Canon 500mm
Sep 29, 2018 12:30:14 #
I mostly take photos of birds and wildlife and, although I own a Canon 500mm 1:4 L IS lens and tripod with Wimberly head (heavy but doable on short hikes), I find myself using it less and less. My go to set-up is a 7D II with a 100-400 zoom 1:4.5 L II. This is so superior to my former set-up- a 7D I and 100-400 I that I am not using the 500 mm. Does this make any sense?
Sep 29, 2018 12:35:47 #
RWR
Loc: La Mesa, CA
1826fairhaven wrote:
I mostly take photos of birds and wildlife and, although I own a Canon 500mm 1:4 L IS lens and tripod with Wimberly head (heavy but doable on short hikes), I find myself using it less and less. My go to set-up is a 7D II with a 100-400 zoom 1:4.5 L II. This is so superior to my former set-up- a 7D I and 100-400 I that I am not using the 500 mm. Does this make any sense?
Welcome to the UHH. Shoot to suit yourself rather than fret over what others do. You’ll be happier!
Sep 29, 2018 12:38:45 #
J
I have both the 500mm f/4 and the 100-400 II, I shoot with full frames and I don't think that the 100-400 is as good as the 500. Don't get me wrong, the 100 400 is amazing but not the same as the 500. I will say if I am going on nature trails or any thing like that I leave the 500 at home and take the 100-400 but if I am not going to be doing a lot of walking or moving from place to place the 500 with a gamble is my goto lens.
1826fairhaven wrote:
I mostly take photos of birds and wildlife and, although I own a Canon 500mm 1:4 L IS lens and tripod with Wimberly head (heavy but doable on short hikes), I find myself using it less and less. My go to set-up is a 7D II with a 100-400 zoom 1:4.5 L II. This is so superior to my former set-up- a 7D I and 100-400 I that I am not using the 500 mm. Does this make any sense?
I have both the 500mm f/4 and the 100-400 II, I shoot with full frames and I don't think that the 100-400 is as good as the 500. Don't get me wrong, the 100 400 is amazing but not the same as the 500. I will say if I am going on nature trails or any thing like that I leave the 500 at home and take the 100-400 but if I am not going to be doing a lot of walking or moving from place to place the 500 with a gamble is my goto lens.
Sep 29, 2018 12:40:44 #
i use a old nik 800 f8 on a crop sensor [film era, HEAVY ] to shot birds , and at time i wished it was longer .will use the 400 f 5.6 for flying stuff .
Sep 29, 2018 13:51:10 #
Blurryeyed wrote:
J
I have both the 500mm f/4 and the 100-400 II, I shoot with full frames and I don't think that the 100-400 is as good as the 500. Don't get me wrong, the 100 400 is amazing but not the same as the 500. I will say if I am going on nature trails or any thing like that I leave the 500 at home and take the 100-400 but if I am not going to be doing a lot of walking or moving from place to place the 500 with a gamble is my goto lens.
I have both the 500mm f/4 and the 100-400 II, I shoot with full frames and I don't think that the 100-400 is as good as the 500. Don't get me wrong, the 100 400 is amazing but not the same as the 500. I will say if I am going on nature trails or any thing like that I leave the 500 at home and take the 100-400 but if I am not going to be doing a lot of walking or moving from place to place the 500 with a gamble is my goto lens.
I too own the 100-400 II with a full-frame body and rent the 500L when needed. I'd love to own the 500 prime, but I don't regularly have situations where that size & weight is justified. If you're looking for ideas for possibly letting go of the 500, consider the 300 f/2.8L IS II. I use this prime even more than the 100-400L, with either the 1.4 and 2x extenders. The image quality extended to 600mm is great, although not the same as the 500 @ 500mm, but comparable to the 100-400 extended to 560mm.
Sep 29, 2018 14:14:27 #
WELCOME to UHH! You will find many helpful members and a few smart Alecs.
Sep 29, 2018 15:14:27 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
I too own the 100-400 II with a full-frame body an... (show quote)
No, I love my 500, wish I could afford the newer version but it is still my goto lens for eagles, down here there they have an area at the city dump that is between the active dump and the tree line that the birds roost and nest in that they will allow you to set up. In winter months I have seen as many as 40 to 50 eagles in a particular outing and that is where I mostly use my tripod and gimble. As far as a walk around lens the 100-400 with the 1.4 extender is pretty awesome.
Sep 29, 2018 15:52:54 #
1826fairhaven wrote:
I mostly take photos of birds and wildlife and, although I own a Canon 500mm 1:4 L IS lens and tripod with Wimberly head (heavy but doable on short hikes), I find myself using it less and less. My go to set-up is a 7D II with a 100-400 zoom 1:4.5 L II. This is so superior to my former set-up- a 7D I and 100-400 I that I am not using the 500 mm. Does this make any sense?
You're traveling through another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind. A journey into a wondrous land whose boundaries are that of imagination. That's the signpost up ahead - your next stop, the Hedgehog Zone. Welcome.
Sep 29, 2018 15:58:24 #
Blurryeyed wrote:
No, I love my 500, wish I could afford the newer version but it is still my goto lens for eagles, down here there they have an area at the city dump that is between the active dump and the tree line that the birds roost and nest in that they will allow you to set up. In winter months I have seen as many as 40 to 50 eagles in a particular outing and that is where I mostly use my tripod and gimble. As far as a walk around lens the 100-400 with the 1.4 extender is pretty awesome.
Actually, the suggestion was for the OP although I didn't focus the wording of the suggestion properly while using your post as a 'concurrence'. Sorry for the confusion. Beyond annual airshows in downtown Chicago, I can't justify a 500mm prime.
Sep 29, 2018 17:12:18 #
1826fairhaven wrote:
I mostly take photos of birds and wildlife and, although I own a Canon 500mm 1:4 L IS lens and tripod with Wimberly head (heavy but doable on short hikes), I find myself using it less and less. My go to set-up is a 7D II with a 100-400 zoom 1:4.5 L II. This is so superior to my former set-up- a 7D I and 100-400 I that I am not using the 500 mm. Does this make any sense?
Complete sense !
..
Sep 30, 2018 06:10:05 #
1826fairhaven wrote:
I mostly take photos of birds and wildlife and, although I own a Canon 500mm 1:4 L IS lens and tripod with Wimberly head (heavy but doable on short hikes), I find myself using it less and less. My go to set-up is a 7D II with a 100-400 zoom 1:4.5 L II. This is so superior to my former set-up- a 7D I and 100-400 I that I am not using the 500 mm. Does this make any sense?
I don't have the 500 but do have the 100-400 II on a 7D. I would find the 100-400 much easier to carry and more versatile in the field and if you need more reach attach the 1.4X III to the 100-400 and have no loss of quality unless you pixel peep at 1000%.
As you state you use the 500 less and less and it sounds like it is due to being perhaps cumbersome. But I wonder if you also find the flexibility of being able to zoom in lens rather than on foot to get the composition becoming more and more desirable.
Sep 30, 2018 06:52:17 #
Yes for me. I had the 500mm lens but I am using now for birds a Canon 7dII with a Tamron 150-600 and a 1.4 extender. I also had a Canon 100-400. And I tested all combinations.
Sep 30, 2018 08:10:40 #
whitehall
Loc: Canada
Although, I own a Canon 100-400 and the 1.4 iii extender, I prefer the Tamron 150-600, (G2) with a Canon 7D Mkii for BIF. I do not add an extender to the Tamron as its ability ti AF completely disappears if the camera is hand held.
As for the 500 f4, A met someone yesterday morning who had that very set up including the 1.4 TC he had a harness to support the set up and his first comment was a complaint about the weight.
As for the 500 f4, A met someone yesterday morning who had that very set up including the 1.4 TC he had a harness to support the set up and his first comment was a complaint about the weight.
Sep 30, 2018 12:59:23 #
amfoto1
Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA
The 100-400mm II is a wonderful lens... sharp, fast focusing, versatile, great color, with very good contrast. It plays amazingly well with a quality 1.4X too. But, of course, then it's a 560mm f/8... two stops slower than the 500mm prime.
But the 500mm f/4L IS is pure magic. It doesn't have the convenience of a zoom, of course, but it matches or exceeds the 100-400 II in every way PLUS it has lovely bokeh that the zoom can't match, as well as potential for stronger background blur than the zoom. The original 500/4 IS is almost a 20 year old design and the 100-400 II is a full 15 years newer model. Of course the 500mm is also twice the size and more than double the weight, too. Not to mention. when it was new the 500mm cost around 4X as much as the 100-400 II (which speaks incredibly well for the zoom).
As to third party lenses... Sorry, but aside from than their generally lower cost, most fall short of either of these Canon lenses. The EF 100-400 II with a 1.4X III is sharper throughout it's zoom range than any of the 150-600s without a teleconverter. The differences are greatest in the corners and at the edges, to it's less obvious on an APS-C crop camera than on full frame. And it may not matter for some types of shots... sharpness in the center of the image, where the lenses are more equal, is often more important than in the periphery. Thanks to fluorite, the Canon zoom (and prime) also shows almost no chromatic aberration... while there's some CA present in the third party zooms.
The 100-400 II isn't perfect. Canon could have done a better job with its tripod mounting foot. That's designed to look cool, rather than to work well. The thumb-screw fastener doesn't inspire confidence and the curved design makes it difficult to fit Arca-style plates. The good news is that there are several custom made replacement tripod mounting feet available for the 100-400 II which solve both problems.... But that shouldn't be necessary and adds a bit to the cost. Of course, so would purchasing an Arca lens plate, though perhaps not quite as much... BTW, some of the other manufacturers are now including Arca dovetails on some of their tripod rings, making a separate lens plate unnecessary.
I'd really like to see Canon update their 1993 EF 400mm f/5.6L (add IS & fluorite, add to and curve the aperture blades)... And they should update the 1997 300mm f/4L IS (upgrade the IS, add fluorite to the optical formula, improve the aperture same as with the 400mm).... and answer Nikon's neat new 500mm f/5.6 PF lens with one of their own!
Personally I use the 100-400 II a good deal more than my 500/4 IS, which I've had for quite a few years. The big prime is primarily a "tripod only" lens.... while I use the zoom handheld most often.
But the 500mm f/4L IS is pure magic. It doesn't have the convenience of a zoom, of course, but it matches or exceeds the 100-400 II in every way PLUS it has lovely bokeh that the zoom can't match, as well as potential for stronger background blur than the zoom. The original 500/4 IS is almost a 20 year old design and the 100-400 II is a full 15 years newer model. Of course the 500mm is also twice the size and more than double the weight, too. Not to mention. when it was new the 500mm cost around 4X as much as the 100-400 II (which speaks incredibly well for the zoom).
As to third party lenses... Sorry, but aside from than their generally lower cost, most fall short of either of these Canon lenses. The EF 100-400 II with a 1.4X III is sharper throughout it's zoom range than any of the 150-600s without a teleconverter. The differences are greatest in the corners and at the edges, to it's less obvious on an APS-C crop camera than on full frame. And it may not matter for some types of shots... sharpness in the center of the image, where the lenses are more equal, is often more important than in the periphery. Thanks to fluorite, the Canon zoom (and prime) also shows almost no chromatic aberration... while there's some CA present in the third party zooms.
The 100-400 II isn't perfect. Canon could have done a better job with its tripod mounting foot. That's designed to look cool, rather than to work well. The thumb-screw fastener doesn't inspire confidence and the curved design makes it difficult to fit Arca-style plates. The good news is that there are several custom made replacement tripod mounting feet available for the 100-400 II which solve both problems.... But that shouldn't be necessary and adds a bit to the cost. Of course, so would purchasing an Arca lens plate, though perhaps not quite as much... BTW, some of the other manufacturers are now including Arca dovetails on some of their tripod rings, making a separate lens plate unnecessary.
I'd really like to see Canon update their 1993 EF 400mm f/5.6L (add IS & fluorite, add to and curve the aperture blades)... And they should update the 1997 300mm f/4L IS (upgrade the IS, add fluorite to the optical formula, improve the aperture same as with the 400mm).... and answer Nikon's neat new 500mm f/5.6 PF lens with one of their own!
Personally I use the 100-400 II a good deal more than my 500/4 IS, which I've had for quite a few years. The big prime is primarily a "tripod only" lens.... while I use the zoom handheld most often.
Sep 30, 2018 13:57:53 #
PHRubin wrote:
WELCOME to UHH! You will find many helpful members and a few smart.
Yes, very smart indeed!!!
SS
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.