Some questions re used Canon 500 4.5

I'm looking to make the big step into a 500 but don't want to make a very expensive mistake.

Would you be concerned about the availability of parts in the future for this lens?

Assuming excellent condition today, do you think I could get 7-8 years of service out of it? (I take care of my stuff.)

If I get sharp images now with a 1.4 on my 400 5.6, can I assume my technique is good enough to do the same with the 500? ( I have a G 1325 with a Studioball.)

Should I just bite the bullet and go for the f/4 IS?

Thanks a whole bunch in advance.

I would go with the f/4 IS ... simply because of the IS mode. At 500mm plus any teles or extenders the IS can play a significant role in lessening effects of vibration.

I second Brian's recommendation. The 500/4 L IS is a great lens and worth the difference in price.

jn

. . .and, w/ the f/4 you'll maintain autofocus w/ all Canon EOS bodies; With the 4.5 not all bodies will autofocus.

Edit: Oops! I was referring to the lens coupled w/ a 1.4x teleconverter.

I would definitely go for the f/4L IS lens.

The 500 f/4.5 is an outstanding lens with excellent optical characteristics, it is fully supported by Canon, and is significantly lighter in weight than the 500 f/4 IS. You do give up AF on the non-pro bodies with teleconverters and IS.

I say go with it if you have a professional series body, thus preserving autofocus with a teleconverter. If you are shooting with something like a 10D, D60 or other non-professional body, you will not be able to autofocus the lens with a teleconverter.

Put a 1.4x on the 500 f4.5L, and you lose much of the lens's utility, no matter which body you use. Yes, the top-of-the-line bodies retain autofocus, but only with the central sensor (a huge negative--even with a f4 lens, I always prefer to get closer, use a 1.4 rather than a 2x, and retain all 40+ focusing points on my EOS-3). And then there's IS.

When the 500 f4.5L was made, Nikon was the market leader, ahead of Canon in offering a 500 f4 that would autofocus with a 1.4x. As a Canon owner, I would not want to put myself back in that handicapped position.

Thanks to all for the thoughtful responses. This is going to be a difficult decision for the old retired math teacher, not totally unlike making the right choice for u and dv (for the math inclined) but potentially more rewarding.

Reading some of the posts, it makes me wonder how people ever made photographs in the old days, before 45 AF points and Image Stabilization!

The EF 500mm f4.5L is a very sharp lens. As far as serviceability down the road, this may become an issue. I've had the USM motors in a couple of big "L" lenses (EF 300mm f2.8L's) wear out on me (and when this happens, you also lose manual focusing). The EF 500mm f4.5L has been discontinued since 1999; once the supply of replacement parts is gone, the lens will no longer be repairable, but only Canon can tell you how long they think they will be able to service this or any other discontinued product.

If you can find one that hasn't seen a lot of use, you should get several more years out of it.

As far as technique goes, the much greater mass and higher centre of gravity of this big lens will take some getting used to, compared to your EF 400mm f5.6L. A Wimberley Sidekick would be a worthwhile investment, and would make the lens much easier to handle than trying to balance it on top of a ball head.

[quote="Cliff LeSergent"]Reading some of the posts, it makes me wonder how people ever made photographs in the old days, before 45 AF points and Image Stabilization!

Here, here! My thoughts exactly
Scott

Reading over these posts i have to ask, is the 500f4.5 any less sharp or contrasty than the 500f4.0? Is it just the loss of 1/2 stop and IS that concerns people?

swampduck wrote:Reading over these posts i have to ask, is the 500f4.5 any less sharp or contrasty than the 500f4.0? Is it just the loss of 1/2 stop and IS that concerns people?

Clearly, the latter. Only EJ addressed the sharpness of the f4.5, and very positively. Indeed, even the old FD 500 f4.5L had super glass. Can you make great images without AF and IS? Sure, and no one suggested otherwise. You can also get much of the way up Everest wearing a pair of running shoes, though most opt for climbing boots and crampons.

You can also get much of the way up Everest wearing a pair of running shoes

Let's not confuse pragmatism with foolishness, Cliff!

Cliff LeSergent wrote:Let's not confuse pragmatism with foolishness, Cliff!

Cliff,
I wouldn't call it foolishness, necessarily. The first slide show I ever saw on the Himalayas, including a trek through snow to Everest Base camp, showed Sherpas in Keds (an early brand of sneakers, for you younger folks). More recently, guide Anatoli Boukreev liked to wear running shoes on training climbs well above base camp. Boukreev, described by Galen Rowell as the Tiger Woods of high altitude climbing, was no fool. My point is simply that while great photography can be done without the latest and greatest equipment, most want every edge they can get. Especially for birds, I think the 500 f4.5 (I once owned the FD version) would be a big mistake for anyone who can stretch the budget to a 500 or 600 f4.

Boukreev, described by Galen Rowell as the Tiger Woods of high altitude climbing, was no fool

That certainly would depend on who you ask; some of his deceased clients might not have agreed.

But I don't know what relevance any of that has to do with the notion that spending more money on a piece of equipment can somehow make you a better photographer. I guess it's just a sign of the times.

I've sold a lot of images taken with both the FD and EF versions of the 500mm f4.5L, and I would say the difference in sharpness between it and the new IS version (which I do not own) is not that great. Whether or not the extra "edge" you might get with the extra 1/2 stop or the IS is worth the $2000+ premium (and heavier tripod and head required to properly support it) will depend on the individual photographer's needs and resources.

Cliff LeSergent wrote:

Boukreev, described by Galen Rowell as the Tiger Woods of high altitude climbing, was no fool

That certainly would depend on who you ask; some of his deceased clients might not have agreed.

But I don't know what relevance any of that has to do with the notion that spending more money on a piece of equipment can somehow make you a better photographer. I guess it's just a sign of the times.

I've sold a lot of images taken with both the FD and EF versions of the 500mm f4.5L, and I would say the difference in sharpness between it and the new IS version (which I do not own) is not that great. Whether or not the extra "edge" you might get with the extra 1/2 stop or the IS is worth the $2000+ premium (and heavier tripod and head required to properly support it) will depend on the individual photographer's needs and resources.

Actually, because of Boukreev, none of his clients died on Everest or even suffered serious injury. Boukreev alone had the strength (and the considerable courage) to go out into -100 wind chill to rescue other climbers at a time when no one else was willing or able to leave the relative safety of the tents.

The relevance of the climbing example was clear in context--people get by with lesser equipment, but better equipment is an advantage.

No one said spending money will make a better photographer. No one said the 500 f4.5L isn't sharp (just the reverse). Those are red herrings. And no, 1/2 stop is of no importance at all, if you are shooting at 500mm. But losing AF capabilities in whole or part when adding a TC is, to me. Obviously, anyone who's been selling pictures for more than a few years has made sales with equipment that preceded today's. But that proves nothing. Most prefer the features of today's lenses, which is all I and others have said. (As an aside, I consider my old 800 f5.6L junk by today's standards--the vignetting of that lens used wide open with extension tubes has cost me sales.)

Whether the latest features are worth the extra money is, by definition, an individual decision (since only individuals can value anything).

Some points.

1 - The difference beteen f4.5 anf f4 is 1/3 stop not 1/2.

2 - Bob Atkins has an interesting article on using the old and cheap Tamron TC to still get Autofocus with no apparent sharpenss difference from the Canon TC on the 4.5 and a 10D.

3 - The advantage of the 4.5 is the 2 pound weight difference. I use mine for flight shots handheld.

4 - The IS advantage is significant for shooting from a car (why I will obtain one at some point ). However I seem to do okay down to 1\125 braced on a seat even with the x1.4 on. On a tripod I never find I have blown a shot down to about 1\30 sec due to shake.

Tim Fitzharris used the 4.5 for nearly all images in one his books and Arthur Morris published a lot of images with it.

In the end the f4 i IS is probably better if you can live with the weight and expense. If not the f4.5 works well.

Ken Newcombe wrote:Tim Fitzharris used the 4.5 for nearly all images in one his books and Arthur Morris published a lot of images with it.

Ken, I think you are right about Fitzharris, though he now shoots and strongly recommends the 500 f4L and IS in general. In fact, he has a funny paragraph in his latest book reminding users of Nikon and other equipment that good images can be made with lesser lenses than the 500 f4L IS. I don't think Arthur ever owned the 500 f4.5L, but he did own the FD 400 f4.5, and made many wonderful images with it, proving that talent means more than glass. The 400 f4.5 was a non-L lens in no way comparable to the EF 400 f5.6L or either of the 500 f4.5Ls in sharpness.

Cliff Beittel wrote:

Ken Newcombe wrote:Tim Fitzharris used the 4.5 for nearly all images in one his books and Arthur Morris published a lot of images with it.

Ken, I think you are right about Fitzharris, though he now shoots and strongly recommends the 500 f4L and IS in general. In fact, he has a funny paragraph in his latest book reminding users of Nikon and other equipment that good images can be made with lesser lenses than the 500 f4L IS. I don't think Arthur ever owned the 500 f4.5L, but he did own the FD 400 f4.5, and made many wonderful images with it, proving that talent means more than glass. The 400 f4.5 was a non-L lens in no way comparable to the EF 400 f5.6L or either of the 500 f4.5Ls in sharpness.

Cliff,

Arthur did own the 500 f4.f EF as noted in his book, as well he mentioned it to me in an response to a post.

One other point AF works on the 500 4.5 with extension tubes with a 10D. I use them constantly for additional magnification and getting closer.

Looking at results often yields more information than technical specs.