f4 needed for birds if only shooting in full sun?

[Isaac Grant]

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.

 

[Loswr]

I have the 600/4L IS II, used primarily for birds. Having f/4 isn't really a requirement for me in terms of exposure, usually I'm stopped down to the f/6.3 to f/9 range anyway to get sufficient DoF so the whole bird is sharp. I almost always use my 1.4x TC for an 840mm f/5.6, sometimes the 2x for 1200mm f/8. IMO there is no substitute for focal length when it comes to birds, and the f/4 lens means I can have full AF at f/5.6 and still maintain AF at f/8 (in fact, that's really the only compelling update for me in the 1D X II, 61-pts with 27 crosses at 1200mm f/8).

For me, 560mm f/8 (100-400 II + 1.4x) would not long enough for most of my bird photography.

 

[Mikehit]

Focusing is done with the aperture wide open so with f4 you have more light for the AF system to work with. However you may well find that the DOF is thin enough to have to stop down anyway unless the subject is stationary, and this bring you to the adage that most lenses are best stopped down one from maximum. Plus you have an optoin for AF with a tc attached

So no, the f4 will not be wasted.

I have recently bought the 100-400 MkII and it is a superb lens and while I do not have the joy of owning the 500mm f4, I have read quite a few experienced birders saying they have hardly used their 500mm f4 since buying it (though I believe they were comparing to the MkI 500mm).
Pverall, I think you have probably got probably the best 2 alternatives in the Canon and Sigma zooms so stop worrying, shoot loads and you have the jealousy-inducing option of selecting the best tool for the job.

If you are looking for ways to spend spare money, when the 500mm mkii came out, one respected wildlife photographer (may have been Andy Rouse but can't be sure) did an article asking what benefits there are to matching the latest generation of lens and camera. At the time he had a couple of models of 1D and said that yes, there is a benefit greater than the sum of their apparent parts.
So you could always go for the 1DxMkii.

Or go on 2 or 3 fantastic wildlife tours to use the lens to maximum benefit...

And if all those options are exhausted then send a few grand my way and you can bask in the warm glow that upi are helping someone else is reaching the pleasurable heights you are.

 

[Isaac Grant]

I have the 600/4L IS II, used primarily for birds. Having f/4 isn't really a requirement for me in terms of exposure, usually I'm stopped down to the f/6.3 to f/9 range anyway to get sufficient DoF so the whole bird is sharp. I almost always use my 1.4x TC for an 840mm f/5.6, sometimes the 2x for 1200mm f/8. IMO there is no substitute for focal length when it comes to birds, and the f/4 lens means I can have full AF at f/5.6 and still maintain AF at f/8 (in fact, that's really the only compelling update for me in the 1D X II, 61-pts with 27 crosses at 1200mm f/8).

For me, 560mm f/8 (100-400 II + 1.4x) would not long enough for most of my bird photography.

Very helpful information. Thanks. That is what I kind of expected to hear but nice to get confirmation. Which actually brings up my other problem with the 500. With high shutter speeds I have been able to hand hold the lens and get very sharp results. Was not able to do that with the 1.4x. So if I am going to use the lens on a tripod, am I better off getting the 600? Really can only afford one of these lenses. The 500 seems the best compromise of weight and image quality.

Should have mentioned that I use the 7d2. Agree about the 1dxii. Does make a compelling case for all focus points...

 

[Isaac Grant]

Focusing is done with the aperture wide open so with f4 you have more light for the AF system to work with. However you may well find that the DOF is thin enough to have to stop down anyway unless the subject is stationary, and this bring you to the adage that most lenses are best stopped down one from maximum. Plus you have an optoin for AF with a tc attached

So no, the f4 will not be wasted.

I have recently bought the 100-400 MkII and it is a superb lens and while I do not have the joy of owning the 500mm f4, I have read quite a few experienced birders saying they have hardly used their 500mm f4 since buying it (though I believe they were comparing to the MkI 500mm).
Pverall, I think you have probably got probably the best 2 alternatives in the Canon and Sigma zooms so stop worrying, shoot loads and you have the jealousy-inducing option of selecting the best tool for the job.

If you are looking for ways to spend spare money, when the 500mm mkii came out, one respected wildlife photographer (may have been Andy Rouse but can't be sure) did an article asking what benefits there are to matching the latest generation of lens and camera. At the time he had a couple of models of 1D and said that yes, there is a benefit greater than the sum of their apparent parts.
So you could always go for the 1DxMkii.

Or go on 2 or 3 fantastic wildlife tours to use the lens to maximum benefit...

And if all those options are exhausted then send a few grand my way and you can bask in the warm glow that upi are helping someone else is reaching the pleasurable heights you are.

Funny response. I have saved quite a while for this lens. This is an expensive hobby 8) Want to be sure I will put it to the best use. I agree that the 100-400 ii is a great lens. It is very sharp. Sharper than the Sigma for sure but not as sharp as the 500. With the converter attached to get to 560 it is quite a bit less sharp than the 500. Still very nice when taken on its own, but when compared to the 500 it is not even close.

 

[axtstern]

I have answered this for myself even more extreme. I do BIF pnly on rare occasioms. So I' m aiming at easy targets for which 400 mm is enough but I need the AF to get all the light it can get to help him covering my mistakes and lack of experience.

With the yearly buget reserved fir an 80D and the Sigma 50-100 my BIF budget is down to 1500 Euro.
I hade the choice between a used 400 DO and an much older 400 2.8 L non IS

Went for the non IS non Fluorid very heavy Dinosour.
Will unpack tonight and hope I made the right choice

 

[Isaac Grant]

I have answered this for myself even more extreme. I do BIF pnly on rare occasioms. So I' m aiming at easy targets for which 400 mm is enough but I need the AF to get all the light it can get to help him covering my mistakes and lack of experience.

With the yearly buget reserved fir an 80D and the Sigma 50-100 my BIF budget is down to 1500 Euro.
I hade the choice between a used 400 DO and an much older 400 2.8 L non IS

Went for the non IS non Fluorid very heavy Dinosour.
Will unpack tonight and hope I made the right choice

I live in New York City. We have a diverse number of subjects. Some you are able to approach quite closely while others are never in close. Reach is hardly ever something I have too much of. There are occasions where shorebirds will be feeding practically at your feet or when ponds are frozen in winter that waterfowl can be approached in the only open water, but most times I need reach. The 100-400 ii is so versatile and sharp. But it is not the 500. That lens is just sharper. It is longer as well. But not so sure it is so many thousands of dollars sharper.

 

[9VIII]

If I were to go completely nuts and buy a 500f4 I would probably use it with a 7D2. But outside of that a 1DX2 might be nice, the wider viewfinder is nice when tracking subjects.
(I could have bought a 500f4 but I decided to see the orthodontist instead. I'm still debating which was the right choice. And yes even the best professionals screw up, double check their work and throw red flags all over the place if something looks or feels funny).

 

[nc0b]

One does not need f/4 to shoot birds, as proven by all the birders using the 400mm f/5.6, me included. I normally shoot at f/8 for more DOF anyway. I have been shooting raptors for about 5 years, as the hawks, osprey and eagles land on my radio towers, and are visible from the house. My camera is usually already setup, so I rush outside and wait for the raptor to take off. My 6D / 400mm combo have worked much better for me than my 60D as far as getting sharp focus, whether using center point only or AI Servo. I recently purchased a 100-400mm II for other purposes other than birding, but have tried the new zoom a couple of times for BIF. The problem I have had with the zoom is even with the focus limiter set to 3 meters, it can get lost in the sky, focus down to 3 meters and never reacquire focus on the bird. With the 400mm f/5.6 prime, focus limited to 8.5m, I am rarely unable to reacquire focus without having to manually put focus back on infinity. Have others observed this problem?

 

[AlanF]

Others like neuro can answer this better e.g.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Photography-Tips/canon-eos-dslr-autofocus-explained.aspx

The big jump in AF is between f/2.8 and f/4. The 6D's weak point is AF. I find no problems with the 100-400mm II on the 5DIII and 7DII, and my new 5DS R has proven in the last two days for me to be spectacular.

 

[TheJock]

I’ve borrowed a 200-400L for this weekend and I’ll be heading out for a spot of Birding, I’m also planning on using a further 1.4XIII, so 1120mm on my 5DIII and 1760mm on my 70D. I’m quite looking forward to the results!! I’ll let you know how I get on!

 

[privatebydesign]

I’ve borrowed a 200-400L for this weekend and I’ll be heading out for a spot of Birding, I’m also planning on using a further 1.4XIII, so 1120mm on my 5DIII and 1760mm on my 70D. I’m quite looking forward to the results!! I’ll let you know how I get on!

Apart from the fact that a 400 x 1.4 x 1.4 is 784, on a 5D MkIII, and a 70D?

 

[axtstern]

I have unpacked my 400mm 2.8 L Dinosaur from the nineties yesterday night.
Must say handling is a littlebit different than the 400 DO of a friend I used so far.
In fact it weights 3 times as much and feels on my 5DIII like I mounted an anchor of the Titanic to a Down Easter. I hope my Chinese gimbal clone will master it.

Talking about the AF the 2.8 vs 4.0 vs 5.6 difference is really there. The heavy and old 400mm is much slower than the 100-400 L in comparrison but the accuracy of the AF is much improved. Even when AF has once been reached and the focus has to follow there is a gain as the AF never lets loose despite the mass in glass it has to move.

 

[bwud]

I’ve borrowed a 200-400L for this weekend and I’ll be heading out for a spot of Birding, I’m also planning on using a further 1.4XIII, so 1120mm on my 5DIII and 1760mm on my 70D. I’m quite looking forward to the results!! I’ll let you know how I get on!

Apart from the fact that a 400 x 1.4 x 1.4 is 784, on a 5D MkIII, and a 70D?

I think he meant a third 1.4 (one built in, one he owns, and one further).

 

[candc]

i think that having the f/4 aperture is important when using the 7dii. you want to keep your iso lower than 2000 and your shutter speed 1/1600 or faster for bif. with a ff camera it wouldn't be as important because you can use higher iso and get good results.

 

[3kramd5]

i think that having the f/4 aperture is important when using the 7dii. you want to keep your iso lower than 2000 and your shutter speed 1/1600 or faster for bif. with a ff camera it wouldn't be as important because you can use higher iso and get good results.

Only if he uses correspondingly longer lenses, though. If you don't put more sensor area on the subject, the size advantage of the sensor is lost.

 

[Loswr]

I’ve borrowed a 200-400L for this weekend and I’ll be heading out for a spot of Birding, I’m also planning on using a further 1.4XIII, so 1120mm on my 5DIII and 1760mm on my 70D. I’m quite looking forward to the results!! I’ll let you know how I get on!

Apart from the fact that a 400 x 1.4 x 1.4 is 784, on a 5D MkIII, and a 70D?

I think he meant a third 1.4 (one built in, one he owns, and one further).

He meant a 2x behind the lens with the built-in 1.4x engaged. 400 x 1.4 x 2 = 1120.

 

[applecider]

Do you really mean full noon day sun or are you also thinking of full sunset sun?

Because if the latter then F 4 itself may indeed be needed or at least desired to get an extra half hour of shooting at decent shutter speed when birds are more active interesting and more warmly evenly lit.

As neuro has already said I also usually find my F to be larger than minimum to get enough depth of field, but still nice to be able to shoot earlier and later.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

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.

Out in the country where I live, I bought a big monster 600mm f/4 non IS. It was not long enough, and I even tried two TC's (1.4 +2X) on it. F/4 had become f/11 by then, and at noon on a winter day, I could not get as fast a shutter speed as needed. The 500mm MK II is a little toy compared to that old 600.

 

[nc0b]

On a walk in the country with a 6D & 100-400mm II, there wasn't much to shoot except a meadowlark on a barbed wire fence. The perched bird isn't tack sharp, but when it took off, I was stunned that the wings were a complete blur at 1/800th shutter speed. (f/8, ISO 200 & zoom at 400mm) When shooting raptors in flight with a 400mm f/5.6, I try to keep my shutter speed at 1/1600 or above, but it appears for smaller birds, reducing wing blur requires a much faster shutter speed than I would have expected. I no longer live in the mountains with humming birds around, but if I get a chance to shoot them, will a strobe be needed if a shot with sharp wings is desired?