f4 needed for birds if only shooting in full sun?

[AlanF]

I agree with most of the points here. F4 is not always about light but about IQ. An f4 stopped down to f5.6 may have better IQ than an F5.6 wide open. Depends on the lenses you are comparing. Generally speaking any measure of aperture can help with lens faults.

Sometimes however you need the f4 and in some case F2.8 particlarly if you find yourself shooting really early, really late, or shooting during rain and snow storms.

I think if I am being honest I was just scared to keep this lens. Tried to justify returning it by saying that I do not need the f4 if shooting in "ideal" lighting conditions. But the reality is that the image quality is what made me keep it. Just amazing and worth every penny if you are looking for the best. While I may rarely use f4, I will always use and appreciate the image quality this lens affords.

If you really want the best, trade in the 500 for a 600mm II. The extra length and quality will be worth it.

 

[Loswr]

If you really want the best, trade in the 500 for a 600mm II. The extra length and quality will be worth it.

+1

 

[BeenThere]

I agree with most of the points here. F4 is not always about light but about IQ. An f4 stopped down to f5.6 may have better IQ than an F5.6 wide open. Depends on the lenses you are comparing. Generally speaking any measure of aperture can help with lens faults.

Sometimes however you need the f4 and in some case F2.8 particlarly if you find yourself shooting really early, really late, or shooting during rain and snow storms.

I think if I am being honest I was just scared to keep this lens. Tried to justify returning it by saying that I do not need the f4 if shooting in "ideal" lighting conditions. But the reality is that the image quality is what made me keep it. Just amazing and worth every penny if you are looking for the best. While I may rarely use f4, I will always use and appreciate the image quality this lens affords.

If you really want the best, trade in the 500 for a 600mm II. The extra length and quality will be worth it.

Why not wait for the 800mm ii?

 

[Isaac Grant]

I agree with most of the points here. F4 is not always about light but about IQ. An f4 stopped down to f5.6 may have better IQ than an F5.6 wide open. Depends on the lenses you are comparing. Generally speaking any measure of aperture can help with lens faults.

Sometimes however you need the f4 and in some case F2.8 particlarly if you find yourself shooting really early, really late, or shooting during rain and snow storms.

I think if I am being honest I was just scared to keep this lens. Tried to justify returning it by saying that I do not need the f4 if shooting in "ideal" lighting conditions. But the reality is that the image quality is what made me keep it. Just amazing and worth every penny if you are looking for the best. While I may rarely use f4, I will always use and appreciate the image quality this lens affords.

If you really want the best, trade in the 500 for a 600mm II. The extra length and quality will be worth it.

Why not wait for the 800mm ii?

I deeply considered getting the 600 ii. Thing is that I do not think I will use it often enough. It is just too big and heavy. The 500 I am able to hand hold fairly easily and will put on a tripod the rest of the time. The 600 would only be used with the tripod for me and that would mean that I would use it less.

Plus I will wait for the 600 DO to come out

 

[Don Haines]

The point at issue is the statement that the 100-400mm II does not give images that are acceptably sharp. No one is disputing that a 500 prime is sharper, it is the cavalier writing off of images taken with the 100-400mm II and similar lenses that grates. I wonder if the author has even tried such lenses - there are no postings from him in the Bird Portrait thread.

Also, things seem to imply that you can't go take bird pictures without the newest and fastest lens.... For the vast bulk of photographers, the big whites are never going to be an affordable option and even the 100-400 is more $s than most people will spend.... yet they still go out and take great pictures because they have worked on their field craft to the point where they can get close enough to get away with "cheaper and slower" lenses like the 70-200F4.... and yes, sometimes you can get close enough to the bird to not need that 600F4 and 2X teleconverter...

Don, we are all entitled to think different things and that is fine. Reality is that if budget and weight were no object, just looking at the pics, that the 500 is a sharper lens. We all know that using the sharper lens does not make you a better photographer. We also all know that you can take beautiful pics with "cheaper" gear. But those pics would be sharper when using the best. Not really debatable. This assumes identical lighting, ability, etc.

Either way, this bickering really does nothing to answer my question which is using an f4 lens in cloudless skies with early morning and evening light.

If money were no object, I would be ordering a 600F4 as we speak. That is one fine lens, probably the best lens that Canon makes.... at least until the 800F5.6 II BR comes out.

Personally, I have found that an F5.6 lens, particularly when stopped down to 7.1 or 8.0 to get some more sharpness out of it, just isn't fast enough to shoot moving subjects when the sun is low in the sky or there are heavy clouds. An F4 lens, shot either wide open or at F5.6 really helps to freeze the detail.

Even if you have wonderful fieldcraft and manage to get in real close so that a shorter (more affordable) lens can do the job, shooting F5.6 gives me so little depth of field that some of the bird is in focus and the rest is blurred. The picture below is a perfect example of insufficient depth of field I find too close can be as bad as too far away, the sweet spot is somewhere in the middle and unfortunately for our wallets you need expensive lenses at that distance.

I guess what I am saying is get the fastest lens you can afford and then go have some fun.... and if you shoot your F4 lens stopped down, it is even sharper...... but at dusk and dawn you will really appreciate the F4.

 

[AlanF]

At dawn and dusk, if not in between as well, you will appreciate the 400mm f/2.8 II even more.

 

[Deleted member 91053]

F4 is nice for BIF, but not essential. My 3 "birding" lenses are the Canon 300 F2.8, 100-400 Mk2 and 800 F5.6. The 300 has an extender attached nearly all the time and the other two are F5.6 at best.
Having used the Canon 500 Mk1 and Mk2, owned the 600 Mk1 and used to Mk2 I bought the 800!
I must admit though that as I get older the 500 F4 Mk2 looks tempting due to it's lighter weight - but the 1.4 extender would be almost a permanent fixture - negating the advantages of this lens over my current 800mm.

 

[takesome1]

This may seem like an odd question, but I recently purchased a 500f4 ii to be used for bird photography. I love the lens. Image quality is fantastic. Auto focus is fast and it is built like a tank. But it is expensive, heavy, big and not so easy to lug around (obvious for such a big lens but just wanted to get it out there).

The real issue is, do I really need an f4 lens if shooting under full sun conditions? Most times would not really be taking advantage of the f4. Is there another option that gives the same image quality that I am not considering? I also own the 100-400 ii and a 1.4x, plus the Sigma 150-600C as well. Plan on using the 1.4x with the 500 as well.

Really looking for advice from people that currently own this lens or others like it.

It is more about IQ than F/4. If you can get IQ to equal the 500mm II out of any the lenses you listed I wouldn't take mine to the field at all.

There are other lenses that get close, but those combinations would be just as heavy.

Really it comes down to what you think is acceptable IQ. But since you are talking birds, I want my pictures extremely sharp and I want to make out the fine detail of feathers and eye. For that I take every advantage I can get whether it is the best IQ lens or best camera for the job. I wouldn't find the results from the two lenses you listed acceptable, especially with an extender.

But I would have hoped you knew this before you dropped a but load of money on the 500mm. Maybe you thought if you paid the extra you would get the best 500mm made by Canon. If that is the case you thought right.

If you would not find the results from a 100-400mm II to be acceptable for bird photography, then either most of the rest of us must have unacceptably low standards or you do not know how to take bird photographs.

While I do not fully agree with his statement, that does not make him wrong. Fact is that I now have both lenses. The 100-400 ii is really nice. Pictures taken with it are quite sharp with beautiful colors and contrst. If you take the same picture with the 500 and compare them side by side it is clear which is the sharper lens. So if that is the main objective there is no real argument. I got the 100-400 ii to use in times that I can not use the 500 ii. To me it is an acceptable alternative, but I am fully aware that it is not as sharp as the 500. It is the lens I will take on long hikes, to be used generally while birding, and for capturing fast flying birds as well.

The point at issue is the statement that the 100-400mm II does not give images that are acceptably sharp. No one is disputing that a 500 prime is sharper, it is the cavalier writing off of images taken with the 100-400mm II and similar lenses that grates. I wonder if the author has even tried such lenses - there are no postings from him in the Bird Portrait thread.

That is cherry picking and I think you are reading in to what was posted, I was talking what I find acceptably sharp for one particular purpose. For many purposes I would find the 100-400mm to be a great lens. If someone drops almost 10K on a telephoto lens to shoot birds with, wouldn't the idea be that they are paying the extra money for that extra sharpness?

I do not own the 100-400mm II, and I do not need to for wildlife. Years ago I started out with the original 100-400mm and upgraded to the 500mm version I. I decided then that for wildilfe and birds that I wanted the sharpest lens I could afford, a lens that gives you the maximum chance of getting enough detail to work with. So the 100-400mm was shelved. Does that mean that great sharp pictures can not be taken with the 100-400mm or the 100-400mm II? No, it does not. Are those two lenses in the same class as the 500mm II, no the are not but they are great lenses in their own right.

 

[takesome1]

The point at issue is the statement that the 100-400mm II does not give images that are acceptably sharp. No one is disputing that a 500 prime is sharper, it is the cavalier writing off of images taken with the 100-400mm II and similar lenses that grates. I wonder if the author has even tried such lenses - there are no postings from him in the Bird Portrait thread.

Also, things seem to imply that you can't go take bird pictures without the newest and fastest lens.... For the vast bulk of photographers, the big whites are never going to be an affordable option and even the 100-400 is more $s than most people will spend.... yet they still go out and take great pictures because they have worked on their field craft to the point where they can get close enough to get away with "cheaper and slower" lenses like the 70-200F4.... and yes, sometimes you can get close enough to the bird to not need that 600F4 and 2X teleconverter...

The truth is the best lens for someone go birding or wildlife with is the lens they can afford. IMO it wouldn't matter if the longest lens I had was 35mm I would be trying to get close enough for shots.

But the OP in this thread already owns the 500mm. So for the purpose of this thread the high cost of a supertele appears to not be an issue.

 

[Isaac Grant]

The point at issue is the statement that the 100-400mm II does not give images that are acceptably sharp. No one is disputing that a 500 prime is sharper, it is the cavalier writing off of images taken with the 100-400mm II and similar lenses that grates. I wonder if the author has even tried such lenses - there are no postings from him in the Bird Portrait thread.

Also, things seem to imply that you can't go take bird pictures without the newest and fastest lens.... For the vast bulk of photographers, the big whites are never going to be an affordable option and even the 100-400 is more $s than most people will spend.... yet they still go out and take great pictures because they have worked on their field craft to the point where they can get close enough to get away with "cheaper and slower" lenses like the 70-200F4.... and yes, sometimes you can get close enough to the bird to not need that 600F4 and 2X teleconverter...

The truth is the best lens for someone go birding or wildlife with is the lens they can afford. IMO it wouldn't matter if the longest lens I had was 35mm I would be trying to get close enough for shots.

But the OP in this thread already owns the 500mm. So for the purpose of this thread the high cost of a supertele appears to not be an issue.

You want the best you have to pay for it. Trust me the cost is an issue. Picked up the lens direct from Canon. Refurbished with an extra 10% off. Keep in mind that you then need a bunch of extra stuff like a good tripod, head, bag to carry it, lenscoat, replacement foot, etc. The kind of stuff you don't think much about until you need to drop anouther $2,000!!!

 

[takesome1]

The point at issue is the statement that the 100-400mm II does not give images that are acceptably sharp. No one is disputing that a 500 prime is sharper, it is the cavalier writing off of images taken with the 100-400mm II and similar lenses that grates. I wonder if the author has even tried such lenses - there are no postings from him in the Bird Portrait thread.

Also, things seem to imply that you can't go take bird pictures without the newest and fastest lens.... For the vast bulk of photographers, the big whites are never going to be an affordable option and even the 100-400 is more $s than most people will spend.... yet they still go out and take great pictures because they have worked on their field craft to the point where they can get close enough to get away with "cheaper and slower" lenses like the 70-200F4.... and yes, sometimes you can get close enough to the bird to not need that 600F4 and 2X teleconverter...

The truth is the best lens for someone go birding or wildlife with is the lens they can afford. IMO it wouldn't matter if the longest lens I had was 35mm I would be trying to get close enough for shots.

But the OP in this thread already owns the 500mm. So for the purpose of this thread the high cost of a supertele appears to not be an issue.

You want the best you have to pay for it. Trust me the cost is an issue. Picked up the lens direct from Canon. Refurbished with an extra 10% off. Keep in mind that you then need a bunch of extra stuff like a good tripod, head, bag to carry it, lenscoat, replacement foot, etc. The kind of stuff you don't think much about until you need to drop anouther $2,000!!!

Sounds like Buyers Remorse.
After you get the other gear you will be set for several years.
For me the remorse would be "Should I have gotten the 600mm?"

They had the 400mm DO II and the 200-400mm F/4 on sale not long ago. I didn't see a 600mm pop up though, maybe it did.

 

[Isaac Grant]

The point at issue is the statement that the 100-400mm II does not give images that are acceptably sharp. No one is disputing that a 500 prime is sharper, it is the cavalier writing off of images taken with the 100-400mm II and similar lenses that grates. I wonder if the author has even tried such lenses - there are no postings from him in the Bird Portrait thread.

No remorse. I am thrilled with the lens and purchase. The should I have gotten the 600 is certainly something that went through my head. At the end of the day I think that i will use the 500 much more. It just suits my style of shooting and being in the field more. Yes a 200-400 was available. The DO ii sold out immediately. That is also a lens I deeply considered, but again went for the 500. I have 100-400 covered. Now with this lens I have 500, 700 and even 1000 covered as well.

Also, things seem to imply that you can't go take bird pictures without the newest and fastest lens.... For the vast bulk of photographers, the big whites are never going to be an affordable option and even the 100-400 is more $s than most people will spend.... yet they still go out and take great pictures because they have worked on their field craft to the point where they can get close enough to get away with "cheaper and slower" lenses like the 70-200F4.... and yes, sometimes you can get close enough to the bird to not need that 600F4 and 2X teleconverter...

The truth is the best lens for someone go birding or wildlife with is the lens they can afford. IMO it wouldn't matter if the longest lens I had was 35mm I would be trying to get close enough for shots.

But the OP in this thread already owns the 500mm. So for the purpose of this thread the high cost of a supertele appears to not be an issue.

You want the best you have to pay for it. Trust me the cost is an issue. Picked up the lens direct from Canon. Refurbished with an extra 10% off. Keep in mind that you then need a bunch of extra stuff like a good tripod, head, bag to carry it, lenscoat, replacement foot, etc. The kind of stuff you don't think much about until you need to drop anouther $2,000!!!

Sounds like Buyers Remorse.
After you get the other gear you will be set for several years.
For me the remorse would be "Should I have gotten the 600mm?"

They had the 400mm DO II and the 200-400mm F/4 on sale not long ago. I didn't see a 600mm pop up though, maybe it did.

 

[Isaac Grant]

The point at issue is the statement that the 100-400mm II does not give images that are acceptably sharp. No one is disputing that a 500 prime is sharper, it is the cavalier writing off of images taken with the 100-400mm II and similar lenses that grates. I wonder if the author has even tried such lenses - there are no postings from him in the Bird Portrait thread.

No remorse. I am thrilled with the lens and purchase. The should I have gotten the 600 is certainly something that went through my head. At the end of the day I think that i will use the 500 much more. It just suits my style of shooting and being in the field more. Yes a 200-400 was available. The DO ii sold out immediately. That is also a lens I deeply considered, but again went for the 500. I have 100-400 covered. Now with this lens I have 500, 700 and even 1000 covered as well.

Also, things seem to imply that you can't go take bird pictures without the newest and fastest lens.... For the vast bulk of photographers, the big whites are never going to be an affordable option and even the 100-400 is more $s than most people will spend.... yet they still go out and take great pictures because they have worked on their field craft to the point where they can get close enough to get away with "cheaper and slower" lenses like the 70-200F4.... and yes, sometimes you can get close enough to the bird to not need that 600F4 and 2X teleconverter...

The truth is the best lens for someone go birding or wildlife with is the lens they can afford. IMO it wouldn't matter if the longest lens I had was 35mm I would be trying to get close enough for shots.

But the OP in this thread already owns the 500mm. So for the purpose of this thread the high cost of a supertele appears to not be an issue.

You want the best you have to pay for it. Trust me the cost is an issue. Picked up the lens direct from Canon. Refurbished with an extra 10% off. Keep in mind that you then need a bunch of extra stuff like a good tripod, head, bag to carry it, lenscoat, replacement foot, etc. The kind of stuff you don't think much about until you need to drop anouther $2,000!!!

Sounds like Buyers Remorse.
After you get the other gear you will be set for several years.
For me the remorse would be "Should I have gotten the 600mm?"

They had the 400mm DO II and the 200-400mm F/4 on sale not long ago. I didn't see a 600mm pop up though, maybe it did.

No remorse at all. Just was something I foolishly did not consider when setting my budget for the lens. All the add ons really add up. The 600 ii is not something I think I would use too often. Just much bigger and does not fit my style in the field as much. The 400 DO was another consideration but I think the 500 is a good mix of image quality, ease of use and reach. Plus I can use it as a 700 and 1000 as well.

 

[AlanF]

This may seem like an odd question, but I recently purchased a 500f4 ii to be used for bird photography. I love the lens. Image quality is fantastic. Auto focus is fast and it is built like a tank. But it is expensive, heavy, big and not so easy to lug around (obvious for such a big lens but just wanted to get it out there).

The real issue is, do I really need an f4 lens if shooting under full sun conditions? Most times would not really be taking advantage of the f4. Is there another option that gives the same image quality that I am not considering? I also own the 100-400 ii and a 1.4x, plus the Sigma 150-600C as well. Plan on using the 1.4x with the 500 as well.

Really looking for advice from people that currently own this lens or others like it.

It is more about IQ than F/4. If you can get IQ to equal the 500mm II out of any the lenses you listed I wouldn't take mine to the field at all.

There are other lenses that get close, but those combinations would be just as heavy.

Really it comes down to what you think is acceptable IQ. But since you are talking birds, I want my pictures extremely sharp and I want to make out the fine detail of feathers and eye. For that I take every advantage I can get whether it is the best IQ lens or best camera for the job. I wouldn't find the results from the two lenses you listed acceptable, especially with an extender.

But I would have hoped you knew this before you dropped a but load of money on the 500mm. Maybe you thought if you paid the extra you would get the best 500mm made by Canon. If that is the case you thought right.

If you would not find the results from a 100-400mm II to be acceptable for bird photography, then either most of the rest of us must have unacceptably low standards or you do not know how to take bird photographs.

While I do not fully agree with his statement, that does not make him wrong. Fact is that I now have both lenses. The 100-400 ii is really nice. Pictures taken with it are quite sharp with beautiful colors and contrst. If you take the same picture with the 500 and compare them side by side it is clear which is the sharper lens. So if that is the main objective there is no real argument. I got the 100-400 ii to use in times that I can not use the 500 ii. To me it is an acceptable alternative, but I am fully aware that it is not as sharp as the 500. It is the lens I will take on long hikes, to be used generally while birding, and for capturing fast flying birds as well.

The point at issue is the statement that the 100-400mm II does not give images that are acceptably sharp. No one is disputing that a 500 prime is sharper, it is the cavalier writing off of images taken with the 100-400mm II and similar lenses that grates. I wonder if the author has even tried such lenses - there are no postings from him in the Bird Portrait thread.

That is cherry picking and I think you are reading in to what was posted, I was talking what I find acceptably sharp for one particular purpose. For many purposes I would find the 100-400mm to be a great lens. If someone drops almost 10K on a telephoto lens to shoot birds with, wouldn't the idea be that they are paying the extra money for that extra sharpness?

I do not own the 100-400mm II, and I do not need to for wildlife. Years ago I started out with the original 100-400mm and upgraded to the 500mm version I. I decided then that for wildilfe and birds that I wanted the sharpest lens I could afford, a lens that gives you the maximum chance of getting enough detail to work with. So the 100-400mm was shelved. Does that mean that great sharp pictures can not be taken with the 100-400mm or the 100-400mm II? No, it does not. Are those two lenses in the same class as the 500mm II, no the are not but they are great lenses in their own right.

To cherry pick is “to select with great care”, and I don't mind being accused of cherry picking.

To nitpick is “to criticize by focusing on inconsequential details”, which is precisely what I find irksome about many of the comments made about lenses and cameras, both here and by trolls or critics on other sites - the 5DIII is a failure because of its DR at low iso, the Tamron 150-600mm is useless because it is soft in the corners, the 5DS R should be avoided because it might show some Moire, lens X is 5% sharper than Y and camera Z doesn't have a built-in viewfinder so is worthless etc.

 

[nc0b]

The osprey that has been perching on one of my ham radio towers was back today twice. I had a chance to shoot with the 400mm f/5.6 and the 100-400mm II using a 6D. The raptor takes off, and is flying around the acreage within a range of about 200 to 500 feet. The focus limiter is set to 8.5m on the prime and 3 meters on the zoom. The 8.5m minimum focus distance is an amazing advantage if I lose focus. With the prime I can still see the raptor, even if blurry, but with the zoom, if it hunts towards 3 meters, I cannot see my target. I got only three shots with the zoom today and 31 with the prime in under 2 minutes. Some with the prime were too far away to be useful, and the lighting angle was poor on other shots, but being able to lock focus was easy with the prime. I had the same problem some years ago with the 70-200mm f/2.8 II and a 2X TC III. Focus limiter is 2.5m, and once the focus got lost in the sky, I was done for. When the osprey was just taking off from its perch, the zoom had the focus nailed.