PDA

View Full Version : Getting to know Big White



Tannin
20-01-2009, 11:58pm
I thought I'd share some thoughts about using big telephoto lenses. This is written from the perspective of a Canon owner who mainly does bird photography, but it should be readily generalisable to Nikon gear, and have some relevance to other types of photography such as sport.

I've owned the Canon 500mm f/4L for nearly three years now, and it's the only big lens I've had the opportunity to do more than play briefly with, but I think most of my comments should apply fairly well to others in the same general class. I'll define "big lens" as anything beyond the usual 400mm f/5.6 or 500mm f/6.7 class. Canon make four big white prime lenses with IS: 400/2.8, 500/4, 600/4, and 800/5.6. Nikon now have a matching range of big primes with VR, plus the much smaller 200-400/4 VR, which is nevertheless bulky enough and heavy enough to place in the same category. I'll not consider the much smaller 300mm f/2.8 lenses or the Canon 400/4 DO - I suspect that they are very different beasts, and deserve their own mini-article. (If you'd like to read it, just send me, oh, say a 400/4 DO and a 300/2.8 to try out. I'll send them right back to you as soon as I've finished testing. That will be around this time in 2011, give or take.)

Price:
The first thing most photographers notice about a big white is the price. Forget the price! If you want one, you can get one. You'll have to save up for a while and go without some of the useless consumer junk you usually buy (new TV sets and curtains and all that other stuff you normally waste hard-earned dollars on), and start making sandwiches for lunch instead of getting take-aways, but so what? When was the last time your new Jag jeans or your Playstation took a decent photograph? Just decide that you are only going to spend money on stuff that matters. Lenses matter. Almost anyone can afford a 600/4 - you just have to decide where your priorities are. If you are serious, you can find a way. If you can't find a way, you are not serious. (And that's OK too. There is no law saying you have to be a fanatic if you don't want to be.) So, forget the price.

Reach:
The second thing photographers ask, and the first thing non-photographers ask, is "how close do I have to be to the bird with that monster?" Answer: closer than you think. The difference between, say, a 100-400 and a 500/4 is not all that much so far as zooming in on the bird goes, and is easily swallowed up by other factors, such as different camera bodies. For example, my usual favourite setup of 1D III and 500/4 has less reach than a 50D and a 100-400, or about the same reach as a 100-400 with a 20D or 40D. So the second thing to forget is the amazing reach of a true 500mm lens .... because it offers no such thing. You still have to get close to the bird - and because the lens is so much bigger and heavier and more visible, that's harder than it was with a 400/5.6. (More on this a little later.)

But there is one reach advantage: the very first thing you do when you finally get a big f/4 lens is buy a teleconverter. With a 1.4 converter, a 500/4 becomes a 700/5.6; and a 600/4 becomes an 840/5.6. Now we are looking at some serious reach! Until you upgraded from (say) a 100-400/5.6 you couldn't get close to those focal lengths without going to manual focus and horribly slow shutter speeds. But the moment you put a converter on, paradoxically, you take away a lot of the reason for using a big white in the first place. I better explain ......

Speed:
The biggest advantage of a big white over a smaller super-tele isn't reach: it's speed. If you do wildlife (or probably sport for that matter), fast, accurate focus generally matters a lot more than ultimate reach. If you care enough about doing wildlife photography to have gone without all those take-aways and bought a big white, then you probably cared enough about it to learn some fieldcraft with your smaller lens, and you are probably pretty good at getting close enough to the bird to get a good result. OK, you never have as much reach as you want, but you can get by with 400mm. (Just!) You can't get by without accurate focus, and even when it's accurate, slow focus is often useless. With wildlife, you either seize the moment or you miss it. Bare lens, the 500/4 has incredibly fast and accurate focus. I have no reason to doubt that the other big whites are just as good, and that the same goes for the big new Nikons.

But the speed advantage I'm talking about isn't just focus speed. Even more important is the ability to shoot at f/4. The ability to select a narrow a depth of field quite often makes composition much more rewarding - that creamy blurred-out background to a bird photograph didn't get to be the standard ideal by accident, like most cliches, it became a cliche because it works so well.

And the ability to work in low light is priceless. If you want to work in rainforest or tall eucalypt forest, f/4 isn't handy, it's essential, and f/2.8 would be even better. (Many times doing rainforest work I have wished for an extra grandmother to trade-in on a 400/2.8.) If your birding lens maxes out at f/5.6, deep forests are pretty much a no-go zone unless you resort to blasting everything with flash. At f/4, it can still be pretty tough, but it's do-able. Obviously, you are having to work with very shallow DOF and your focus needs to be spot on, but these are things you can work with and overcome: too little light to get decent colour and shutter speed is something you can't overcome.

As soon as you put a teleconverter on your big white lens, you throw away those twin advantages. Yes, you get extra reach, but your focus speed drops to something not much faster than a 100-400 (and probably slower than a 400/5.6, though I've never tried one of those out for myself), and you are at f/5.6 or higher. You also lose a little bit of contrast, a little bit of colour, and your out-of-focus background isn't as attractive as before. On the big primes at least, your base image quality is so good that you can afford to waste a little of it, but it's something worth considering just the same. When you go to a 2X converter, these changes start to become quite significant. I hardly ever use my 2X, though I guess I use the 1.4X maybe a bit less than half the time.

One other thing to mention before I leave this subject is, for want of a better word, tolerance. The big white primes have an extraordinary ability to tolerate sub-optimal conditions - at least the 500/4 IS does, no reason to think an 800/5.6 IS or a 600/4 VR would be any different. Mostly here I'm thinking about marginal light: not just low light, but poor quality light - overcast days or shade for example. No lens can turn an overcast into crisp winter morning sunlight, but the very best lenses seem to have a magical ability to turn in decent results even when the light isn't helping. I suspect that this applies to any top-quality lens, from wide-angle on up, but I mostly notice it with the 500. Perhaps if I owned something like an 85/1.2 or a 35/1.4 I'd see it there too.

Oh, and you need to be aware of the minimum focus distances: the big primes all have horribly long MFDs - 4.5 metres for the 500/4, worse than that for most of the others. This means that for small birds you have to muck about with close-up rings which are a complete pain as you forgo infinity focus and the moment you stop and put one on, some larger creature will pop up and taunt you from too far away to get a focus on! For this reason, I often carry an extra body and the 100-400 as well as the 500/4. And that leads me to my next topic.

Weight:
I was trying to consider the things you notice in the order you notice them before I sidetracked myself. When you pick up a big white and try it out, the impression of sheer size is alarming, and the weight is a fair-dinkum shocker. I still remember my first day with the 500/4 (only a moderate size lens by big iron standards): I genuinely wondered if I'd be able to cope with the weight of it. It was so damn hard to hold it steady, and even quite a short walk was enough to demonstrate that trotting here and there in the carefree manner you do with a 100-400 wasn't on the agenda. A kilometre or two was sufficient to induce actual pain in the shoulders.

But you do get used to it. It takes a while, but the body acclimatises, muscles harden up, and you get smarter about ways of carrying it. Then, one day, you pick up your old 100-400 and it feels like a feather! These days, I generally draw the line at 10 kilometres in a day. Anything over about 7 or 8k and I'm a bit sore and tired. Any more than 10k and the last few kilometres are painful, and my neck and shoulder muscles give me a bit of gyp for the next day or two. So, if the walk in is long, I think pretty carefully about whether I want to do it or not before I start. Sometimes I'll take the 100-400 instead. (By the way, I'm slim and 50ish: if you are younger or have a stocky build or are just generally fitter than I am (which shouldn't be too difficult), you might be able to add a bit to my guideline distances.)

Can you hand-hold the big iron? Absolutely! I hand-hold the 500/4 about a quarter or a third of the time, use a tripod for the rest. People hand-hold 600/4s and 400/2.8s (which are half as heavy again as a 500/4 or around four times the weight of a 100-400), though they tend to be big, strong blokes, and I doubt they do it for very long at a time.

For birds, you mostly get almost as sharp a picture hand-held as you do with a tripod provided that you keep the shutter speed up, which is something I like to do anyway as I'm a big fan of shooting birds in motion, not just posing on a stick. So, in good light, the big advantage to a tripod isn't really extra sharpness, it's time. You can only hold a big white up to your eye for a certain length of time: if you think you are going to need to wait longer than that for the shot you want, then you either need a bold subject that won't mind you waving the lens around, or else to set the tripod up. With the lens on a tripod, you are pretty much tied to one spot, but you can comfortably stand and wait a lot longer for your opportunity.

Mostly, I walk slowly and quietly from likely spot to likely spot with the tripod over my shoulder, then pause and wait for as long as seems sensible (typically 5 to 20 minutes) at each spot.

The extra reach is handy, of course, but the weight and bulk of a big lens (and usually a tripod too) pretty much cancels that out. It is simply not possible to move as inconspicuously with a big, heavy lens as you do with a 400/5.6. You are slow, clumsy, your tread is heavier, you can't duck under low branches easily, and perhaps most important of all, it's very difficult to move smoothly and gracefully: you tend to jerk the thing around because it's too heavy to lift slowly. (You will see what I mean by this immediately when you try a big lens, but you can get the general idea by doing 10 quick push-ups. Not too hard? Now do them really slowly. There is your difference.)

So, in general, you wind up further away from the bird than you would have done with a smaller lens. Or else you work a fair bit harder to get as close as you want to be. Even at hides, you very often find that the viewports are too small and you can't get the front of the big lens through them.

Given all that, is it even worth the trouble? Absolutely! There are times when the extra length really comes into its own (waders are the classic example) and even with woodland birds, you can often get a good shot where you would have struggled with a 400. And the benefits of fast focus and large aperture are very rarely wasted.

SpaceJunk
21-01-2009, 4:40am
Excellent write up Tony, very informative and nicely garnished with a little humour, well done mate :th3: :th3: :th3:

Colinz
21-01-2009, 5:56am
Most informative, thanks for taking the time Tony :)

Lani
21-01-2009, 7:56am
Appreciate the work you put into this Tony, very interesting read.

Seesee
21-01-2009, 8:26am
Very comprehensive and a bit of humour thrown in for good measure....and after lugging around the 300 f2.8 and tripod I think my body is adjusting to the strain, even if I do now walk with a slight list to the right.'

Great post Toni, cheers for that.

MarkChap
21-01-2009, 8:27am
Excellent insight Tony.

MattC
21-01-2009, 2:22pm
Very good write up Tony.

Tannin
21-01-2009, 2:55pm
Thanks all.

Looking over that very long post, it sometimes seems as though I'm just glossing over the benefits and saying quite a lot about the drawbacks of big glass.

And yet ... what do you say about the main strengths beyond just listing them? Once you have said something like "image quality is near enough to perfect as makes no difference" (which is true, unless I stuff something up, and then it isn't the fault of the equipment), then there really isn't anything much to add. And, in any case, that is no more and no less than you expect as mere routine from any product in this price class.

One thing I could have emphasised a little more is that although you can't get a lot of extra reach and the full benefit of wide apertures and fast focusing, you can always get at least one or the other of those two main benefits: faster than a Bigma or a 100-400 for about the same reach, or more reach for about the same speed. And, of course, you are free to pick which of those two benefits is going to be most useful to you at any given time, simply by adding or removing the teleconverter.

Like most people, I started out using the converter almost all the time, but as time has gone by I have gradually swung over to favouring a bare lens more and more. Sometimes, I think how nice it would be to have an 800/5.6 so that I would never want to use a teleconverter and always have the optics unimpeded. Then I remember the astronomical cost of that lens (it makes a 500/4 look cheap) and the extra weight and the great difficulty of handling it (especially inside a car, which is where it would be most useful), and decide to leave it go. At least for this year.

MrJorge
21-01-2009, 3:22pm
Great insights in here mate, thanks for sharing them. Always interested in what others feel/experience with their gear and I know this thread will pop into my mind if I ever decide to go that route.

Kym
21-01-2009, 3:53pm
Excellent, easy to read and very useful! Thanks!

kiwi
21-01-2009, 3:55pm
...also applies to "big blacks"

That just does not sound right really.

Good review Tannin.

MrJorge
21-01-2009, 4:00pm
That just does not sound right really.

No, no it doesn't!! I don't wanna read that tutorial!! :eek:

clm738
21-01-2009, 4:18pm
Thank You. A great insight and a damm good read!

I @ M
21-01-2009, 6:00pm
A very good post Tony, thank you very much ---- and maybe not --- Debra read this in the early hours of the morning ( probably an hour after you posted it ) and wandered off to the bedroom saying she really wanted a big black one though. :confused013

Allann
22-01-2009, 1:15pm
Terrific read. Thanks for putting in so much effort (and the humour). It helped me make up my mind and spend some money (but more on that when I pick it up ;))

DanNG
22-01-2009, 9:41pm
great post, your spot on about price... if you can dream it.. you can achieve it :)

Shelley
22-01-2009, 9:59pm
Good read Tannin and helpful information. Just out of curiousity what is the weight of the 500 you have, would it weigh a lot more than the bigma. I walk around cradling my bigma - just a bit lighter that way for me.

I am only small, but i do manage to handhold it with the mount off, i too like the freedom of walking around holding rather than using monopod/tripod, which i have, but i get in a tangle with them when birding. Always want more reach..

edit: i am saving by $2 & $1 coins

Tannin
22-01-2009, 10:59pm
A fair difference, Sheley:

Canon 400/5.6: 1.25kg
Canon 100-400: 1.38kg
Bigma: 1.84kg
Canon 500/4: 3.87kg
Canon 400/2.8: 5.37kg

And those little gold coins add up to a fortune after a while!

Debra Faulkner
23-01-2009, 12:43pm
Yes, thanks indeed Tony for taking the time to write this up for us. As I read through your review I was wondering if maybe I was just being too much of a dreamer or being just too greedy to be thinking of purchasing a 'bigger' lens because I wouldn't be able to hike for ages up and down gullies .... but then part of your last paragraph reminded me of why I really had begun to 'want' one after all.

" ... There are times when the extra length really comes into its own (waders are the classic example) and even with woodland birds, you can often get a good shot where you would have struggled with a 400. And the benefits of fast focus and large aperture are very rarely wasted."

So now I am not dismissing my 'needs' in this area as one day the time will be right!

Allann
23-01-2009, 8:49pm
Terrific read. Thanks for putting in so much effort (and the humour). It helped me make up my mind and spend some money (but more on that when I pick it up ;))

I'm not sure if I should curse you or kiss you, but here is the purchase. Can't wait to get it out and have a real play tomorrow!

kiwi
23-01-2009, 9:23pm
wow, nice, 600 F/4 ?

Allann
23-01-2009, 9:26pm
Oops, I didn't add that... yeah, 600mm f4 (5.36kg). But it's the older model so no IS, but I can't complain for the price I paid (don't ask, I'm not telling). Built in 1999, but from a couple of test shots I took is definitely no worse for wear. Focus is super quick, at least compared to my current lenses, and crisp as. I'm taking it out for a run tomorrow at the Wivenhoe meet, so should be fun. I might post a pic or two afterwards.

41jas
23-01-2009, 9:29pm
OMG Allan....what in blue blazers have you gone and bought.
Did transport come with that?
Looks like a rocket launcher.
Damn that's huge.:eek:

kiwi
23-01-2009, 9:30pm
2nd hand then I take it, must be, looks pristine though

Make sure you use a very good support system.

Look fwd to seeing the results.

Shelley
23-01-2009, 9:45pm
omg i can only just see the camera body Allan - your going to have some fun. :eek:

thanks for the reply Tannin - i am lifting weights while i post this message :D

Allann
23-01-2009, 9:53pm
2nd hand then I take it, must be, looks pristine though

Make sure you use a very good support system.

Look fwd to seeing the results.

Yep, second hand. Belonged to a pro surf photog who is upgrading, and yes looks pristine, only a small scratch on the tripod mount that I have found. I'll have it at work on Tuesday if you wanna drop by (going to Mt Cootha after work).

kiwi
23-01-2009, 9:55pm
lol, you'll need a wemberley now.

wassup Mt Cootha ? I might come with you, though I only have the lowly 400 :action3:

Allann
23-01-2009, 10:02pm
wassup Mt Cootha ? I might come with you, though I only have the lowly 400 :action3:

Wimberley heads are not cheap... let me get over this shock first...

nothing special up there, I have taken a few panos with my 100-400 and want to do a straigh low-light comparison with something I've already done.

Tannin
23-01-2009, 10:46pm
Hoolie Doolie! A 600/4, no less! Good for you, Alann! You are already doing some very nice stuff, you'll go backwards for a while (as one always does when getting the hang of new gear) but that won't last, and I expect to start seeing some real rippers from your collection before too many weeks go by.

There are only two ways to buy a head for a big white: Method 1 is the cheapest, but Method 2 gets you there in the end.

Method 1: buy a Wimberley.
Method 2: buy a cheaper head, buggerise around with it for ages, then throw it away and buy a Wimberley.

kiwi
24-01-2009, 7:20am
Yup, sage advice I think

Check this out too

http://www.moosenewsblog.com/2009/01/sharpness-series-4-long-lens/

Steadyhands
24-01-2009, 7:12pm
Great write up Tony.

Congrats on the new lens Alan. I've been spending also.

AdamR
25-01-2009, 6:00pm
You have too, nice camera upgrade.

A lot of this post is relevent to any new gear. I know moving from the 75-300 to the 180mm macro was a massive step. Whilst not extremely heavy it is certainly different to the kit lens. Same learning processes too and different but similar difficulties of use.

I definately think a thought for anyone buying anything bigger is to remember that whilst learning with a new piece of gear you will typically shoot worse than before. I look back at results I had with the 180 when i got it and the consistancy I had with it and wondered how I grew to love the lens at all. Now over a year later my consistancy is much greater, my results are to my eyes fantastic (regardless of composition etc).

Thanks for the write up Tony.
Adam

Steadyhands
25-01-2009, 6:06pm
Thanks Adam.

Totally agree with the learning curve associated with new gear.

darylcheshire
07-06-2010, 3:56am
do birds notice the big white lens?

do you use the neoprene camoflage lens cover?

what attention do you get from passing people?

I read about this fellow whose big white lens was handled by this woman who thought it was a public coin telescope.

I wondered about attaching a Canon to a Takahashi 130 where you get no diaphram and the focussing is done from knobs on the side rather than from a focussing ring.
The 130 is the size of the objective lens, not the focal length. The Tak is also a big white lens.

Daryl

Tannin
07-06-2010, 9:35am
what attention do you get from passing people?

A fair bit, but you can manage it with suitable body language to deter conversation altogether; or with a quick friendly smile followed by obvious concentration on the task at hand; or simply by keeping it out of sight as much as you sensibly can. Most of the time, you want to be where the people aren't anyway.

do you use the neoprene camoflage lens cover?

Yes. These are not supplied with the lenses, they are an after-market add-on. Lens Coat make good quality ones that fit beautifully, but they are quite expensive - close to $100. Good to have though.


do birds notice the big white lens?

Yes. A cover helps a bit. But what they really notice is your increased agitation (you are working harder because it is so awkward and heavy) and most of all, the clumsy, jerky way you move (which is because of the heavy lens - I wrote about this earlier). Birds are seriously good at body language. Relax, slow down, don't eyeball the bird you are interested in, take your time .... it is all part of the technique.

A Takahashi 130 may be a big white lens, but it isn't a Big White lens! If you have one or can borrow one, you should start a thread about it. That would be interesting.

darylcheshire
07-06-2010, 8:24pm
Yes. A cover helps a bit. But what they really notice is your increased agitation (you are working harder because it is so awkward and heavy) and most of all, the clumsy, jerky way you move (which is because of the heavy lens - I wrote about this earlier). Birds are seriously good at body language. Relax, slow down, don't eyeball the bird you are interested in, take your time .... it is all part of the technique.


This made me laugh, I had this mental image of Buster Keaton or Charlie Chaplin in B/W semi speeded up struggling with a huge lens whilst birds sat on his head or circled around in large numbers.

I do vaguely remember comedians in B/W struggling with view cameras and the tripod legs would splay out at awkward moments. Not to mention flash powder!

Daryl.

soup
17-06-2010, 12:24pm
Thanks for this great review Tannin (even though its aged since it was first posted). It is particularly useful as I've ordered the 500/f4 and should get it next week. It has certainly injected some realism to my expectations of using the lens, as all I read about is how wonderful it is. I've used the 100-400 mostly so far, I'm a safari junkie off to Zambia and South Africa in November (fourth trip in as many years) so travelling with the 500 will be a challenge and a worry. Be interested in your thoughts on travel issues..?
cheers