A good dilemma concerning super telephoto

docwalker · January 2, 2007

I have a problem. One that I very rarely find myself in. I have some money coming to me that I wish to use. It is more of a reward to myself for becoming relatively debt free. The good thing is that this purchase will not cause me to incur debt...

So here it goes. After getting a taste of what good lenses can do ie. fast 2.8 bokeh. I decided that I will only buy brand name f2.8 or better if I can help it. After making the switch to the Canon 5D I picked up the 70-200 f2.8L IS first and then the 24-70 f2.8L. I now want something longer and fast. I have been doing a lot of research (as usual) and will need to make a decision soon. Yes, I went through something similar to this here a while back but the funds were limited at that time. The recommendations were for the bigma or similar to fit my D200.

I can now afford a prime super telephoto. In the running is the 400mm f2.8L, the 500 f4L and the 600mm f4L.

I am looking at the 400mm f2.8L due to its speed. But I have seen from several reviews that this is primarily recommended as a "sports" lens. Nothing says that it cannot be used for other things, it just seems to get used that way.

The birders recommend the 500mm f4L or the 600mm f4L for the reach. The 600mm is less popular due to price and the size/weight.

I know this is a silly problem for some of you. But, I really like the advice I get from you guys. Do I go with the 400 for the speed and slap a TC on it for added reach or do I go ahead and loose the stop and get either the 500 or 600?

As for what I shoot... I shoot just about anything. I love humming birds but so far I have had a hard time getting close enough. (I am working on the feeder setup) I am a firefighter so I end up shooting a lot of night, low-light, action shots. I also have a need for low light/distant evidence shots ocasionally.

I am leary about the 400mm as I can slap a 2x TC on the 70-200mm and get that covered but loose the stops. At the same time, I am still interested in it for the f2.8 speed.

Size on all of these does not really worry me. I can get a gimbal head to use on my neotec tripod. That will put me just under the weight limit if I got the 600mm.

I would like the 500mm for the reach. There is an active group of hawk watchers in my area and I would love to get some great shots of the birds. Most of them are digiscoping to get the reach.

Sadly, I cannot afford to buy more than one lens at this time. I would love to get the 400 and the 600 but that would not be possible. Do I split the difference and get the 500? I just do not want to buy something and then wish for more reach later.

What says the fellow dgrinners? Help me spend my money wisely. And no you cannot have any :-)

Andy · January 2, 2007

500 f/4L seems to be a good addition for you. You won't regret it.

Don't forget sturdy tripod, + ballhead, and wimberly gimberly = $$$$ also.

pathfinder · January 2, 2007

Despite what Birdman shows here, I think 400mm is at the VERY short end for birding. A 400mm is great for BIFs, but really lacks reach much of the time.

I agree with ANDY that the 500F4 is probably the best value. The 600f4 is larger and heavier to haul about. The 500 can then be coupled with a 1.4 or a 2X for real reach.

I think the 400f2.8 is probably used more for shots on Sunday afternoon along the NFL sidelines.

A 400 f5.6 for flight shots can be added to your kit then. Or a 400 f4 DO if you are feeling flush.

The tripod and gimbal head easily add another $1K to a super tele kit.

If you are really thinking about the 400 and 600, read more about the Sigma 300-800. No IS and only f5.6. And big and heavy. But it is sharp and you are gonna be on a tripod anyway, and it covers 400 and 600 as well as 800.

As for wanting more reach, that is always true, no matter what you get. There is no way to compete with digiscopers with 30-60x scopes. But they are not gonna shoot at f4 either.

docwalker · January 2, 2007

Andy,

Do you need both the ball head and the wimberly? I thought the gimbal action on the wimberly did away with the need for the bal head.

I have a 322RC2 but it is only rated to 11lb. I am afraid that would be well over the limit on it.

School me oh wise one

Andy wrote:

500 f/4L seems to be a good addition for you. You won't regret it.

Don't forget sturdy tripod, + ballhead, and wimberly gimberly = $$$$
also.

sirsloop · January 2, 2007

bahh... the 500 is great handheld! ...just lift it by the lens or you will rip the len mount right out of your 5D

rofl

in a serious note... the 70-200L doesnt take a 2x all that well and you would be left with a very slow focusing, slow aperture, very poor IQ 400mm zoomer.

docwalker · January 2, 2007

sirsloop wrote:

in a serious note... the 70-200L doesnt take a 2x all that well and you would be left with a very slow focusing, slow aperture, very poor IQ 400mm zoomer.

Yep, I knew that. Thats why the dillemma. I don't care for TC's but I will use them when needed.

pathfinder · January 2, 2007

I think the 5004 will be fine with a 1.4tx or even a 2x.

Fabs has posted several shots in Harry's forum showing great detail shot with a 500f4 + a 2x Ar Morris shoots with a 500f4 and a 2x frequently also.

The full size Wimberly head does replace the ball head. The ball head is needed with the Sidekick which is adequate for the 500, but probably not for the 600 and bigger. THe tripod legs + the Wimberly gimbal weigh as much, or more, than the camera and lens at that point. Not sure the Sidekick is the best for the 400f2.8 either

BigAl · January 2, 2007

500F4 with a 1.4x is a good buy. Couple it with this support gadget:

and you could get this (not me in the pic above, but I used that lens to take the pic):

A crop from the pic above:

As mentioned above the 600 is too heavy, especially for field work. I would imagine 400 2.8 would weigh a ton too. (Personally I prefer the Bigma

)

docwalker · January 2, 2007

BigAl,

What distance were you to the bird? I want to get an idea of the field of view. That is a cool shot.

I know the most of the lenses in this range are rated to 5-6degrees FOV. But I would like to get a practical example of what that means.

kdog · January 2, 2007

pathfinder wrote:

Fabs has posted several shots in Harry's forum showing great detail shot with a 500f4 + a 2x

Yeah, but she also shoots some amazing shots with the 600 + 2X as well. (Just to muck up the waters.

)

Regards,
-joel

LiquidAir · January 2, 2007

docwalker wrote:

BigAl,

What distance were you to the bird? I want to get an idea of the field of view. That is a cool shot.

I know the most of the lenses in this range are rated to 5-6degrees FOV. But I would like to get a practical example of what that means.

Here is a quick trick to get a sense of the FoV of a tele before you get it:

400mm is half the field of view of 200mm so you can use your 200mm lens to get a feeling for 400mm by pretending 1/4 of the frame is the full field of view. I use the upper left hand corner of the frame from the top left to the center focus point. While I haven't jumped into the super tele space yet I have done a couple local birding days with my 70-300mm framing with just the upper left quarter to get a feeling for 400mm, 500mm and 600mm focal lengths.

docwalker · January 2, 2007

LiquidAir, That works. I just like seeing practical examples. I can estimate from a 1 foot tall bird taken at say 50 yards.

What is misleading is people who post the cropped photo and say "hey look at what I took with my..." only later do you find out that it is a 100% crop. I am very appreciative of Big Al for posting both the original and the crop.

There used to be a demo on either Sigma or Tokinas page of what the FOV looks like on different lenses. It was interactive and allowed you to set several settings. But, I cannot find it now.

pathfinder · January 2, 2007

kdog wrote:

Yeah, but she also shoots some amazing shots with the 600 + 2X as well. (Just to muck up the waters. )

Regards,
-joel

:DLike I said, you NEVER have enough reach!!

The remarkable thing is that there is not really that much difference between 500, 600 and even 800mm image sizes. 500+1.4 = 700, but it is at 2x that a real increase is noted. Hmmm, that is just as true for lesser lenses.

100mm to 140mm - not much bigger either - We really need 2x changes for major differences to be noted.

Harryb · January 2, 2007

There really is no "answer" to your question.

You have the 400 2.8. It works extremely well with TCs and it focuses amazingly fast. Of the 3 its the best suited for action, flight shots and low light shooting. The drawbacks are the weight, price and it's the shortest reach of the 3.

The 500mm F/4 is the cheapest (if cheap comes into play when talking about these 3) and lightest (by 3 lbs) of the contenders. Of the 3 its probably the only one you do a fast handheld shot with. If you are going to be doing some walking with your kit the weight will make a big difference.

The 600mm give you the most reach.

When I had to make a similar choice I opted for the 500mm because it had more reach than the 400mm and its weight made it more likely that I would use it more than the other two.

Whatever way you go you won't be disappointed.

sirsloop · January 2, 2007

Canon has something like this... more marketing than a real-world example tho...

http://www.usa.canon.com/app/html/EFLenses101/focal_length.html

docwalker · January 2, 2007

That was similar to what I was looking for. It would be nice if they gave the actual distance to the church. But, it still gives an idea.

sirsloop wrote:

Canon has something like this... more marketing than a real-world example tho...

http://www.usa.canon.com/app/html/EFLenses101/focal_length.html

Jeffro · January 2, 2007

docwalker wrote:

What says the fellow dgrinners? Help me spend my money wisely. And no you cannot have any :-)

If I had that "problem" I'd go with the 400, since I'm primarily shooting sports. But...there's always a butt....if I wasn't shooting events such as motocross I'd get the 500, because I don't feel 400 is enough reach with animals and birds and such. I also think you could still get away with using the 500 on some football sidelines from time to time. The 600 would be my choice if I was into shooting wildlife more than anything else. Now that's how I would reason my thoughts before buying.....how you're going to it is now up to you! Enjoy....but remember nobody likes a bragger!

gluwater · January 2, 2007

Good luck on your decision. I have never used any of these lenses before so I can't really comment. But I do have the 400 f/5.6 and with birds especially I am always throwing a TC on it so if I was making this decision I would go with the 500 of 600. I also remembered this old thread where Harryb gave a comparison of focal lengths with his pet GBH, the Mayor, at Vierra. Hope it helps.

How much reach do I need?

BigAl · January 2, 2007

docwalker wrote:

BigAl,

What distance were you to the bird? I want to get an idea of the field of view. That is a cool shot.

I know the most of the lenses in this range are rated to 5-6degrees FOV. But I would like to get a practical example of what that means.

I really can't remember, as I only took a few shots of that one bird. What I do remember is that I did battle to find the bird at 700mm - much more so than I do when I use the Bigma at 500mm.

FWIW, the crop is 60% and the camera was a 350d (22cm wide sensor). The average bill length of a male is 17cm and the female is 15cm (can't tell them apart in the field), so if you feel like doing a bit of algebra you can build your own FoV

docwalker · January 3, 2007

Jeffro wrote:

Enjoy....but remember nobody likes a bragger!

Oh come on now... Don't spoil my fun. I want to be able to do the "Excuse me while I whip this thing out" routine at the overlooks. I already get looks when I pull out the 70-200 most places. The little p&s cameras disappear out of shame almost instantly.

I really do not worry about other shooters much. I treat them like I do the animals, I let them approach me. Most are friendly enough to walk over and ask the same questions. "Are you a pro", "How much did that cost", "I bet you get some great pictures with that thing", or the best one is "I have a (20D, Rebel, D50 ...) at home but I never take it out. I really need to learn how to use it" And the coup de gras "can you show me how?" I have gotten a few teaching gigs out of that. I spend 2 minutes showing them how to change a few settings and they ask me to teach them how to take photos at a later date. I actually enjoy doing it.

As for the big gun, I am very quickly coming to the decision that the 500mm is the right one. I will be hand holding it some so the 600mm is out. I want more reach than the 400mm.

One thing I am working on now is an idea I had about lens hoods for it. I remembered the paper lens hood site that was posted here a while back. I picked up some craft foam last night. I am going to play with making a cheap alternative hood out of the foam. I am already using the foam "better bounce card" and I think that doing this can help reduce some of the weight. I will let you know how it turns out. I am going to make one for the 70-200 and 24-70 to test.

Jeffro · January 3, 2007

docwalker wrote:

Oh come on now... Don't spoil my fun. I want to be able to do the "Excuse me while I whip this thing out" routine at the overlooks. I already get looks when I pull out the 70-200 most places. The little p&s cameras disappear out of shame almost instantly.

White lens envy....you got to love it!

I do.

jsedlak · January 3, 2007

docwalker wrote:

Oh come on now... Don't spoil my fun. I want to be able to do the "Excuse me while I whip this thing out" routine at the overlooks. I already get looks when I pull out the 70-200 most places. The little p&s cameras disappear out of shame almost instantly.

Manfr3d · January 3, 2007

The 400mm/2.8 with 2x Extender: http://www.danheller.com/images/FAQ/Business/Lark/Equipment/img17.html

*yummy*

LiquidAir · January 3, 2007

docwalker wrote:

LiquidAir, That works. I just like seeing practical examples. I can estimate from a 1 foot tall bird taken at say 50 yards.

1 foot at 50 yards covers about 0.4 degrees FoV. If you want to fill the frame in portrait orientation you will need the 5200mm on a 35mm frame or 3300mm on APS-C.

On an APS-C body, a 200mm lens fills the frame in portrait orientation with a 1 foot tall bird at 3 yards. 400mm is 6 yards, 600mm is 9 yards and 800mm is 12 yards.

docwalker · January 3, 2007

Ok, how about filling the frame with a 2inch tall hummer?

If the minimum focus distance is 14.8 feet?

I need to start looking at extenders. This is on a 5d but it is good info for others on the APS-C.

LiquidAir · January 3, 2007

docwalker wrote:

Ok, how about filling the frame with a 2inch tall hummer? If the minimum focus distance is 14.8 feet?

Hmmm. Sigma sells a 150/2.8 macro which can be used with a 2x TC. Next we need to work on a combo hummer feeder/ring flash.

docwalker wrote:

I need to start looking at extenders. This is on a 5d but it is good info for others on the APS-C.

The short direction on a 5D sensor is 24mm and the long direction on APS-C is 22.5mm. Roughly a bird that fills the frame on APS-C in portrait fills the frame on a 5D in landscape orientation. The table I presented fro APS-C is not so nice and even for full frame, but here it is:

200mm : 1.8 yards
400mm : 3.75 yards
600mm : 5.6 yards
800mm : 7.5 yards

I have too been looking at getting a super telephoto for my 5D. For me it has to be a setup that I can walk around with. The 400/2.8 and the 600/4 are out just on sheer size so for me the real options for me are

1. 300/2.8 + 2x TC, net 600mm & 6.2 pounds
2. 400/4 + 1.4x TC, net 560mm & 4.8 pounds
3. 500/4 + 1.4x TC, net 700mm & 9 pounds

Right now I am leaning toward the 300/2.8 both because it is $1000 cheaper than the other options and because I think I would find other uses for it outside of birding and wildlife. However for top quality the 500+1.4xTC is clearly best and this also gives you the manual focus option of 1000mm with the 2xTC.

pathfinder · January 3, 2007

LiquidAir wrote:

1 foot at 50 yards covers about 0.4 degrees FoV. If you want to fill the frame in portrait orientation you will need the 5200mm on a 35mm frame or 3300mm on APS-C.

On an APS-C body, a 200mm lens fills the frame in portrait orientation with a 1 foot tall bird at 3 yards. 400mm is 6 yards, 600mm is 9 yards and 800mm is 12 yards.

Like I said, you NEVER have a long enough lens.

Looking through Art Morris work on his website www.birdsasart.com - he posts what lens combinations he uses for each shot - and frequently uses TCs or even stacked TCs - like a 1.4TC + a 2X TX on a 500mm prime.

I get a kick out of folks who walk by when shooting with a 500+ lens - they often think you can see fleas on the birds 50 yards away, when actually the bird only covers less than 1/2 of the sensor height.

Shooting hummingbirds with long teles is a Rx for frustration, because they fly in unpredictable directions that I, for one, cannot follow with anything longer than 300-400mm. Hummers are better captured with a 200mm lens if you can find some that are tolerant of humans. The local hummers I feed will not allow anyone closer than 15-20 feet, yet I have seen them in Colorado and New Mexico that will land on humans. Birds have their own agendas, and vary quite a bit.

Osprey Whisperer · January 4, 2007

pathfinder wrote:

Despite what Birdman shows here, I think 400mm is at the VERY short end for birding. .

<img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/eek7.gif" border="0" alt="" > <img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/rolleyes1.gif" border="0" alt="" > <img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/rolleyes1.gif" border="0" alt="" > <img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/wings.gif" border="0" alt="" > :ivar

Ok..I'll agree with you this time Jim.<img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/deal.gif" border="0" alt="" > <img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/thumb.gif" border="0" alt="" >

Any one of those 3 Canons will rock!!! You really need to decide what you will shoot most and base the choice on that fact. Do you need reach...or do you need speed?

I'd probably lean towards the 500mm for reach. You can get by with the slower speed with Canon by boosting ISO (pretty darn good high speed performance with Canons) to compensate for slower lens.

I would love that 400mm f/2.8. We're talking first light shots of osprey fishing on the beach. That would be awsome. I use my 200mm f/2.8 now..but really am hurt with the limted reach. (quit smiling Jim) F/4 just doesn't cut it first thing in the morning for me.

Tough problem to have.....lucky skunk.

Ok..I've changed my mind. You only need the Canon 200mm f/2.8 and camo blind (or sideline pass) for ALL SHOTS. <img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/rolleyes1.gif" border="0" alt="" > <img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/iloveyou.gif" border="0" alt="" > Just kidding, Jim. Really..all you need for GBH shots is a P&S..like an old G2 (full frame shot from a Florida front door @ 21mm) <img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/Laughing.gif" border="0" alt="" >......

not close enough?

Oh...you think it's a trained GBH...how 'bout a wood stork?

Gotta love those P&S cameras. <runs and hides from Jim>

pathfinder · January 4, 2007

Mike,

I hade figured out that those are really not GBHs in Florida.

They may LOOK like GBHs, but real GBHs do not let anyone get within 50 yards of them.

SO.... they must be another species - maybe a Florida Blue Heron - an FBH!! That's the ticket!!:D

That stork is probably really just a lawn ornament.

Osprey Whisperer · January 4, 2007

Damn....BUSTED!! :cry

pathfinder wrote:

Mike,

I hade figured out that those are really not GBHs in Florida.

They may LOOK like GBHs, but real GBHs do not let anyone get within 50 yards of them.

SO.... they must be another species - maybe a Florida Blue Heron - an FBH!! That's the ticket!!:D

That stork is probably really just a lawn ornament.

docwalker · January 4, 2007

The GBH around Virginia are not real tolerant of humans either. That is why I need a big gun like the 500mm. :rambo

A good dilemma concerning super telephoto

Comments