500 f4l ii

[Shelley]

I have decided that I am going to buy the 500, I have to save some more money - but the tax cheque I am getting will be safely put away for this lens.
I reckon it will be sooner than later.

I am just love my birding and know that I will put it to great use. I know it will be a lotta of money, but my kids are grown and I am not getting younger.

I thought about the old 500, but think I will see what the new one is like, I have not seen it out yet - I know its going cost heaps, but I rather have this lens than a new car. I am tempted to get the old 500 at times.

The other thing that I like about the new lens, is that it is lighter than the old 500.

edit: jeez, my english is terrible tonight :) sorry

[Tannin]

The new one will cost a hellovalot more if I am any guess, Shelly.

But at 3.2kg it is quite a lot lighter than the old one at almost 3.9kg, and even better, the new one has a more usable MFD of 3.7 metres (4.5 metres on the old one). I should think the priice difference would be two to three thousand dollars, dropping to one to two thousand more in a couple of years. (Pure top-of-the-head guesswork I hasten to add.) Personally, I reckon I'd pay the extra.

[Shelley]

Yeah, your right Tony and that weight makes a difference to me and my puny size (wish I had more strength sometimes).

I am thinking I will wait and save for it, I have the 400 in the meantime.

[Art Vandelay]

Is this a bit of a half guilty inside but looking for a little reassurance thread,, ? :) I'd say go for it Shelley. (which is very easy to say as it aint my money :D)

You'll make good use of it. :th3:

[Shelley]

Thanks Art, I feel better now :rolleyes: I only have to convince myself re: money, once the daughter's wedding is over, I can really save in earnest. I was torn between some other gear, but decided to go in the direction of my birding as it is something that I really enjoy.

[Tricky]

Thanks Art, I feel better now :rolleyes: I only have to convince myself re: money, once the daughter's wedding is over, I can really save in earnest. I was torn between some other gear, but decided to go in the direction of my birding as it is something that I really enjoy.

I think your logic makes a lot of sense.... focus in one the type of photography you like best and get the equipment that allows you to enjoy it to the max. Too easy to try to cover all bases and you just end up with an assortment of 'not that great' lenses that you rarely use...

[Wobbles]

Go for it! Now you just have to justify a set of MKIII TC's... after all they are specifically optimised for these new MKII Super Tele's! :D

[Shelley]

Thanks Tricky and Wobbles. I also have to justify the Wimberley now too...

[Tannin]

There is no point in buying a 2X TC for an f/4 lens. Just a waste of money. A 1.4 is certainly handy though. Is the difference between the Mark II and the Mark III likely to be significant? Good question!

As for justifing the Wimberley, there is no need. If you are eying off a Wimberley because you think it will be the best head around, or perhaps just because you think that there are several good ones and this is one amongst them, don't bother. Honestly. Nope, I recommend that you buy the cheapest head you can lay your hands on - but be sure that you do the calculations correctly, including all the costs. A Wimberly sets you back about $600 plus freight. But there are a number of heads that you can buy for as liittle as $100, plus some better ones around the $350 mark. So you can buy a Wimberley for $600, or you can buy a $100 head, stuff around with it, throw it away and get the better quality $350 one, use that for a while until you realise that it is wrecking too many shots and throw that one away too and get a Wimberley. $600 is less than $100 + $350 + $600 = $1050. Save money, just buy the Wimberley.

[Shelley]

There is no point in buying a 2X TC for an f/4 lens. Just a waste of money. A 1.4 is certainly handy though. Is the difference between the Mark II and the Mark III likely to be significant? Good question!

As for justifing the Wimberley, there is no need. If you are eying off a Wimberley because you think it will be the best head around, or perhaps just because you think that there are several good ones and this is one amongst them, don't bother. Honestly. Nope, I recommend that you buy the cheapest head you can lay your hands on - but be sure that you do the calculations correctly, including all the costs. A Wimberly sets you back about $600 plus freight. But there are a number of heads that you can buy for as liittle as $100, plus some better ones around the $350 mark. So you can buy a Wimberley for $600, or you can buy a $100 head, stuff around with it, throw it away and get the better quality $350 one, use that for a while until you realise that it is wrecking too many shots and throw that one away too and get a Wimberley. $600 is less than $100 + $350 + $600 = $1050. Save money, just buy the Wimberley.

No your right Tony, as per usual. I have seen the wimberley in use with the 500 and well agree with all that you said. I also held Alan's 600, big lens that is too. To be honest, I don't want to stuff around until I get it right - I want to get it right to start with and worry about my next bird and what its doing to cause me grief.

Not sure sure about 2x TC etc. haven't really messed with them much, so again won't be rushing into it. The great thing about this forum and the Internet you get lots of information and usually I can work it out.. Thanks Tony :)

[Tannin]

My pleasure, Shelly. :)

A bit about teleconverters might be useful.

You'll find that the 500/4 focuses incredibly fast. Mine (the old one) is nothing short of amazing with a 1 Series body, and not all that far away from that with a 7D. Even with a 20D/40D/50D it is very, very quick. But put a 1.4 teleconverter on it and the AF performance drops a long way - it goes from obviously faster than a 400/5.6 to noticeably slower- not a lot, but quite noticeable. Say about the same as a 100-400 (which is still good, but not the greased lightning response you get bare lens on a 500/4.)

Now put on a 2X. You get no AF at all with non-pro bodies, and even with a 1 Series it is glacially slow. This is all coded into the camera firmware - the AF system knows it is working through a 2X converter and has practically no "optical leverage" to focus with, so like a driver in a thick fog, it goes very slowly to be sure it gets it right. Think the sort of focus times you experience with a typical macro lens.It is still very accurate - amazingly so - but you won't be zipping off brilliant flight shots!

So much for AF. Now for IQ. Sharpness drops off remarkably little, even with a 2X, but you get poorer quality OOF highlights, and quite a drop in contrast and colour. (Particularly so at 2X more than 1.4X.) Combine that with the shots you miss because of slow focus and there really isn't a lot of point. Throw in the very low shutter speeds and/or higher ISOs you are using because you have thrown away one (1.4x) or two (2x) whole stops, and you will nearly always get a better image by shooting bare lens or with a 1.4 and cropping a bit more. (This becomes more and more true with the passing of the years and the release of ever-higher pixel density sensors.)

I can't remember when I used my 2X converter last. Certainly not this year, probably not last year either. It's useless unless you own a 300/2.8 or a 400/2.8 or (maybe) a 70-200/2.8.

[Shelley]

Now, that first paragraph Tony, I am really wanting this lens (I will wait for the 2nd version, I will wait, I will wait). Faster focus than what I have with the 400, that I would indeed get quite excited about. This lens sounds superb.

Thanks for the information on the 2x, food for thought and really don't want a drop in contrast and colour and the slow focus.

[Tannin]

I have never owned a 400/5.6 Shelly, but I bought one on behalf of a friend a couple of years ago and had the opportunity to have a pretty good play with it one afternoon, including taking this charming little creature -

http://tannin.net.au/upload/09/090204-152516-qpc.jpg

I made a point of comparing focus speeds between the three lenses (500/4, 400/5.6 & 100-400) and a couple of bodies (1D III and 40D, probably). Alas, I did not make notes and I'm depending on memory now. I do recall being a little surprised to discover that the famous 400/5.6 fast focus wasn't actually all that different to the 100-400 - not quite the massive advantage some people report - and unsurprised to confirm that the 500/4 was faster. (I have heard somewhere that the fastest focus lens of all is the 300/2.8. I suppose it's true.) As for my other observations with the three lenses .... I've forgotten! I did write them up here somewhere in a great long thread with lots of bird pictures, I think.

[Cage]

Go on Shelley, go on, you want's the pretty...........

Tricky summed it up. The 500 is mandatory for your passion.

You go get it girl!

[Shelley]

I have never used the 100-400 Tony, so I have no doubt you know your lens very well and would not dispute your conclusions. When I went birding with my brother, he sometimes let me use his 400 and I just loved it from the moment I first used it - so had my heart set on it, until my husband surprised me with the Bigma.

I think I will always have the 400 in my kit, its my training lens and it has just served me so well - I know it very well. I hope I feel the same when I get the 500.

[Shelley]

Go on Shelley, go on, you want's the pretty...........

Tricky summed it up. The 500 is mandatory for your passion.

You go get it girl!

Thanks Kevin - have to wait till it comes on the market that is, the new version... :) :th3:

[Tannin]

I think I will always have the 400 in my kit

Oh you will. Would you throw away your best wooden spoon just because you bought a soup ladle?

[Xenedis]

I have heard somewhere that the fastest focus lens of all is the 300/2.8. I suppose it's true.)

I own a 300/2.8L IS, and it is quick to focus.

However, I think my 135/2L is actually faster.

I should drag them both out, point them at the same subject in the same light and see which is seemingly faster.

What I do know is that the 135/2 is incredibly fast to focus. It is ready before I am.

[Xenedis]

I am thinking I will wait and save for it, I have the 400 in the meantime.

You couldn't go wrong with the current 500/4L IS.

While the 500/4L IS II will be lighter than the current 500/4L IS, remember that they are both lighter than your current 400/2.8L IS.

I'd expect the 500/4L IS II to be considerably more expensive than the current version. My estimate is $12-13K.

One other consideration is the 800/5.6L IS, but this is seriously expensive, at $14,630 from Quality Camera Sales Australia.

However, it weighs 4.5kg, so while it's heavier than a 500/4, it's still lighter than your 400/2.8.

I checked out the new 400/2.8L IS II recently. At 3.85kg, it is seriously light, and that alone was quite impressive.

[Tannin]

I've seen nuclear powered aircraft carriers which are lighter than the old 400/2.8. :) But Shelly's 400 is the 5.6, Xenedis. My guess re price is that the 500/4 II will start a bee's whatsis less than the Nikon one, but drop a thousand or two after a year or so.

[Xenedis]

I've seen nuclear powered aircraft carriers which are lighter than the old 400/2.8. :)

Yes, at 5.3kg it's not light.

The mark II is seriously light by comparison. I can easily hand-hold it, whereas the old (current) model is monopod material.


But Shelly's 400 is the 5.6, Xenedis

Oh. I didn't realise; I didn't see her mention that lens, and I assumed she had the f/2.8.

If that's what she has, then any super-tele will be very heavy.

[Tannin]

^ Indeed. I was horrified when I first got the 500/4 after a 100-400. To begin with I thought I wasn't going to be able to use it at all without a tripod. But I gout used to it, as you do, and take it on quite long walks sometimes.

Shelly is coming from an even lighter lens (400/5.6 is quite a bit lighter than the 100-400) but with the new model 500/4 I reckon she wil be fine.

[Xenedis]

The 500/4L IS II is still considerably heavier than her 400/5.6L. Whether that's an issue for her remains to be seen; she'll need to hold it and see if it is workable.

I've found that lens weight really is a matter of personal opinion. I can and do hand-hold my 300/2.8L IS 99% of the time. It's completely comfortable for me, and even a 500/4 is comfortable enough; but some people find a 70-200/2.8 too heavy.

The current 400/2.8L IS, for me, is too heavy and needs a monopod. Sure, I have hand-held it, but it's not workable for any decent amount of time, and it is very front-heavy despite the shorter length over the 500/4L IS.

Are you planning to upgrade your 500 when the new model is available?

[Tannin]

No, Xenedis. I'd quite like to have the new one, but I'm semi-retired now and have to watch the pennies. In any case, it would be a massively expensive minor upgrade - 10k to go to a lens which really won't be massively different to the one I already have. Nope, if I'm going to spend 10k (which I'm not), I'll look at something which adds to my possibilities rather than just upgrades them in a minor way.

My wishlist right now:

1Ds IV (or whatever they call the new 1Ds III
400/2.8
400/4 DO
600/4
5D II (or possibly just a 2nd hand 5D classic)
Laptop is getting a little elderly
1D IV
2nd hand 1D III?
it never ends......


I'll quite likely not get any of those. Well, I'll get something full frameish for landscapes at some stage. No hurry.

[Xenedis]

No, Xenedis. I'd quite like to have the new one, but I'm semi-retired now and have to watch the pennies.

Indeed; it is an expensive lens, and there's certainly nothing wrong with the current 500/4.



My wishlist right now:


I'm glad to say I don't really have a wishlist; at least, not one that I plan on acting upon.



400/4 DO


Interesting choice. That lens seems to be quite uncommon. Since you also listed the 400/2.8, I assume you wanted the f/4 version for travelling lighter when the extra stop wouldn't be needed.

If I had a huge supply of expendable cash for gear, I'd add:


14/2.8L II
TS-E 17/4L
24/1.4L II
200/2L IS
400/2.8L IS
500/4L IS


The problem with the 14/2.8L II is that there isn't a way (of which I'm aware) of using my Lee modular filters with it, as there isn't a filter thread.

If I had the 14/2.8L II and 200/2L IS, I'd offload my 16-35/2.8L II and 70-200/2.8L II.

[mongo]

Well done Shelley. The 500mm f4 is the Formula 1 of lenses. Even though the new version will be lighter than the existing and older versions, it will still be much heavier than your current lens. BTW a x1.4 converter should be all you would ever use unless you are Sar - then you will need 2 or 3 converters and used all at once with great skill and result.

PS - looking at the 2 posts above, Mongo's wishlist is to have someone as macho as Tannin or Zenedis carry Mongo's heavy gear around for him :D

[Tannin]

Ha! I'll carry your gear ... ut you have to carry me!

[Shelley]

Thanks guys, interesting information.

Had a well known respected bird photographer approach me in person, checking out what I shoot with. He said I did very well with what I had and said not to get the 500. got quite a buzz as he really liked my work and has offered some help with stuff. Was a real boost for me. He has had everything lens wise - $$$$$. I am still keen though.

[Art Vandelay]

That's interesting Shelley, and congratulations on the comments.

What was his reasoning on not to get a 500 ?

[Xenedis]

What was his reasoning on not to get a 500 ?

That's got me intrigued, too.

The 500/4 seems to be the lens for birding.

It has a sweet spot of a good focal length (still too short in some cases, and IME, even 600mm isn't enough sometimes), a wide(ish) aperture and a mass that's not too cumbersome to carry or use.

[Shelley]

He was talking about the weight of the lens and my style of shooting (which is stalking the birds) and he felt I was getting close enough to the birds and getting results from my existing lens.

Yes I do think a bit more length would be good and I am still saving for it - I believe this lens is something I would use on certain birding excursions.

:)

[mrDooba]

WOW!!!!:eek: I would have never thought an avian photographer would suggest you don't get a big prime.

I'm perplexed......:umm:

If I didn't change my style I'd still be wearing fluro shorts and hypercolour T-shirts:eek::eek:

Sorry for all the bold

[Shelley]

WOW!!!!:eek: I would have never thought an avian photographer would suggest you don't get a big prime.

I'm perplexed......:umm:

If I didn't change my style I'd still be wearing fluro shorts and hypercolour T-shirts:eek::eek:

Sorry for all the bold

Lol, I am getting it, just will take some serious saving. Jeez, you mean I have to drop my fluoro gear too.....

Don't worry Chris you will know when I have this lens, just hope I can get the new version.

[Michaela]

This lens will be on my wishlist, for sure! I'm looking forward to seeing some of your shots when you do finally get it. :D

[Art Vandelay]

If I didn't change my style I'd still be wearing fluro shorts and hypercolour T-shirts:eek::eek:



I'm looking in the wardrobe and feeling a little self conscious now. :o


:D

[mrDooba]

I'm looking in the wardrobe and feeling a little self conscious now. :o

:laughing1: hehe haha

[mrDooba]

Jeez, you mean I have to drop my fluoro gear too.....

I must confess........ I wear fluro shirts every weekday ;)

[Art Vandelay]

Not quite the fluoro & hyper colour, but it was funny last christmas down the coast with my 2 youngest teenage daughters, we dropped into to the local markets & a lady was selling tie dyed T shirts. The daughters went ga ga saying check these out Dad, aren't they neat ?. I agreed and bought us one each & didn't say much else, then once back home I pulled out a couple of old photo albums and showed them that all things go round and round eventually. Though I'm not sure if I'll take up bell bottom flares & platform shoes if they come in again. :D

[mrDooba]

hehe After seeing Dad in the original tie-dyed shirts, did the girls quietly put theirs away in the bottom of the draws or do they now have a newfound respect for you :D

[mongo]

Mongo has said the 500 f4 is the formula 1 of lenses – particularly for birds. He has also said that it is much heavier than the one Shelley is currently using.

Mongo is not at all surprised that the bird photographer gave Shelly the advice he or she did. We have all noticed and commented on the quality of Shelley’s images. If the photographer saw Shelley’s work and asked what she currently uses and knew something of how she achieves that, why is it surprising the advice was “don’t change anything – your style suits your current equipment”.

If Mongo were you Shelley and you are serious about this new acquisition (and it is very clear that you are), try strapping an extra 2 kilos to your current lens or camera somehow and try using it on an average normal outing for at least several outings. Evaluate how you feel about managing that on a long term basis. Better still, hire one of these lenses for the weekend. A couple of hundred dollars is a small price to pay to save many thousands. If it is all OK after that, go for it.

Mrs Mongo is a fit bush walker and she certainly felt the weight of a new lens some months ago that only weighed approximately 2 kgs. As a consequence , she does not use it as much or in as many places as her old lighter equipment.
Not just the weight is critical but also the size and shape of the lens when carrying it with other equipment or even on its own with just the camera body. Mongo urges you to look into this aspect as best you can beforehand and wishes you have good findings if you do.

At present, there are any number of good 400mm f2.8 and 600mm f4 manual lenses available for a song in Nikkon brand. The only reason Mongo has not bought one of each is the weight and size and the impracticability of using them for birding in the bush. Yes, they weight somewhat more than your proposed 500mm f4, but everything is relative. In this case, it is enough to dissuade Mongo from taking that step

[Xenedis]

Mongo's advice re adding weight to your rig (to simulate the 500's weight) or hiring one for a weekend (the best way of telling the real story) is very good.

Evaluation of the weight and ergonomics of a lens like this really does require one to hold it rather than read the specs or compare it with some other object based on weight alone.

[Shelley]

Thanks Mongo and Xenedis - very good advice indeed. Mongo thank you for your detailed thoughts - food for thought and weight is something that I have to take seriously.

[ashey]

If you can afford it Shelley go for it, from what I have read it will be released around December this year around the $10,000 mark thats U.S. being lighter and having two fluorite lenses which is supposed to improve picture quality it should be an awesome bit of kit.

[piXelatedEmpire]

In my quest for greater focal length, I sold my Olympus gear and purchased new Canon gear with my eye on the 500 f4 IS lens. I had the money for it sitting there ready to pounce, but after handling one in person, the size and weight of this lens really put me off. Mind you I mostly photograph bush birds, so I am constantly on the move. I settled for the 100-400 as the versatility of the zoom and MFD was a must for my style and surroundings. But I often want MORE reach, don't we all!

Having seen your images Shell, and the kind of birds you like to photograph, I think a 500 lens would be an AMAZING addition to your arsenal. I would LOVE to see what you could do with such a lens! :th3:

But definitely go and check one out, feel it, hold it, use it.. better yet rent one for a trip and take it out for a few hours and see how you go.

[Shelley]

Thanks Adam for your thoughts and I must say I am looking forward to seeing some images from your canon arsenal. :th3: