Birding 11 Days with the 600mm

[Jack Douglas]

revup67, you make very good points. Sometimes the "focus" is so much on the eye that one tends to forget that it's nice to see all of the bird's beauty. I'm presently trying to come to grips with just that. Then there is the issue of not wanting background that is distracting due to too much DOF. If I've only learned one thing it's this: If you don't like compromises don't get into photography!

Jack

 

[East Wind Photography]

revup67, you make very good points. Sometimes the "focus" is so much on the eye that one tends to forget that it's nice to see all of the bird's beauty. I'm presently trying to come to grips with just that. Then there is the issue of not wanting background that is distracting due to too much DOF. If I've only learned one thing it's this: If you don't like compromises don't get into photography!

Jack

Yes it's good to know the DOF for your lens and camera. A DOF app can help so you can get what you want in focus but still blur the background enough to isolate the subject.

 

[mackguyver]

I'm just catching up on this thread, but I love the photos (esp. the squirrel / heron shots) and good discussion about lenses. I have borrowed the 800, 600 I, and 400 I from CPS and really liked the reach and IS of the 800 over the other lenses but found the size (and the weight somewhat) to be the biggest inconvenience. I was all set to buy the 200-400 1.4x until I realized the size and price were much more than I was expecting.

I tend to stalk, or stalk and wait, my subjects and have been amazed that I can carry and hand-hold the 300 II all day without needing a tripod or monopod. It's definitely limiting (even with the 2x III) for small or distant birds, but the ability to get closer to them counts for a lot. It's more work, but I love the challenge of wildlife photography and my income doesn't suffer (much) if I miss shots. While I understand their use, I have no interest in gimbal heads, and even though wiser men would stay further from some of the subjects I shoot, I find the 300mm length is perfect and the f/2.8 is amazing. I agree that it's too shallow for some shots, but the AF performance and ability to defocus the background is amazing. I also like the versatility to shoot it at 300, 420, and 600mm. I've shot portraits at 300mm, and I'm covering a horse event later this week and shooting the Blue Angels in a few weeks. I think 500mm+ would be really limiting for these purposes so I'm happy with the 300.

I'm interested in the cone handle - the RRS replacement foot I have on my 300 is great for the tripod/monopod, but not too comfortable to carry around and hand hold. How did it ultimately work out?

 

[Jack Douglas]

mackguyver, you and I and AlanF have pretty much expressed the same thing in different threads and I haven't changed my opinion on the 300. I also influenced a friend to buy it. However, in my case so far for birds I would almost never go out without 300 X2 and then I typically would end up cropping somewhat and so when I see the 600 prime shots, well, you know ......

Thinking about the 500 and getting to 700 without much degradation is tempting but I'm afraid it would be competition for the 300 and unless my better half was willing to pack it for me I can't see doing what you describe (trekking through the bush) carrying both!

The result would probably be using the 300 for longer hikes and the 500 when stationed closer to a favorite spot and being quite immobile. The gimbal head is really good at times but often it's a pain and I don't pack a tripod on longer hikes unless I know for certain I'll want it. For me stalking is a mix of going where things look hopeful and then often just sitting, since many birds really do get used to one's presence after 15 or 20 minutes and I enjoy reflecting on the scenery and action in a given location. Usually, I don't prefer just walking and walking and walking but I'm at retirement age.

Compromises and more compromises, ugh. It's probably better when you just can't possibly afford it!

Jack

 

[CarlTN]

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

Thank you very kindly!

 

[CarlTN]

mackguyver, you and I and AlanF have pretty much expressed the same thing in different threads and I haven't changed my opinion on the 300. I also influenced a friend to buy it. However, in my case so far for birds I would almost never go out without 300 X2 and then I typically would end up cropping somewhat and so when I see the 600 prime shots, well, you know ......

Thinking about the 500 and getting to 700 without much degradation is tempting but I'm afraid it would be competition for the 300 and unless my better half was willing to pack it for me I can't see doing what you describe (trekking through the bush) carrying both!

The result would probably be using the 300 for longer hikes and the 500 when stationed closer to a favorite spot and being quite immobile. The gimbal head is really good at times but often it's a pain and I don't pack a tripod on longer hikes unless I know for certain I'll want it. For me stalking is a mix of going where things look hopeful and then often just sitting, since many birds really do get used to one's presence after 15 or 20 minutes and I enjoy reflecting on the scenery and action in a given location. Usually, I don't prefer just walking and walking and walking but I'm at retirement age.

Compromises and more compromises, ugh. It's probably better when you just can't possibly afford it!

Jack

I would never go anywhere with a lens that weighs more than 4 pounds without my monopod. I'm not exactly a weak guy, either. I guess it's all in what you are used to.

 

[Jack Douglas]

CarlTn, I'm 5'-9, 145 lbs and retired but I can walk comfortably with my 6D and 300 X2 for hours, with breaks shooting of course. That's almost 7 lbs. There is a way I carry the camera/lens that really helps - the front of the Jobu foot caught by my right hand fingers and the camera cradled in the 90 degree bend of my right arm, strap over left shoulder and under right, quite short so it's tight when I shoot. I duck branches and jump puddles and so forth. No complaints.

Two more lbs for the 500 makes me wonder though. Its length might be more of a problem. For reference a 1Dx body is 3.4 lbs - my friend bought and I resisted after handling his so it's not like I'm ambivalent about the added weight of these choices. Don't think the cost doesn't factor in too!

But 6D, 300 X2 is quite OK, absolutely.

How do those of you hiking with the 500 handle it?


Jack

 

[CarlTN]

CarlTn, I'm 5'-9, 145 lbs and retired but I can walk comfortably with my 6D and 300 X2 for hours, with breaks shooting of course. That's almost 7 lbs. There is a way I carry the camera/lens that really helps - the front of the Jobu foot caught by my right hand fingers and the camera cradled in the 90 degree bend of my right arm, strap over left shoulder and under right, quite short so it's tight when I shoot. I duck branches and jump puddles and so forth. No complaints.

Two more lbs for the 500 makes me wonder though. Its length might be more of a problem. For reference a 1Dx body is 3.4 lbs - my friend bought and I resisted after handling his so it's not like I'm ambivalent about the added weight of these choices. Don't think the cost doesn't factor in too!

But 6D, 300 X2 is quite OK, absolutely.

How do those of you hiking with the 500 handle it?


Jack

Hey Jack, that sounds fine to me, I could probably do it that way as well. I'm younger, barely taller, quite a bit heavier...though if I was down to 150 lb I could probably walk two or three 600's on my shoulders all day long if I had to (especially if somebody like you paid me $20 an hour to do it hahaha! Lens-caddying, yeahhh!!)

All I have is an Optech strap at the moment. I retract the monopod for carrying, and hold it sort of like you hold your cone handle. I'm just saying, that when I stop and start taking pictures, I prefer to be able to not be in a strain...especially if the subject is at some distance and I need to either wait for the right moment, or else wind up shooting a lot of images of it...and then delete the "less good" ones as I review them.

I find that if I am handholding a camera-lens (without the monopod), and suddenly the right moment comes...as I bring the camera to my face and hold the lens up...the moment has passed, or else the animal gets spooked while I'm doing that...especially true with small birds. Small birds will fly incredibly quickly, about as fast as a hummingbird. There's no way I can get the camera and 4 pounds of lens to my face in 1/10 of a second!

 

[East Wind Photography]

mackguyver, you and I and AlanF have pretty much expressed the same thing in different threads and I haven't changed my opinion on the 300. I also influenced a friend to buy it. However, in my case so far for birds I would almost never go out without 300 X2 and then I typically would end up cropping somewhat and so when I see the 600 prime shots, well, you know ......

Thinking about the 500 and getting to 700 without much degradation is tempting but I'm afraid it would be competition for the 300 and unless my better half was willing to pack it for me I can't see doing what you describe (trekking through the bush) carrying both!

The result would probably be using the 300 for longer hikes and the 500 when stationed closer to a favorite spot and being quite immobile. The gimbal head is really good at times but often it's a pain and I don't pack a tripod on longer hikes unless I know for certain I'll want it. For me stalking is a mix of going where things look hopeful and then often just sitting, since many birds really do get used to one's presence after 15 or 20 minutes and I enjoy reflecting on the scenery and action in a given location. Usually, I don't prefer just walking and walking and walking but I'm at retirement age.

Compromises and more compromises, ugh. It's probably better when you just can't possibly afford it!

Jack

The gimbal head has its purpose. Its useful in situations where you want to be ready with minimal movement. When im out shooting eagles fishing ill use my wimberly as most of the time you are waiting for something to happen. With a monopod you still need to hold it up for hours or raise the entire setup when its time.

I use the wimberly exclusively with my 600 mk1...painfully heavy.

I use my 300 mostly when im walking about...but sometimes i will take my 600 walking...and will pay the price later.

 

[mackguyver]

The 600 Mk I is a beast and I can't imagine carrying it around or using it without a gimbal, but I found that a monopod and the 800mm were a perfect match. As Jack says, the length is probably what we find more limiting than even the weight on the big(ger) whites.

I carry my 300 + 5DIII & grip around much like Jack describes. I either hold it just by the RRS foot, or I hold the body in one hand and cross my arms so the lens lays across the opposite forearm. I think a Cotton Carrier would really rock, but I don't have one.

Carrying the lens around and holding it for a shot or several shots takes some getting used to, but I can hold it up for 5-10 minutes at a time now with no problems. A monopod is great if you're going to be somewhere for a while to take the weight off, but the few times I've used a monopod, it's just been in the way and annoyed me. I'd rather lower the camera and take breaks. I was shackled to a tripod for years with my 400 f/5.6, so that might be part of it, too

The places I shoot aren't really conducive to the sit and wait approach, mainly because I'd be eaten alive by fire ants, mosquitoes and other bugs, but I'm sure a gimbal would be very welcome, especially if you're waiting for fishing eagles, ospreys, and such.

 

[Jack Douglas]

CarlTN, your points are perfectly valid. The only thing I would add is I seldom try to follow a flitting bird. I've found that many/most smaller birds like warblers seem to travel over a territory and if I get out early and park myself where they typically pass, then they couldn't care less about the human object and they just putter around where I am for a while. Then, off they go and it's pointless for me to think I can follow them.

Now, everyone has their different techniques and style and not everyone has the time available to sit around like I do after hiking somewhere. That's the advantage of retirement! I'll buy a cheap folding chair and just leave it somewhere once I see there are good possibilites like by my pond. No thefts so far.

These comments of mine along with those of others go into the pot for everyone to consider what might work for them. I enjoy soaking up all I can especially from those who obviously have it sorted out - wow!

Jack

 

[mackguyver]

That's the advantage of retirement!

I'm very jealous!

 

[revup67]

How do those of you hiking with the 500 handle it?

We're all different but I hand hold this 500mm IS II, 1.4 extender, 5D Mark III around my neck for about 3 hours with hiking included. I alternate with right hand grabbing by the collar as if I was carrying a baseball bat to offer an example. I sometimes put my my left hand under the hood and hold with right hand at collar or just carry upright with left hand on cone handle and right on camera grip. The tripod and gimbal are in my opinion just unnecessary every second counts with shooting birds. I won't lie, it's a bit cumbersome and sometimes you want that resting option in which this scenario does not offer. I usually carry along a Samsung Note II to track birds and play calls if needed, sometimes binos and it does take some getting used too..somewhat of a juggling act. Ultimately, you just know in the back of your head all the discomforts that this may bring on is reaped afterwards when viewing the end results. It just doesn't disappoint. I've a friend that uses the 300 2.8 and swears by it and its a great lens but I personally graduated from the 400 to the 500 as for smaller targets the 300 is simply a stretch and with birds you typically can't get close enough thus the extra focal range is needed. Hope this helps.

 

[East Wind Photography]

That's the advantage of retirement!

I'm very jealous!

The disadvantage is that most cannot afford a 500 or 600 mkii in retirement. Need to get your hard working kids to get you one for fathers day.

 

[Jack Douglas]

revup67, I think you've convinced me that it is manageable. Of course it's not going to be as easy as the 300, and I do think the 300 is "easy".

What I don't need any convincing about is "looking at the final results". I graduated from a Nikon D5100 and a 70-300 zoom to what I have now and I'm covered in pinch marks from one year with the 300. I'm addicted and have the time.

It's what comes after retirement that's the problem, assuming there are years left in the old body, they are not always quality years. Still, shooting beats golf by a long shot - no offence folks.

Father's day - not a chance! I'm pretty sure my 500 shooting will only be in my dreams, but I'll enjoy it never the less.

Any other 500 shooters out there with comments?

Jack

 

[Deleted member 91053]

The 600 Mk I is a beast and I can't imagine carrying it around or using it without a gimbal, but I found that a monopod and the 800mm were a perfect match. As Jack says, the length is probably what we find more limiting than even the weight on the big(ger) whites.

I caught a friend of mine doing some woodland landscape shots hand held with his (used to be mine) 600 F4 IS Mk1 - but then he is an idiot! Just a fairly strong one.

The 500 F4 Mk2 has been mentioned. I have only had a brief play with one of these and like it very much. The owner regularly walks 5 to 8 miles with it with a 1.4 extender and 1D4 attached. He doesn't normally bother with support as this lens balances beautifully for hand holding. Having tried it the 500 mk2 +1.4 extender is very easy to hand hold and even more so than my 300 F2.8 IS Mk1 with a 2 x extender and same body. Yes it is a bit heavier but, to me, it balances better and feels lighter in my hands.
I am really fancying one of these lenses!

 

[mackguyver]

I have a question for the 500+ guys - how many of you shoot bare glass (i.e. with no extenders?). I was reviewing Art Morris' blog posts the other day and noticed that he almost always has an extender (usually the 2x!) on his 600mm. I realize he has a style that requires close shots, but it mirrored my experience with the 800mm. It just didn't seem long enough - or should I say it was too long for stuff that was close to mid-distance but not long enough for nesting eagles and such.

 

[Loswr]

I have a question for the 500+ guys - how many of you shoot bare glass (i.e. with no extenders?). I was reviewing Art Morris' blog posts the other day and noticed that he almost always has an extender (usually the 2x!) on his 600mm. I realize he has a style that requires close shots, but it mirrored my experience with the 800mm. It just didn't seem long enough - or should I say it was too long for stuff that was close to mid-distance but not long enough for nesting eagles and such.

Bare 600 II - 15%
600 II + 1.4xIII - 55%
600 II + 2xIII - 30%

 

[mackguyver]

I have a question for the 500+ guys - how many of you shoot bare glass (i.e. with no extenders?). I was reviewing Art Morris' blog posts the other day and noticed that he almost always has an extender (usually the 2x!) on his 600mm. I realize he has a style that requires close shots, but it mirrored my experience with the 800mm. It just didn't seem long enough - or should I say it was too long for stuff that was close to mid-distance but not long enough for nesting eagles and such.

Bare 600 II - 15%
600 II + 1.4xIII - 55%
600 II + 2xIII - 30%

Thanks, Neuro - I haven't used my 300 enough to say definitively, but so far I'm:
Bare 300 II - 65%
300 II + 1.4xIII - 10%
300 II + 2xIII - 25%

I'd be curious to hear from others on their use, too.

 

[Jack Douglas]

mackguyver, that's easy. I'll take your numbers and switch:

Bare 300 II - 25%
300 II + 1.4xIII - 10%
300 II + 2xIII - 65%

When I can get real close 300 is a no brainer. When I can't I need 600+. In part that's because AF behaves better if you can fill the frame more and exposures tend to be more predictable (of course I'm 6D). I've not done any significant numbers of BIF, if so probably 420 would get a bit more use.

And all this explains why I'm still wondering about a 7D2

Jack