Thanks for the additional info regarding the 2xTC on the 100-500.
And congratulate your wife on the great photos she took with a much smaller, lighter, & less expensive setup!
Upvote
0
New type of teleconverter coming from Canon alongside a Supertelephoto zoom
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
And congratulate your wife on the great photos she took with a much smaller, lighter, & less expensive setup!
Could someone please explain to this newbie what would be the pros and cons to 1.0? What exactly would that do? Would that mean no increase in distance but would it make picture quality suffer ? Also how many f stops would you lose on the 500f4 with the 2.0 engaged? Thank you in advance!
Upvote
0
so no blur except when using exp comp? Have you tried other brack seq? Maybe it's possible it doesn't refocus from beginning of first exposure to end of last and simple change in subject distance is causing blur? Or could it be the bird hearing the shutter and looking towards you? Do you see it with electronic shutter? If not then camera vibration from shutter may not be handled well by IS with exp comp? As an engineer I want to narrow this down :-D
I used exp comp in film days for unrepeatable shots and the relatively small latitude of film DR (or the small latitude my scanner got out of them, not necessarily the same thing). With the R5 I find turning exposure compensation up 1/3 gets a bit more usable image from JPG's imported by Photoshop CS4, and simply sticking with that is getting all the DR I need, though of course I don't know your shooting situations?
Upvote
0
Teleconverter multiplies both focal length and f-stop by multiplier. So a 500/4 with a 2x is a 1000/8.
The camera lens was designed to be a very exact distance from the sensor. But a TC is adding a bunch more room between lens and sensor, so if the TC were just an empty tube focus would be way off. (In fact, exactly this kind of spacer is called an extension tube and allows lenses to focus far more closely than without.) So, the 1.0x setting surely has some glass in it. But, that glass in effect is just going to be like a pair of eyeglasses: a single lens would be fine in theory (just like eyeglasses) but is probably two lenses cemented together with different glasses and glass properties to make all colors focus the same still. (With normal near-sighted glasses, as you look at for instance white letters on a black background on a computer screen you see the white separate into red green and blue as the one lens in eyeglasses can't correct all frequencies identically.) Extra glass will always hurt quality more than not having it, but I suspect that a lens that does nothing but change the focus distance will have basically no observable effect, in part because they expect you to use $10k+ camera lenses with it.
Upvote
0
Put simply, the ‘pro’ is being able to go from no TC to having a TC, without actually having to remove/replace the mounted lens.
The con is that the 1.0x would need optics, and the only thing those optics can do is reduce IQ compared to the bare lens. Perhaps only a minimal reduction, that is TBD.
Upvote
0
So I’m just gonna write all this out because this is a big investment and this community seems to be pretty helpful! I’m strongly considering purchasing this TC if it exists along with the 200-500 f4 lens upon release. I am an ardent birder and photograph exclusively birds. I have graduated over the years to “better and better” equipment and currently have the R5 with 100-500. It’s a very good setup but it does have some limitations. As I get further and further into photography I seem to be becoming less of a birder to some degree and my outings seem to be more centered on photos as opposed to number of species seen. Not always but most the time. I am not wealthy and work as a social worker but would buy the lens and tc as it brings me great joy, helps me stay sober doing something positive, and helps balance out a stressful job and that is hard to put a dollar amount on. That being said if I spend 15-17k on a “hobby” I’m gonna have a few questions. With my current setup I am able to bird pretty easily with a cotton carrier for my camera and have never really felt fatigued by the weight of the camera. I realize with this new setup it may hinder my movements if I hand hold and i am not sure if a cotton camera will support the weight. That being said I think the reach I will gain not to mention the lower F stop will really lead to greater photos and more keepers. Currently I only average a few keeper photos each outing but with this new setup I think this will increase and if I am getting photos I like now with the 100-500 I imagine the f4 500 will look even better and low light situation will also improve. Also with the 1.4 tc engaged I will be at 5.6 at 700mm which will be great as well. And at 2x tc it will be f8 but 1000mm !! The f stop May increase but that doesn’t seem that bad for such an increase in range. For ID shots of distant birds or ducks, raptors, and shorebirds that type of range would be awesome ! I am looking forward to the fall and can’t wait to purchase these items. Although I’ll have to finance a portion so the monthly payments will suck !!
Upvote
0
I realized I didn’t have any questions just wondering ranting!! I guess my question is does the local community think this will be an excellent camera set up for birding or too soon to tell? Thanks again!
Upvote
0
I probably go out photographing birds more than you as I do so almost daily. You will get advice here both ways, often from those who do little birding. I know enough that getting a 200-500/4 would make very little difference in practice to me personally in the quality of what I can achieve and make birding much worse because I like gear light enough to take on hikes for opportunistic shots. The R5 and RF 100-500mm are just right for me. The questions you have asked show, as you honestly admit, that your knowledge of the technical side of lenses/teleconverters is somewhat limited but you want to learn. I would suggest that you wait until you can borrow or rent such an expensive lens and try it out first - some shops will even sell with the option of a return window. Otherwise, you could have a very expensive lesson that it’s not for you. But, it might be for you.
ps - tell us about how you do your birding - hides/blinds, hiking, foreign travel etc - and it will help on advice.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Personally I wouldn't consider a lens like this to be ideal for bird photography; when I had the 500L II I rarely used it without an extender, and even now where my primary bird lens is 800mm I often want more focal length. But it depends on what size birds, and what sort of encounters. I tend towards passerines, which are naturally much smaller than most waterfowl or raptors; I also generally shoot out in nature, rather than from hides. Since going over to the RF system I've enjoyed having a smaller and lighter setup; it makes it more likely I will take my gear out, even casually, which increases the chance of wildlife encounters. There's a lot to consider, and it mostly boils down to your personal preferences and approach.
Upvote
0
Good advice. I have a 600mm F4 II (this 200-500 F4 will be heavy )and it’s excellent. It’s also very heavy and I need to bring a gimbal and therefore a sturdy tripod. If I add flash / flash extenders, portable hide - it all becomes a logistic nightmare. R5 with the 100-500mm is far more flexible. Far easier to do Bird in Flight . F7.1 is a disadvantage at 500mm but surprisingly less a factor as the R5 at high ISO is good. Image quality on the 600F4 is excellent but marginal whether it’s worth the effort. It is getting an outing soon to photograph Puffins.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
As @Hector1970 says, a future 200-500/4 will likely be a heavy lens and you should consider the impact that will have on your photography. Like him, I also have a 600/4 II but in my case I frequently use it handheld. For winter raptors where I'm in a fixed position for a long period of time, I use a tripod and gimbal. But I also walk/hike with the lens on a shoulder strap (BlackRapid Sport-L).
Another consideration is how often you zoom out while using your 100-500. For me, I use my 600/4 with the 1.4x over 90% of the time...my personal bird photography would not benefit significantly by being able to zoom out. If you typically shoot at the long end of the 100-500 and you then crop in further, you might consider whether the existing RF 600/4 would be a better choice for you than a 200-500/4 (the former may be both lighter and cheaper).
Cost is another issue. Not my place to tell you how to spend your money, personally I would not finance a lens for my hobby. But if you're going to spend the money and if you have the time, you might consider which would be better...a new, heavy lens to replace your current already very good setup, or a few trips to excellent birding locations. Bosque del Apache, Alaska, Costa Rica, if you're in the US you could likely spend a few days at all three for less than the cost of the 200-500/4.
Upvote
0
unfocused
Photos/Photo Book Reviews: www.thecuriouseye.com
I will agree with what others have said and add a few thoughts.
It also depends on where you live. Living in central Illinois I’m too far north for the southern migrants and too far south for the northern migrants. Not near a large body of water, so no shorebirds.
My wife and I spend a considerable amount of time walking tree lines looking for birds in the brush. Not conducive to carrying and setting up a large lens.
When we travel it’s usually by plane. A large lens and gimbal setup means an extra piece of luggage. It’s more cost and time efficient to simply rent and have it shipped to a nearby fed ex at our destination. You can do a lot of rentals for the price of the lens and you can try out different lenses.
You might also consider an R7 if you don’t have one. It’s a cheaper and lighter way to get more pixels on the bird.
Bottom line: know your own style and know your own environment. Rent before buying.
If you do buy, I’d suggest looking at you tuber Whistling Wings website, he sells a custom designed carrier, monopod and gimbal setup that looks much more practical for big whites than the cotton carrier.
It also depends on where you live. Living in central Illinois I’m too far north for the southern migrants and too far south for the northern migrants. Not near a large body of water, so no shorebirds.
My wife and I spend a considerable amount of time walking tree lines looking for birds in the brush. Not conducive to carrying and setting up a large lens.
When we travel it’s usually by plane. A large lens and gimbal setup means an extra piece of luggage. It’s more cost and time efficient to simply rent and have it shipped to a nearby fed ex at our destination. You can do a lot of rentals for the price of the lens and you can try out different lenses.
You might also consider an R7 if you don’t have one. It’s a cheaper and lighter way to get more pixels on the bird.
Bottom line: know your own style and know your own environment. Rent before buying.
If you do buy, I’d suggest looking at you tuber Whistling Wings website, he sells a custom designed carrier, monopod and gimbal setup that looks much more practical for big whites than the cotton carrier.
Upvote
0
I bird almost everywhere. I bird in CA so I often chase rarities. I don’t do a lot of bird blind set ups and often just photograph when I’m out birding. I have been to Costa Rica to bird and found the neo tropical birds amazing. I typically just go birding with a camera and use playback sometimes to call in birds to get a good shot but not with birds when they are breeding
Upvote
0
I'm off in mid July to Skomer to photograph Puffins. Last time I went on a Puffin trip, to inner Farne before Covid shut it down, I used a 400mm DO II on a 5DIV and got keeper after keeper of them in flight with sandeels in their beaks. The guys with me who had big whites (400/2.8 and 600/4) did far worse than me because speed was of the essence in swinging the lenses round fast enough for nippy fast fliers coming close enough to get the details of the fishes. I think the 100-500 will be fine.
Upvote
0
I have tried a few other bracketing ideas, such as locking everything but the f# so that it is forced to use different f#'s to get the different exposure brackets. I found that I didn't like it enough since what I'd really prefer is for an aperture bracketing to be done with the same exposure (of say -1) and the R5 won't do that. Beyond that I haven't continued with any other bracketing things. I also have had the camera in servo mode (instead of 1 shot mode) so that may have something to do with it? (but I'd think servo mode would be a safer way to ensure focusing) I don't think the issue is movement of the birds, as I can notice it with other things such as landscapes. I don't recall if I ever tried full electronic shutter, but I guess I could try that since it may avoid the mechanical vibration. (I thought that electronic first curtain had benefits that justified its use)
If I only wanted to shoot images with one exposure, I would choose -1 or -1.5 as I find I usually prefer that range to keep the highlights or sky areas in better shape and then I pull up exposure in the dark areas with DxO Photoshop. And I only shoot in raw, not jpg.
Upvote
0
Yes, but my wife is taking the 100-500. I'll have to make do with a 600mm. She might give me a lend. I'm off to the Saltee Islands - a nice place to see them. There is a big Gannett colony too. Skomer I believe is hard to get to - popular spot.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
