Birding 11 Days with the 600mm

[Loswr]

Here's one of my heron shots. The colors aren't that far off I don't think. This was just with a 50D and 135 f/2 + 2.0x TC ii, about 3 years ago.

I like the composition, but overall the image is extremely soft, and I find the purple spot near the bottom to be very distracting.

 

[CarlTN]

Here's one of my heron shots. The colors aren't that far off I don't think. This was just with a 50D and 135 f/2 + 2.0x TC ii, about 3 years ago.

I like the composition, but overall the image is extremely soft, and I find the purple spot near the bottom to be very distracting.

The purple spot is a defocused flower, one of the few my mom planted there, and I wanted to get it in and add some color. If it looks bad to you, so be it. It looks fine to me. Nothing is perfect, at least it's not "faked". It's soft because I didn't want to show a hi-rez version. This is a 16x20 print, it's quite sharp. If I had shown the high rez version, you would have been happy to still criticize it for not having the kind of sharpness that people in Massachusetts expect to have in their photos.

 

[revup67]

Hi Neuro - sorry for that long delay to your question - ultimately I chose the Canon 500mm F4 IS II. The MTF charts showed slightly better than the 600 and also thought the 600 was too much reach to have as a constant focal length. Grabbed the Canon 1.4 III tele for the extra reach when needed.

Got the 500mm for just under 8600.00 - new and from a Canon Authorized dealer vs. the 11,799 for the 600. For 3k+ in savings it made a bit more sense. With the savings I grabbed the 1.4 tele for $425 and a 600AW II trekker for about $150 and gave the balance to the wife

Here's a photo from a few days ago with the 500mm straight - no tele


"Coming To A Dinner Table Near You" - Turkey Vulture (Bust shot) (13171) by Revup67, on Flickr

 

[NancyP]

Thanks for the review. Does the cone grip help you keep your elbow against your body? Yes, the description of your fitness is very pertinent. I too shoot with the 400mm f/5.6L hand held, which is like a toy lens compared with one of the f/4 or f/2.8 lenses. One of my concerns is not being able to hand hold the 600mm lens, and I am indeed working with dumbbells to increase arm and upper core strength. I am guessing that I am going to need to get to at least 15# in endurance style sets, but what do I know? At any rate, once I get to my desired fitness level, I am going to rent first the 600mm and then if that's too heavy the 500mm.

 

[Loswr]

Hi Neuro - sorry for that long delay to your question - ultimately I chose the Canon 500mm F4 IS II. The MTF charts showed slightly better than the 600 and also thought the 600 was too much reach to have as a constant focal length. Grabbed the Canon 1.4 III tele for the extra reach when needed.

It's a tough choice to decide between the 500 II and 600 II. The cost difference pays for both extenders and another decent lens...or better yet, the tripod and gimbal for the lens.

I went with the 600 because I mainly shoot birds. I've never had it be too long, and there was only once it was sort of too long at 840mm, a red tail flying low directly overhead, I lost about 50% of shots to clipped wingtips. I use it with the 2x and don't find it too long.

Great portrait of the vulture, Rev!

 

[CarlTN]

Hi Neuro - sorry for that long delay to your question - ultimately I chose the Canon 500mm F4 IS II. The MTF charts showed slightly better than the 600 and also thought the 600 was too much reach to have as a constant focal length. Grabbed the Canon 1.4 III tele for the extra reach when needed.

Got the 500mm for just under 8600.00 - new and from a Canon Authorized dealer vs. the 11,799 for the 600. For 3k+ in savings it made a bit more sense. With the savings I grabbed the 1.4 tele for $425 and a 600AW II trekker for about $150 and gave the balance to the wife

Here's a photo from a few days ago with the 500mm straight - no tele


"Coming To A Dinner Table Near You" - Turkey Vulture (Bust shot) (13171) by Revup67, on Flickr

I agree with all of your decisions completely and would have done the same, up until the part where you gave the balance to the wife...hahaha!

Um, I want to say "nice shot", but that vulture is well, I don't think even his mother loves that face!

 

[revup67]

Thanks Carl and Neuro.

@Nancy wrote:

Thanks for the review. Does the cone grip help you keep your elbow against your body? Yes, the description of your fitness is very pertinent. I too shoot with the 400mm f/5.6L hand held, which is like a toy lens compared with one of the f/4 or f/2.8 lenses. One of my concerns is not being able to hand hold the 600mm lens, and I am indeed working with dumbbells to increase arm and upper core strength. I am guessing that I am going to need to get to at least 15# in endurance style sets, but what do I know? At any rate, once I get to my desired fitness level, I am going to rent first the 600mm and then if that's too heavy the 500mm.

Nancy - yes that cone does help either against the belly or free holding (ps don't by the camera grip by Cinevate. Got that as a replacement / upgrade for the plastic one I have and had issues with it) Try searching or even calling B and H for a camera grip 1/4" that threads into that lens foot. I also wrapped the lens foot base with black foam that you see around A/C central air units piping.
Thanks for agreeing on the fitness. I shoot with a friend that opts not to workout and he does carry a tripod and gimbal around. We're all different and find whatever works best for each of our needs. I applaud your strategy and think that is an excellent way to go. The hardest part of all this (I shoot almost exclusively birds) is juggling binoculars and a cell phone for bird ID and tracking along with the camera gear. The Samsung Note II goes in the back pocket but when the need to log a species is evident (frequent of course) that juggling aspect of phone and camera gear can be a bit daunting. I find I am best suited with the camera gear and phone only (no binos though I wish) as its simply overwhelming at that point.

 

[Deleted member 91053]

Congratulations on the 500 Mk2! I have had the opportunity to try one and was very impressed, especially as it is only a little heavier than my 300 F2.8 IS Mk1.
I shoot mainly the smaller bird species so the 800 is more appropriate for my needs but the 500 Mk2 is a fine lens and it won't break your back! My normal Birding load is the 800 F5.6 IS, the 300 F2.8 IS + a 1 series body - not too bad for weight. However when you add on the necessary extras like a tripod, head, spare battery, backpack, flask of tea (essential - I am British!) etc etc... it is around 50 lbs so I am not going too far with that lot!
The 500 Mk2 makes seriously long lenses very portable - you will be happy!

 

[Dylan777]

Hi Rev,
I went to http://bolsachica.org/ to test out my 400mm. The water there is calm. It's on Warner and Pacific Coast Highway

Dylan

 

[revup67]

@johnf3f - you are a brave soul to carry all that gear. the 800 is one fine lens so a congrats back to you as well! I think with shooter larger birds, the 600 was too much reach as I've cut off wings and other body parts on birds like Pelicans. it is as you as portray a top notch lens for smaller birds. if you have a link on flickr would like to see your work.

@Dylan - Bolsa Chica is fabulous isn't it? Don't get up there as often as I would like but noted there is also a Flickr group dedicated to just Bolsa Chica. I've been at the Pacific Coast Highway entrance and also the entrance off Bolsa Chica Street (prefer this entrance especially) to see the Northern Harrier's, White-tailed Kites, Osprey and other raptors. Wonderful photo by the way.

 

[Deleted member 91053]

@johnf3f - you are a brave soul to carry all that gear. the 800 is one fine lens so a congrats back to you as well! I think with shooter larger birds, the 600 was too much reach as I've cut off wings and other body parts on birds like Pelicans. it is as you as portray a top notch lens for smaller birds. if you have a link on flickr would like to see your work.

I managed to get my Canon 800 F5.6 pretty cheap and find it easier to carry than the 600 F4 I used to have. As you say it is a fine lens, though I do find F5.6 a little limiting the IQ, reach and lighter weight more than make up for this. As you say it is a great lens for smaller birds, attached is a Bittern I spotted this morning - it is unedited just JPEGed and scaled for web.
You are right that the very long lenses are not ideal for birds in flight. At the ranges where you can fit in a large bird then the image is degraded by the distance between you and the birds. More importantly I find it very difficult to get the bird in the viewfinder at all! For this sort of thing I use a Canon 300 F2.8 L IS, which is why I often carry both!
I actually have a Flikr account but am having trouble accessing it so no images up yet.

 

[East Wind Photography]

I cant imaging carrying an 800 would be easier but I guess there is more to sling over your shoulder to reduce the "pinch" points. I often carry the 600L with my 300 2.8L but often the weight it unbearable, especially if you have to hike a good distance to get to your subject. I find that whatever lens is used it never has enough reach. It's nice to have extenders but nothing is better than using a big prime without an extender where possible. The biggest issue I find with reach is that you usually succumb to distortions caused by air disturbances.

600mm F4L IS, 1.4xiii, 7D, post processed from RAW in DxO

 

[Deleted member 91053]

I cant imaging carrying an 800 would be easier but I guess there is more to sling over your shoulder to reduce the "pinch" points. I often carry the 600L with my 300 2.8L but often the weight it unbearable, especially if you have to hike a good distance to get to your subject. I find that whatever lens is used it never has enough reach. It's nice to have extenders but nothing is better than using a big prime without an extender where possible. The biggest issue I find with reach is that you usually succumb to distortions caused by air disturbances.

600mm F4L IS, 1.4xiii, 7D, post processed from RAW in DxO

The Canon 800 F5.6 is easier to carry than the Canon 600 F40L IS (Mk1) because it is smaller and lighter. According to Canon the 800 is 5mm longer, 5mm thinner (much thinner nearer the camera end) and 860 grams lighter - that makes a surprising difference if you are carrying the 300 F2.8 as well!

 

[Greatland]

I rented the 800 and took it to Svalbard..shared the expense with another photographer. We both had the 500 that we took with us as well. The 800 was very good without an extender, even the version III extender made the image soft. After the new 600 came out I sold my 500 and purchased the 600 II....when I combine it with the 1.4 III extender the quality of my pictures are SHARPER than the 800 was without an extender....so I now get 840 reach, with a lighter lense and a superior quality picture...and if I don't need the extender I have a little more flexibility with the 600 than the 800 provided....combined with my 1Dx and my recently purchased 200-400 I think that I have all of the bases covered, telephoto wise.....I am keeping both of these lenses.....you never know when you need the 840 reach when you are shooting wildlife....but can't handhold the 600, not and still get quality shots all of the time.....

 

[eml58]

I rented the 800 and took it to Svalbard..shared the expense with another photographer. We both had the 500 that we took with us as well. The 800 was very good without an extender, even the version III extender made the image soft. After the new 600 came out I sold my 500 and purchased the 600 II....when I combine it with the 1.4 III extender the quality of my pictures are SHARPER than the 800 was without an extender....so I now get 840 reach, with a lighter lense and a superior quality picture...and if I don't need the extender I have a little more flexibility with the 600 than the 800 provided....combined with my 1Dx and my recently purchased 200-400 I think that I have all of the bases covered, telephoto wise.....I am keeping both of these lenses.....you never know when you need the 840 reach when you are shooting wildlife....but can't handhold the 600, not and still get quality shots all of the time.....

Hi Guys, great Thread, enjoying it.

Although I've never used the 800f/5.6 in the right hands it's clearly an excellent Lens for Birding, I've gone though for a similar arrangement to "Greatland" 600f/4 II (with V III 1.4x) + the 200-400f/4 & my totally favourite Lens of all time, the 300f/2.8 II.

I have owned the 400f/2.8 Versions 1 & 2, but once I purchased the 200-400f/4 found it somewhat superfluous, as long as I have the 300f/2.8 in the background.

On a recent trip to Svalbard there were a couple of people on the "Stockholm" that had the 500f/4 II, I did trie this Lens and thought it was also an excellent Lens.

Canon have done a wonderful job with these White Lenses, especially the Version II editions.

Love the Shot of the Heron with the Squirrel, I'm a little concerned if Sporgon sees it we will get into another round of "Squirrel" Images, I'm a little surprised Nuero hasn't posted one or two.

CarlTN love the Heron Image, get your Mum to plant a few more of those Purple Flowers, adds some colour to the Image.

Happy Birding Guys, the little blighters move to quick for me.

 

[Jack Douglas]

Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

I know I like my 300 II and extenders as needed for portability and shooting hand held. Recently I've been wondering about the 600 (that I can't afford) and I've basically concluded that it simply is not a hiking option but from this thread it seems the 500 is on the edge. I find I use 300 X2 most of the time and am reasonably happy. I assume 500 X1.4 would be a very decent option giving 700.

Do I make a case for a 500 over a 600, allowing also for the cost factor??

Jack

 

[eml58]

Do I make a case for a 500 over a 600, allowing also for the cost factor??

Jack

Hi Jack, your 300 set up is just great, have used it myself for years, at first with the 300f/2.8 V1 then later with the V2, the 300 in my view is still the sharpest best all round lens that Canon make. The 200f/2 is also an amazingly sharp lens but I feel lacks the versatility of the 300.

I went to the 600 when I still had the 400f/2.8 II as I was just wowed with the Images Gary Samples was getting with this Lens, and the 600 with 1.4x @ 840 is immaculate.

But the 500f/4 II has almost as much versatility, lower entry price by a significant margin, and as you say, will get you out to 700 without reverting to the 2x converter, which I'm not enamoured of.

Your issue I would guess would be having the 500 & not having the 300, you will miss that f/2.8 a lot of the time, but if you could have both ?? Almost heaven.

I did a stint in my Army days as a peace keeper (Zimbabwe 1980), the values stuck.

 

[Deleted member 91053]

I rented the 800 and took it to Svalbard..shared the expense with another photographer. We both had the 500 that we took with us as well. The 800 was very good without an extender, even the version III extender made the image soft. After the new 600 came out I sold my 500 and purchased the 600 II....when I combine it with the 1.4 III extender the quality of my pictures are SHARPER than the 800 was without an extender....so I now get 840 reach, with a lighter lense and a superior quality picture...and if I don't need the extender I have a little more flexibility with the 600 than the 800 provided....combined with my 1Dx and my recently purchased 200-400 I think that I have all of the bases covered, telephoto wise.....I am keeping both of these lenses.....you never know when you need the 840 reach when you are shooting wildlife....but can't handhold the 600, not and still get quality shots all of the time.....

I have the Canon 1.4 Mk2 extender and find that it works reasonably well with my 800 F5.6 though there is some IQ loss. The Canon 800 is not the best lens for use with extenders.
When I was buying I picked up my, used but near mint, Canon 800 F5.6 for abut 45% of the cost of a new Canon 600 F4 Mk2. I would prefer the 600 Mk2 but the price is simply out of the question!
Pity - I quite fancy one.

 

[Jack Douglas]

Thanks for that Edward. I think I will be aiming at a 500 sometime in the near future but I will not part with my 300. It was the recent advertized price of the 500 that really hit me - a lot more paletable than 10k-12k of the other options. A while back I bought the 70-200 2.8 II as a gap filler and am really happy with it. I try not to think what the total investment eventually will be.

I grew up in a loving family but my parents argued a lot. I much prefer peace; in forums too.

Jack

 

[revup67]

@eml58 you wrote:

But the 500f/4 II has almost as much versatility, lower entry price by a significant margin, and as you say, will get you out to 700 without reverting to the 2x converter, which I'm not enamoured of.

Your issue I would guess would be having the 500 & not having the 300, you will miss that f/2.8 a lot of the time, but if you could have both ?? Almost heaven.

Would agree with all you say though I have found at close range (MFD min. focal distance) with smaller birds that 2.8 (though offering more light) doesn't do much as the DOF disappears quickly. Even with the 500 @ F4 I've noticed this. That being said for birds at closer range, I typically up the F stop to 8 or more to capture more DOF from the crown to the tail. I rarely use F4 unless my subject is off in the distance and I am needing more light.

Sample at close range at F8 with 500 IS II and 1.4 III (wish I had chosen a smaller F stop such as F16 in this instance - diffraction considered) as the detail diminishes quickly as you may note. (no right or wrong here, just my opinion and lesser desire for wider apertures with wildlife at close range)


California Thrasher (12595) by Revup67, on Flickr