There is some truth to this, but I'm not sure it applies any more. Many years ago, I saw a small documentary featuring Walter Iooss, award winning sports photographer, who said something to the effect, "The background is what can make a good photo into a great photo." That single quote has also improvend my photography a lot. But I think in today's social media world, I see a lot of beginner's (rather than call them amateurs) being told that they need f/2.8 zooms, or whenever a portrait lenses is recommended, it must be 1.4 or so. I think they get the impression that photography is all about bokeh. While subject separation and nice bokeh are certainly important at times, what you end up with is lots of lousy shots where the depth of field is far too narrow and important parts of the photo are out of focus. Just my impression, anyway.
Don't let gear envy get you down. I think others have already made good points. Anyone investing in a 600 f/4 is probably a long time birder with tons of experience. They may also be getting great results due to great post processing skills. And yes, 600 f/4 will give you somewhat better subject separation than 500 f/7.1 - we are now talking 1 2/3 stops. The latest versions also cost $12,999 dollars and weight twice what the RF 100-500 does. My guess is that it would be hand-holdable for only short durations, and no where near as mobile as the RF 100-500, thus more missed shots. As a prime, will be sharper than a zoom to some extent, but also a prime of this focal length will miss shots due to the subject moving too close, and also being harder to find and frame the subject due to the narrower field of view. I've seen numerous "wildlife" and "bird' videos from experienced YouTubers, and their advice for those asking for tips on how to improve are usually: It takes a lot of practice to successfully pan your camera to capture a BIF with minimal blurring, and learn all about your subjects behavior and habits. Never hear them say you need an f/4 lens that costs $12,999.
Yeah, I’ve never been a fan of bokeh. It always reminds me of the 19th century soft-focus photographers. I’m more of an f64 Group photographer. I like straight photography with no sentimental gimmicks.
It's always good to know you're not alone! This constant bokeh blah blah blah makes me sick!
I have posted a couple examples of how bokeh can be mimicked by software but the underlying message is being missed by some. What we are doing by changing aperture is to alter from reality what the eye sees. When we look at a scene or an object, unless it is very close, we have a huge depth of field but our senses enable us to concentrate on what we want. Changing aperture is analog manipulation of depth of field. It's only a matter of time that sensors and software will combine to measure the distance of every part of an image and you can dial in the aperture you want in post processing. It will be digital manipulation of depth of field, and no less valid than analog.
Thank you for your observations and review AlanF.I am sure you will be happy with the EF 100-400mm II. It is a very fine lens and takes the 1.4xTCII well. The RF 100-500mm at 500mm resolves at least as well as the EF lens at 560mm with the TC, and with slightly better IQ. The 100-500mm also takes the 2xTC better, and is much better close up, especially with the TC on. You could also consider the RF 100-400mm, which performs pretty close to the EF zoom. You might consider the 100-500 is worth the extra. Here is a comparison I did over two years ago.
RF 100-500mm vs EF 100-400mm II vs 400mm DO II on R5
One of the questions asked about the RF 100-500mm is whether it’s worth upgrading to it from an EF 100-400mm II plus adapter. The consensus so far is that if you are starting from scratch, then it makes sense to buy into the RF system but if you already have the excellent EF lens then there is...www.canonrumors.com
Maybe to our eyes but whatever our brains do not concentrate on may as well not exist.
Indeed, we have peripheral vision for a reason.If that's the case, most of us would have had serious accidents or missed unexpected opportunities!
It’s the difference between outstanding and outstanding plus a bit extra, which means very little in practice, whereas OK vs good is a noticeable difference. I have had 3 copies of the EF 100-400mm, all of which performed beautifully (my one, one for the wife, which was sold and then regretted so replaced).
I positively love this lens! With the Summilux M 35mm my most often used lens.
Agreed...you know if I were a millionaire none of this discussion would really matter ... just buy them all and go have fun ... I just can't understand why they have to do this (16,000$)...or 19,000 for the 600 or 14,000... whatever ,, very few of us regular guys or girls .. love photography and I imagine they would sell thousands and thousands of this 200- 500 f4 if it were 8000$... or as the 500 f4 was 9000 4 ... why do they NOT want to sell ALOT of the new big whites ...instead only sell a few to pros and very rich people ...does not make sense to me ... but perhaps they cost a lot more than I think to make ...or perhaps I don't know what profit margin they need ..etc . but I'm just disappointed in all the new prices ..but my trusty 500 f4 MKI and my 300 2.8 MKi are just great and have served me well for years and years ... with my 1.4 TC my Bird and Nature photography will be just fine . I do buy used in mint condition and with R5 and converter is wonderful .. although HEAVY... I'm old but still can lift them ... Image quality just magnificent...but a bit angry that I just cannot move along with all the newest big whites ... guess EF MK ii 's will be all thatI could ever afford ..if I ever care to for weight issues .... pricing is just ridiculous for these big whites ... I'm retired so not much chance of saving up ... guess lottery is only hope ...LOL. and one final thing ... most of us kind of photographers would shoot at 500 f4 and 700 5.6 or sometimes 1000 f8 .. so I would not need the "flexibility " talk of 200,300,etc ...but I can see some might like this "zoom thing " .. I do see the value of the 100-300 2.8 for pros indoors where the flexibility would be great .... but for Bird and in the field it would not be necessary of me .. but some might like it ... assuming the image quality is excellent. big whit zooms is just a little strange to an old -timer ...
You imagine, but Canon has actual data on which to base their pricing. With a luxury good like this, expected units sold is a big driver of setting the price, and Canon has ample experience at estimating demand.
I agree as far as birding goes. The 600/4 II + 1.4xIII is my primary birding lens. On a couple of occasions, a bird has flown close enough that wings were clipped off. I suppose a zoom would have helped, but I got great shots on the approach.
