Canon 500 availability ?

[Loswr]

I only spoke with someone on the phone at B&H, but to be honest, I think it might have just been a sales representative. The other places I received email replies.

Good to know. I'll check with B&H when they re-open (my order was placed just over a month ago).

 

[brant]

I think I am going to go crazy waiting for this.

 

[zim]

I think you guy’s have waaay to much money….. where’s the green with envy icon :'(

 

[Aaron78]

Yes, the supertele will get you noticed! I doubt there'd be much real difference between the 500 II and 600 II in terms of getting noticed. Having said that, with the hood in place, the 600/4 is the largest of the current Canon lenses (bigger than the 800/5.6).

Personally, I shoot a lot of birds so the 600mm is the better choice. Combined with the 1.4x III, the resulting IQ at 840mm f/5.6 is equivalent to the 800/5.6 lens, and while no shorter, the combo is a lot lighter.

And you can go back to just 600 with an extra stop of light, but not with the 800.

 

[brant]

Well thanks to this thread and to a member on this forum (who shall remain anonymous), I now have a 600mm F4 is II on the way!! It's not from one of the big retailers, but a smaller family owned store. They got the lens in a few days ago, and I was lucky enough to grab it. It should be here sometime tomorrow!!

 

[Loswr]

B&H had both the 500/4 II and the 600/4 II listed as in stock for a brief period of time on Friday, 9/28. They went back out of stock very quickly.

I take that to mean they filled all their pre-orders, and had a few left to sell. Unfortunately, they're closed until 10/9. But when they reopen, it means a short queue for their next delivery!

 

[Richard Lane]

Unfortunately, they're closed until 10/9. But when they reopen, it means a short queue for their next delivery!

That's great news John and Brant!

Bummer, that they're closed now.., that's torture! :'(

I would definitely say that the queue is inversely proportional to the price!

 

[Waterloo]

I do have issues with the design of the tripod foot. The balance is wrong for me when using it on my video head. Curious if anyone else has seen this. I haven't read anything about it in any of the reviews.

Are you directly mounting the foot, using a lens plate (which one?), or a replacement foot (which one?)?

I'm using a Manfrotto 519 video head and one of their standard mounting plates. I've used the Canon supplied "Monopod Foot" mounted in reverse. As you can see the CG is near the center of the tripod collar. Not a big deal. I'm getting used to it and it works very well. Just not what you are used to seeing.

 

[Waterloo]

It's noticeably sharper than "old 500". I do have issues with the design of the tripod foot. The balance is wrong for me when using it on my video head. Curious if anyone else has seen this. I haven't read anything about it in any of the reviews.

I also noticed that the center of gravity isn't exactly over the base of the tripod foot. It's more over the "heel" of the foot. I know Canon removed the front glass protective element on the 500mm to reduce weight. Perhaps that combined with the heavier 1DX tilts the balance towards the camera. The balance is further displaced rearwards with the teleconverter attached.

The only place that I've heard this mentioned was on the Really Right Stuff website and regarding their new replacement foot II version.

I was still able to balance the 500II and 1DX on the Wimberley gimbal head, but I was also using a long 6 inch Wimberley plate, which seemed to give me flexibility in adjusting the center of gravity, by sliding the lens forward.

Here's a few picks of the set-up. Sorry about the poor quality, as it was extremely overcast.

Please note that the center of gravity was perfectly balanced as it was positioned in the photos, however I tilted the lens upward and locked the Wimberley head, just for the photos, as these were taken a few weeks ago.

Note that the lens plate is pushed fairly far forward to achieve balance and that the gimbal head knob in the last 2 photos is centered over the "heel of the lens foot and not the base of the lens foot."

What do you do if you have either of the Extenders mounted to the lens? The lens needs to be slid forward. Seems you'd run out of mounting plate in the clamp.

 

[Waterloo]

Actually if you scroll down a bit on this web page:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-500mm-f-4-L-IS-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

You can see a comparison of the two 500mm lenses and the differences in the foot and its location. I never had trouble balancing the "old" 500.

 

[Loswr]

I'm using a Manfrotto 519 video head and one of their standard mounting plates. I've used the Canon supplied "Monopod Foot" mounted in reverse. As you can see the CG is near the center of the tripod collar. Not a big deal. I'm getting used to it and it works very well. Just not what you are used to seeing.

Yes, comparing the 500 MkI to MkII, it looks like they moved the tripod collar forward on the lens, while simultaneously removing the front meniscus lens and thus moving the CG backward. Thus the notation on the RRS foot - I expect with a heavy body, especially with a TC, the CG may end up behind the tripod collar, or at least behind the forward-sweeping Canon foot (surprising they'd do that). Good to know the foot can be reversed.

In my case with the 600 II, the foot mounting point is slightly forward on the 600mm vs. the 500mm, by about half the width of the tripod collar on the lens barrel. But the 600mm is 2.5" longer, has a bigger front element and a bigger, heavier hood - i.e. it's going to be front-heavy compared to the 500mm. So balance should be ok, especially with the RRS replacement foot (attachment for clamp is further back than the Canon foot).

 

[Waterloo]

From the pictures it appears that Canon repurposed the foot from the 800. If you look at the pictures the foot on the 300 L II it appears to be the same as the "monopod" foot that Canon supplies with the 500 L II.

Also the bushing in the "monopod" foot is 1/4 - 20. Why didn't the make it 3/8 - 16 for a little extra security. I drilled and taped a second 1/4 - 20 in mine, not trusting a single screw. I may at some point get a real machinist to install a 3/8 - 16 Helicoil for some extra strength.

 

[Waterloo]

It also appears the both Kirk and ReallyRight have copied the Canon design without changes and consideration for the balance of the camera and lens when used on a gimbal or video head.

 

[Richard Lane]

What do you do if you have either of the Extenders mounted to the lens? The lens needs to be slid forward. Seems you'd run out of mounting plate in the clamp.

Yes, you're right I would run out of room on the gimbal mounting plate. So, if a 2x extender and heavy 1DX body were attached, then there wouldn't be a perfect 50-50 balance, and instead I would have a 60-40 balance, so I would have to provide slight support to the camera with my right shooting hand.

I like you're idea of reversing the lens foot.

 

[Loswr]

It also appears the both Kirk and ReallyRight have copied the Canon design without changes and consideration for the balance of the camera and lens when used on a gimbal or video head.

Not sure I agree. The Kirk foot does mirror the Canon foot's forward-sweeping design. But, the RRS does not - the dovetail actually extends back farther, directly under and even slightly behind the mounting screws:

Granted, it may not be quite far enough back for the 500 II w/ a TC and heavy body. The RRS 300 II foot dovetail extends substantially behind the mounting screws, for example. However, apparently RRS designed the foot for the 400 II (before the 500/600 II's became available), then just declared the same foot was compatible with the longer lenses, and subsequently backpedaled with their note on the website. Perhaps they'll release a new foot designed for the longer lenses - if so, hopefully they'll do right by those who bought the maybe-not-so-compatible current foot (me, included).

 

[Richard Lane]

Perhaps they'll release a new foot designed for the longer lenses - if so, hopefully they'll do right by those who bought the maybe-not-so-compatible current foot (me, included).

That's what they've done in the past, when they've changed their design midstream.

RRS will have to redesign their foot, however what's even more strange is that the Canon stock foot won't balance either under the same circumstances.

 

[Richard Lane]

John, you may just want to return the foot since it hasn't been used yet and I'm sure RRS will just re-sell it as a 400II foot.

 

[Loswr]

That's what they've done in the past, when they've changed their design midstream.

RRS will have to redesign their foot, however what's even more strange is that the Canon stock foot won't balance either under the same circumstances.

Good to know, thanks, Rich!

I agree it's really odd that Canon didn't design the foot to balance their own lens properly. I suppose if necessary, one could use the RRS long lens support package, where the 10" camera bar would allow a longer traverse for balance.

John, you may just want to return the foot since it hasn't been used yet and I'm sure RRS will just re-sell it as a 400II foot.

I'm going to give it a try first. As I stated above, I don't think it'll be an issue with the 600 II, since it's 2.5" longer, has a larger front element and heavier hood compared to the 500 II, meaning it should be relatively more front-heavy, shifting the CG forward.

Please remind me, Rich - IIRC, you are talking about the 500 II running out of room on the clamp, with a 1D X and TC attached, correct?

 

[Richard Lane]

Please remind me, Rich - IIRC, you are talking about the 500 II running out of room on the clamp, with a 1D X and TC attached, correct?

That's affirmative!

 

[Loswr]

That's affirmative!

Thanks! I'll definitely test the 600 II with 1D X and the 1.4x as well as 2x TCs on the PG-02 LLR before deciding whether or not to keep the foot.