I'd consider one of those too. But if you're looking for several framing options then a 500 5.6 and a 700 8 aren't a terrible combo for daylight shooting.
Upvote
0
Canon Shows off RF 500mm F5.6 L IS in Latest Patent
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
I own the 300mm f/4 IS and both the 1.4 II and 2.0 II extenders. I use them on my R6, and my kid uses them on her 80D. I can state plainly that the performance of both combinations is perfectly fine for detailed viewing and printing when shooting close to the subject and avoiding many atmospheric issues. Add in DLO and the performance is practically modern in terms of image.
I can't speak for the original 300 f/4.
For those who don't own copies, but are interested in a comparison by someone who dealt with both:
Canon 300 f/4 IS vs Canon 300 f/2.8 IS | JuzaPhoto
Canon 300 f/4 L IS USM and its big brother Canon 300 f/2.8 L IS USM. Both lenses without lens hood. Click here to enlarge. Since early 2008, I own the Canon 300 2.8 L IS, that is considered one of ...
www.juzaphoto.com
Upvote
0
Interesting patent. If this were a 600 mm f6.3 I would be more enticed to purchase (or a 500 mm f4.5 with 1.4x TC built-in). Even a 400 mm f4 DO with built in 1.4x TC when get my interests. A straight 500 mm f5.6 not so much.
Upvote
0
Many years ago, I met Lillian Stokes on top of a mountain in southern New Hampshire (well, what they call a mountain here in New England…I grew up in California so I’d call it a hill). It was during the fall hawk migration – hundreds of kettling hawks is a cool sight.
She and her husband author a popular series of birding guides, and she told me that her usual setup was the EF 300/4L IS with the 2x TC, mounted on whatever the current 1D was (IIRC, it was the 1DIV at that time). She said most on the images in the Guides were taken with that setup. Clearly, it’s capable of producing excellent images.
Upvote
0
Very cool.
I'd love a 500 5.6 and a TC for similar, although I'm more about deer, bears, and standing herons where I am:
With my 300 + 2x combo for birds, it's pretty good for casual shots of kingfishers, sparrows, junkos, etc. as those you can get close enough to when they're sitting on posts or fiddling about in the grass. All very printable. Alas, my R6 blackout in the EVF sucks for rapid bird movement tracking with this lens and tc combo. It's funny, because it felt great years ago before mirrorless.
But all that stated, my general photography tends to capture people, large animals, and still life anyhow so I haven't been too eager to drop real money on the extra reach with other life interests at hand. Yet. The itch is growing.
I'm hoping a 500 5.6 at a price competitive with the industry (e.g., Sigma's edition) would give me the excuse — I might even plan a trip around it. IQ's never an issue for me when I do things right, but I find the 300 + 1.4 is solid for animals in terms of servo drive, etc whereas the 2x on a gripped R6 lags a little more than I'd like (blackout, lack of power for the lens drive, etc.). I know I could flip to an R3 or R1 and get way better lens drive (tested with a friend) but I'd rather spend on glass as in most respects the R6 still serves me well.
In the modern sense I find little issue with the IQ of the combinations — it's more lens performance around AF, weather sealing (no mount gasket), and the like. Of course, newer lenses at the same or better tiers have that much better IQ — and I'll take better over good — but for relative prices the options don't seem so much better that IQ's the only thing needed to drive my justification. And since I like using primes more than zooms, I've held off on the EF 100-400 II and RF 100-500.
For now, I'll live vicariously through you guys while waiting.
Upvote
0
It's a slippery slope. This was my first DSLR bird picture, with a T1i and EF 100/2.8L Macro, after looking up while walking around shooting flowers.
Clearly not enough focal length, but then I came across a used EF 300/4L IS for sale and bought that.
I sold the 300/4L IS (for a bit more than I paid) after getting the EF 100-400L, then I upgraded the T1i to the 7D and that was my birding combo for several years.
But then I bought the 1D X and needed more reach, so I got the just-released EF 600/4L IS II and the MkIII TCs to go with it. Full circle on the red tail.
Upvote
0
Honestly, if the 300-600 f/5.6 L is either never happening or $12,000 USD, I would be happy to have this lens instead. Does anyone have an expected price? I'd imagine at least $5-6k, but that's a lot more forgiving than $11k+
Upvote
0
I used to have the EF 400mm f/5.6 and regretted selling so much I bought another one I it was very nice but the huge MFD is a major drawback and then I bought the RF 70-200mm f/2.8 Z and it's noticeably sharper with the RF 2x for 140-400mm f/5.6 and a MFD of 68cm so I've sole my EF400 again
A new RF 500mm f/5.6 would be nice but I'd rather have a zoom
Upvote
0
Well, I carry my EF 600/4 III in a backpack (Lowepro 600 AW III) with two additional quivers for additional gear, and I shoot it mostly hand-held. But my back is well trained, but I do understand well that this isn't a solution for everybody. But you're right, if you need to carry an additional tent, sleeping bag etc., this is really too much for one person. You'd need an artificial exoskeleton and always very solid ground in rugged terrain
I see people carrying broadcast-quality video gear including a massive tripod, and honestly wonder how they do it. They must be much fitter than me.
Upvote
0
Even the EF 100-400 II was better than the prime. Sharper at 400mm and much more flexible. I owned both.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
There was still a cult of the EF 400 f/5.6 L when the EF 100-400 II came out. I suppose the built-in lens hood and kudos of owning a prime. made up for the 3.5m close focus, lack of IS and being less sharp even on Canon's own MTF charts.
Upvote
0
I was a bit disappointed about the 400 prime when i got it first time many years ago. Everyone was raving about it and i never found it tack sharp. It was just good, not amazing.
Upvote
0
So true! Once I stopped being a grad student I first built out my zoom trinity, and then worked on my people prime trinity, and then some esoteric stuff; plus there's a few things I inherited. But even in the mid-range there's always something else to narrow in on a case. (I don't have a 35mm, but I want one...)
My bird shots are all casual and so usually opportunistic and therefore not my top captures by any stretch — but they are fun! Our acreage includes a few ponds in conifer forests at some height in the mountains, and thus eagles frequent them. Plus we have animals like ducks, and eagles like ducks. The ducks are safe in large ranges with netting, but the eagles do like to watch the live show. Anyhow, I was headed across a fallow field and saw this young eagle splashing about in a puddle following the rain. 300mm f4 IS + 2x II at ISO 1600, f/8 (so lens DOF at f/4 magnified x2), 1/2000s — taken as hastily as I could quietly yank the parts from my backpack, assemble, then shoot. Probably at a range of 200 feet. I think the focus ended up on the wing. Still, it makes a nice print for the barn.
I think I'll always keep the 300, and it works very well with the 1.4. If I had a 500 5.6 and an RF 1.4 to go with it I'd make some regular excuses to travel up and down the coast with this kind of photography in mind.
Edit: P.S. — I love your bird shots! That hawk, wow!
Last edited:
Upvote
0
The Sigma L and E 500mm 5.6 lists for $4,400 CAD and is often on sale for $3,999 CAD. Canon would probably add a premium if the lens were an L, but if the lens is a silver ring like the 200-800 I think they could be very competitive.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
But it took the version II to beat it, as I recall. And that came out years later, right? So for the era, it was top notch for amateurs.
Upvote
0
It was a fraction of the price, so for kids and bird curious folk it was a palatable entry. Canon had long since clawed back the R&D costs and it didn't kill them to keep this one on tap as a gateway drug to more serious L products.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This would have to be considerably smaller with higher IQ than a 200-600 f/6.3 to make sense. Still would prefer a zoom at this range for wildlife. Currently shooting with the 200-800 and the reach is great.
What I'd really want to see is a 100-300 f/4L that would shave off most of the 2.8's weight and price.
What I'd really want to see is a 100-300 f/4L that would shave off most of the 2.8's weight and price.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
