5DSr full frame if you pixel peep as well.

I think it's going to come down to how you shoot. I find myself more creative with the 100-400 and including habitat/surroundings. You just need a 500 or a 600mm for warblers though. Good luck!
www.shawnmccully.com
 

by OntPhoto on Thu Jan 10, 2019 10:37 pm
User avatar
OntPhoto
Forum Contributor
Posts: 7039
Joined: 9 Dec 2006
Location: Ottawa, Ontario. Canada.
Mike in O wrote:Though it might be hand holdable, it won't be enjoyable.  Are you ready to haul tripods around?  I love my 300 f2.8, 500f4 & 600f4 but I find myself using lighter equipment more and more but don't let me talk you out of it.  Pride of ownership and that certain look of good, big glass can be worth every penny.
Same here.  Although I own the 500 f4 II, I seldom bring it with me. It's not flexible.  I use a tripod with it.  The 500 f4 is great if you know you'll be shooting a distant subject.  I'd like to own and use the discontinued Canon 1200mm.  For the times when I need that kind of reach.  It's a lens that will spend most of the time at home except for the times when I know I am shooting a distant subject that would need that kind of reach.

For most outings like walks in the woods or exploring, I go light.  I take something like a 70-200 + 1.4x.  I'm even going lighter which is why I got the Nikon P900.  Something like the Tamron 150-600 is what I like.  It's relatively inexpensive (version one is around $1,150 CAD).  It's flexible.  150 to 600 mm.  The optics are not bad at all.  I like the 150-600 for the same reason I like the Nikon P900.  They're both flexible when it comes to focal lengths.  On walks I want gear that will cover all the bases, from close-up to far away. 
 

by rene on Fri Jan 11, 2019 5:50 am
rene
Forum Contributor
Posts: 355
Joined: 28 Aug 2003
Location: United-Kingdom
I agree with the D500/D850 with the 5.6/500. Great combination, excellent optically and light! Forget about a 400F2.8. Too heavy, you will always use either a 1.4 or a 2.0 converter. A sports lens in my opinion but not a wildlife/bird photography lens. You could also consider one of the Sigma or Tamron zoom lenses...like the 150-600 or the new Sigma 60-600 which i use. A bit slow but well built, optically very good and affordable. I also like the flexibility that a zoom lens offers.
Rene
 

Display posts from previous:  Sort by:  
16 posts | 
  

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group