600mm too long?

[Morlin]

Hi.

Ok.. I know that there has been several threads regarding this focal length and I have also created one earlier regarding the accessories needed to support and use a lens this big but here comes another one =)

It´s hard for me to rent one and I have no friend that owns one so the only thing I can do to get an idea about using this focal length is to look at many pictures of a variety of animals and try to figure out if it´s a good thing to go for or not.

Is it a very limited use for this lens? Does objects need to be VERY far away to fill the frame in a good way?
Of course I understand that an elephant can´t be compared to a small bird in an example and that is not the flexibility I am asking for when purchasing this lens. But maybe there is someone out there who can give me their thoughts on how it is to use a 600mm?

I photograph everything. All from wild boars and deers to tiny birds. Is it too limited so any place that has not got an open area of many meters is too hard to handle? Do I need open fields or is it flexible enough in the woods? Now I am talking about the focal length and not the handling.

Do you who own this lens often feel that a 500mm would have been a better focal length and for you who own a 500mm does it feel a bit short from time to time? I know that many use their 600mm with converters so that is a proof that more reach is wanted sometimes but for avarage use and not only small birds?

On a regular day I have the chance to photograph everything from small birds to big deers, foxes and so on. I have a 70-200mm which will often follow as a backup and I think I later will go with the 300mm 2,8 as a more flexible smaller lens those days the big one will stay at home or so.

I know it´s tricky to answer but maybe you who have the lens can tell me your thoughts and how you use it. And maybe even what made you go for this instead of the 500mm.

 

[East Wind Photography]

I use it for birds in flight but I have also used it for landscape as well as other nature photos. It all depends on how close you are going to get. For a zoo it's too much lens...for a safari you may wish you had an 800. I use this lens almost exclusively now with a full frame camera. With a cropped sensor camera you get about the same fl with a 400mm. You could also rent a 300 mm and a 2xiii converter and see how you like the fl.

 

[lol]

I haven't used a 600mm prime, but do use the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 with 2x at times. In that sense I find the zoom valuable. For a similar price to the 600L, there's the 200-400L that could be considered? At 600mm it will have less aperture than the 600L, but you gain the benefit of the zoom.

At a practical level I'm not keen on the weight of the Sigma, so I hate to imagine lugging the 600L around in the wild. I haven't used either but do understand the weight difference between the 500L and 600L is quite significant.

 

[Morlin]

I have thought about the 200-400L but I want the shallower dof you get from the prime lenses 500-600mm and also I want the reach you can get from a 500-600 with a converter. The 200-400mm is a good one but it´s too big for the shorter distances where I might have wanted a easier lens to carry. For those times I think I would manage having 200-400 in focal length I would prefer carrying a 300mm 2,8 instead even though the zoom has the benefit of the built in converter. With the 200-400 I would have flexibility in reach but not handling.

My thoughts are:

One "monster" like the 500 or 600 and then a faster more versatile lens for narrower or "quicker" shots or dusk/dawn where a 2,8 is needed. Or for those days I will walk around a lot in the woods where a big one is to hard to handle.

 

[Eldar]

A 300/2.8 and 600/4 combo is great. I decided to go for the 200-400 in combination with the 600. I have not regretted it. I would not worry much about DOF with the 200-400. 400 at f4 gives you pretty thin DOF and a good pop. At 560 f5.6 it is the same. But the primes are of course a little bit thinner. I had the 400 f2.8L IS II, but sold it when I got the 200-400. I am still thinking about the 300 f2.8L IS II. It may have the fastest and most accurate AF and it is extremely sharp, even with the 1.4x/2xIII extenders.

Regarding the 600, I have almost never felt that it is too long. I actually believe >80% of my shots are with the 1.4xIII extender. Since you have to do this a bit theoretically, one way of getting a feel for it is to calculate how far away you need to be, for whatever you are shooting to fill the frame, and then go out a see what that means in real life. My guess would be that you could use the 600 for most of it. If you complement that with a 300, you are definitely well set up.

 

[takesome1]

On a regular day I have the chance to photograph everything from small birds to big deers, foxes and so on.

MFD of the 600mm is 14.77 feet.
You can not be closer than that.

For birds and foxes you want the 600mm.
For big game like deer and elk the 500mm would be my preference.

It all depends on how close you regularly get.

The difference in the two lenses isn't that drastic, simple explanation is that you will have the same field of view with the 500mm at 500' that you do with the 600mm at 600'. You have about a 18% reach advantage with the 600mm.

 

[privatebydesign]

On a regular day I have the chance to photograph everything from small birds to big deers, foxes and so on.

MFD of the 600mm is 14.77 feet.
You can not be closer than that.

For birds and foxes you want the 600mm.
For big game like deer and elk the 500mm would be my preference.

It all depends on how close you regularly get.

The difference in the two lenses isn't that drastic, simple explanation is that you will same field of view with the 500mm at 500' that you do with the 600mm at 600'. You have about a 18% reach advantage with the 600mm.

The MFD is easily worked around with the use of a 15 or 25 mm extension tube.

 

[takesome1]

On a regular day I have the chance to photograph everything from small birds to big deers, foxes and so on.

MFD of the 600mm is 14.77 feet.
You can not be closer than that.

For birds and foxes you want the 600mm.
For big game like deer and elk the 500mm would be my preference.

It all depends on how close you regularly get.

The difference in the two lenses isn't that drastic, simple explanation is that you will same field of view with the 500mm at 500' that you do with the 600mm at 600'. You have about a 18% reach advantage with the 600mm.

The MFD is easily worked around with the use of a 15 or 25 mm extension tube.

Yes it is, but I didn't say a 600mm with an extension tube is....

 

[Loswr]

... the only thing I can do to get an idea about using this focal length is to look at many pictures of a variety of animals and try to figure out if it´s a good thing to go for or not.

I'm not sure how helpful it is to look at others' images. You might try cropping a bunch of your images to 1/3 their original size (1/3 of width, 1/3 of height), and if you're cutting off lots if body parts, 600mm might be too long.

I don't find it too long, in fact, I probably shoot about 85% with the 1.4xIII, 5% with the 2xIII, and only 10% with the bare lens (on a FF camera).

The shots below are with the 1.4x, the second one as the hawk flew close by is uncropped in the horzontal direction, and for that shot I had to add a little canvas on the right to give the red tail some 'flying room' in the frame. There were a couple of shots in the series where a wing tip was out of the frame, so maybe 840mm was too long, but 600mm wouldn't have been.

"Taking Flight"

EOS 1D X, EF 600mm f/4L IS II + EF 1.4x III Extender, 1/2500 s, f/8, ISO 640

"Flyby"

EOS 1D X, EF 600mm f/4L IS II + EF 1.4x III Extender, 1/2500 s, f/8, ISO 640

 

[Don Haines]

My longest lens is 400mm on a crop body. It is not long enough for birding and wildlife. Many times you can not get any closer without swimming, or if you get close enough for a picture, the animal leaves. Sometimes you do not want to get closer (I call my 400 my Grizzly Bear lens cause that's as close as I want to get).

I would love to have a 600F4, and if I did get one it would be paired with a 1.4X teleconverter for more reach.

 

[East Wind Photography]

So...as with any lens there is a penalty when using an extender. The 1.4xiii is undoubtedly the best choice for most cases but the biggest hit you get is with AF speed. I've found with the 5diii or 1dx that you don't gain a whole lot with the extender. I've compared crops with and without and you can't really tell the difference in the real world without pixel peeping. You are far better off in aperture and AF speed to use the big primes without an extender and crop in post. An exception is when your subject is at the limit of the system and then an extender will help. However honestly if the subject is at the limit of the 600 you may be better off waiting for another opportunity.

My longest lens is 400mm on a crop body. It is not long enough for birding and wildlife. Many times you can not get any closer without swimming, or if you get close enough for a picture, the animal leaves. Sometimes you do not want to get closer (I call my 400 my Grizzly Bear lens cause that's as close as I want to get).

I would love to have a 600F4, and if I did get one it would be paired with a 1.4X teleconverter for more reach.

 

[Morlin]

I really like this forum. Said it before and it´s worth mentioning again =)

So you have convinced me =) I will keep on saving with the aim towards the 600mm. Maybe in a couple of month if it all turns out well. I have enough for the lens itself pretty soon but I don´t want to buy it before I have all the other gear it takes to use it. Of course it can be handheld but I have a looong list that includes all from a RRS tripod and leveling base to lenscoat camo, Wimberley gimbal head and a Lowepro bag for it =) Much much money but my girlfriend is ok with it so and we have food on the table so why not. Sold my motorbike and this is my only interest so let it cost then. There must be more reasons to go to work than just get your bills and food paid. Hehe.

I live very near a good place where I always see fallow deer every time I am over there and often eagles, foxes, moose, badgers and a lot of other animals. It´s a photographers heaven. Of course nothing like a rainforrest or safari in Africa but really good to have 10 minutes away =)

 

[surapon]

Hi.

Ok.. I know that there has been several threads regarding this focal length and I have also created one earlier regarding the accessories needed to support and use a lens this big but here comes another one =)

It´s hard for me to rent one and I have no friend that owns one so the only thing I can do to get an idea about using this focal length is to look at many pictures of a variety of animals and try to figure out if it´s a good thing to go for or not.

Is it a very limited use for this lens? Does objects need to be VERY far away to fill the frame in a good way?
Of course I understand that an elephant can´t be compared to a small bird in an example and that is not the flexibility I am asking for when purchasing this lens. But maybe there is someone out there who can give me their thoughts on how it is to use a 600mm?

I photograph everything. All from wild boars and deers to tiny birds. Is it too limited so any place that has not got an open area of many meters is too hard to handle? Do I need open fields or is it flexible enough in the woods? Now I am talking about the focal length and not the handling.

Do you who own this lens often feel that a 500mm would have been a better focal length and for you who own a 500mm does it feel a bit short from time to time? I know that many use their 600mm with converters so that is a proof that more reach is wanted sometimes but for avarage use and not only small birds?

On a regular day I have the chance to photograph everything from small birds to big deers, foxes and so on. I have a 70-200mm which will often follow as a backup and I think I later will go with the 300mm 2,8 as a more flexible smaller lens those days the big one will stay at home or so.

I know it´s tricky to answer but maybe you who have the lens can tell me your thoughts and how you use it. And maybe even what made you go for this instead of the 500mm.

Dear Morlin.
Your Question = " 600mm too long? " , Do you ever seen 16 "/50 Caliber M 1919 Gun in US Army ?---Is it too long ?----The Answer is NO, Not Too long, Depend on what will we/ US Army use for. Yes, I have 70-200 MM, 100-400 mm With 1.4X, 2X and not long enough to shoot the subjects far away, such as wild lifes,Beautiful moon, that we can not go closer, That why 2-3 years ago, I get 600 mm. And I am very happy ABOUT THIS third big Gun---Yes, Next will be my 800 mm, And If my wife do not divorce me before I die, My last lens is 1,200 mm. ( $ 120,000 US Dollars ???)---Ha, Ha, Ha
Nice to talk to you.
Surapon

 

[surapon]

Yes, I have 70-200 MM, 100-400 mm With 1.4X, 2X and not long enough to shoot the subjects far away, such as wild lifes,Beautiful moon, that we can not go closer,
Surapon

 

[Morlin]

Yes, I have 70-200 MM, 100-400 mm With 1.4X, 2X and not long enough to shoot the subjects far away, such as wild lifes,Beautiful moon, that we can not go closer,
Surapon

Never given the moon that much of a thought as a object to photograph but as you show it can be really nice pictures.
Thank you for your advices and I am getting more and more convinced that I will be happy with a 600mm.

I have the 2x mkiii converter and have used it sometimes on my 70-200 but never really liked the result that much. Often better to crop. But guess I will save it though if I ever get the 300mm which seems to be the best lens to use it with.

Nice to see your photos. Someday I might post some myself showing the result of my new purchase =)

 

[Don Haines]

Yes, I have 70-200 MM, 100-400 mm With 1.4X, 2X and not long enough to shoot the subjects far away, such as wild lifes,Beautiful moon, that we can not go closer,
Surapon

Never given the moon that much of a thought as a object to photograph but as you show it can be really nice pictures.
Thank you for your advices and I am getting more and more convinced that I will be happy with a 600mm.

I have the 2x mkiii converter and have used it sometimes on my 70-200 but never really liked the result that much. Often better to crop. But guess I will save it though if I ever get the 300mm which seems to be the best lens to use it with.

Nice to see your photos. Someday I might post some myself showing the result of my new purchase =)

On most lenses a teleconverter costs you resolving power, but when you use ultra sharp lenses like the big whites, the lens is so sharp that the degraded image through a teleconverter is still better than the camera could normally resolve.

 

[surapon]

Yes, I have 70-200 MM, 100-400 mm With 1.4X, 2X and not long enough to shoot the subjects far away, such as wild lifes,Beautiful moon, that we can not go closer,
Surapon

Never given the moon that much of a thought as a object to photograph but as you show it can be really nice pictures.
Thank you for your advices and I am getting more and more convinced that I will be happy with a 600mm.

I have the 2x mkiii converter and have used it sometimes on my 70-200 but never really liked the result that much. Often better to crop. But guess I will save it though if I ever get the 300mm which seems to be the best lens to use it with.

Nice to see your photos. Someday I might post some myself showing the result of my new purchase =)

You are welcome, Dear Morlin.
I still in learning stage in every days, Yes, Learning from all of our friends, CR Members = The PRO, SEMI-PRO and Hobbyist----Yes, Some time, If we think( Ha, Ha, Ha = ???), We know some Information or Good Tricks/ Mistake that we made in the Past, Yes, We just share to our friends. Yes I was the Member of " Multiply web site" for 8 years, we do the same thing here, SHARING---But The Multiply Web site was closed 11 months ago.
Yes, Please Post your Photos, Good or Bad---No one care, But my point are, We learn from the UNIQUE POINT OF VIEWS of all the Photos that Post Here----Yes, The Difference Technique of individual Photographers too. No, So many times, Sharp or not sharp is not matter, But The Most important Idea are the Composition, The Story Teller and The Point of Views.----Just only my IDEAS, Some of our friends might think in difference ways, depend on their skill and knowledge of their brains.
Have a great day.
Surapon

 

[Deleted member 91053]

Yes, I have 70-200 MM, 100-400 mm With 1.4X, 2X and not long enough to shoot the subjects far away, such as wild lifes,Beautiful moon, that we can not go closer,
Surapon

Never given the moon that much of a thought as a object to photograph but as you show it can be really nice pictures.
Thank you for your advices and I am getting more and more convinced that I will be happy with a 600mm.

I have the 2x mkiii converter and have used it sometimes on my 70-200 but never really liked the result that much. Often better to crop. But guess I will save it though if I ever get the 300mm which seems to be the best lens to use it with.

Nice to see your photos. Someday I might post some myself showing the result of my new purchase =)

The 2 x Mk3 extender is quite useable with the 600 F4 IS Mk1 in good light and (apparently) better with the 600 Mk2.
You didn't say whether you were looking to get a 600 Mk1 or Mk2. I used to have the Mk1 and it is a superb lens, but very heavy - the Mk2 is significantly lighter but more expensive.

As to the lens being too long, well sometime, it can be - but not often! I sold my 600 to help pay for a Canon 800 F5.6 L IS - so I think you can guess my opinion on how often the 600 was too long!

 

[AlanF]

Where I live you can rarely get close enough to birds. 600 is not long enough for me. But, on my one birding holiday in Brazil, the 100-400 on a 7D was pretty optimal as we got so close to the birds and a 600 would have been too long and unwieldy for much of the time.

 

[East Wind Photography]

Morlin, yes the lens is just the first big expense. It can be handheld for about 10 or 15 seconds....more if you work out with it! Not something you want to do every day. The shot below is one I took hand held on a VERY windy and cold morning (hat blew off and ended up hiking after it after the shoot) with IS enabled. I had just pulled into a parking lot and this adult was feeding in a tree over a nearby creek...no time to deal with tripods or monopods...just get out and start shooting...freezing cold and screaming in pain from holding the lens up for so long...but I got the shot. So maybe get the lens and move forward with the accessories later. Have some fun first.

I really like this forum. Said it before and it´s worth mentioning again =)

So you have convinced me =) I will keep on saving with the aim towards the 600mm. Maybe in a couple of month if it all turns out well. I have enough for the lens itself pretty soon but I don´t want to buy it before I have all the other gear it takes to use it. Of course it can be handheld but I have a looong list that includes all from a RRS tripod and leveling base to lenscoat camo, Wimberley gimbal head and a Lowepro bag for it =) Much much money but my girlfriend is ok with it so and we have food on the table so why not. Sold my motorbike and this is my only interest so let it cost then. There must be more reasons to go to work than just get your bills and food paid. Hehe.

I live very near a good place where I always see fallow deer every time I am over there and often eagles, foxes, moose, badgers and a lot of other animals. It´s a photographers heaven. Of course nothing like a rainforrest or safari in Africa but really good to have 10 minutes away =)