secondhand 500mm f4

[markyboy.1967]

Bill, i have also used the 600 from its closed MFD but to over 200m for other subjects not just bird life.The 300 is a fantastic lens a a good match with the 600. There are very few lenses on the market which allows you to get the subject in the frame at a decent size from as far as this lens will allow. I also use a 1,4tc at times with it to fill the frame with smaller birds both close and near. My 300 gets used mainly from hides where i can get really close however the 600 is hard to beat when stalking or out in the open. Its downfall is the weight/size and balance. I don't see the MFD a big issue as like you i carry the 300 and a tc with me. The 300 with a 2xtc isn't a match for the quality of image from a bare 600 hence why i consider carefully what lens i attach to which camera. Also with a 1.4tc you get 840mm which the 300/400 can't match. Its a lens designed for distance shooting and your comment about shooting miles away didn't really do it for me. If you literally meant miles then my eyesight wouldn't be good enough anyway never mind the lens however if you just meant a distance off then there are few better lenses on the market for that type of shooting.

 

[BillN_33]

Bill, i have also used the 600 from its closed MFD but to over 200m for other subjects not just bird life.The 300 is a fantastic lens a a good match with the 600. There are very few lenses on the market which allows you to get the subject in the frame at a decent size from as far as this lens will allow. I also use a 1,4tc at times with it to fill the frame with smaller birds both close and near. My 300 gets used mainly from hides where i can get really close however the 600 is hard to beat when stalking or out in the open. Its downfall is the weight/size and balance. I don't see the MFD a big issue as like you i carry the 300 and a tc with me. The 300 with a 2xtc isn't a match for the quality of image from a bare 600 hence why i consider carefully what lens i attach to which camera. Also with a 1.4tc you get 840mm which the 300/400 can't match. Its a lens designed for distance shooting and your comment about shooting miles away didn't really do it for me. If you literally meant miles then my eyesight wouldn't be good enough anyway never mind the lens however if you just meant a distance off then there are few better lenses on the market for that type of shooting.

Hi Mark

I was told I need to get closer to get more detail in the image that I posted

the reason I first posted the image was I was trying to indicate:

that if you want an image that tight of a Blue Tit, (a 5" bird) using and FX sensor and a 600mm lens, if you are at MFD for that lens you will crop away 80% of the image ............

and also that

if you want an image that tight of a Blue Tit, (a 5" bird), using and FX sensor and a 300mm lens, if you are at MFD for that lens you will crop away 80% of the image ............ ............ i.e. you will loose 80% of the date, if you want to put it that way, which I would not as to me it is all about pixels on the image

the ratios are basically the same - must be lens design although the PF's may reduce this - (but if I am incorrect I would be happy to be corrected, Steven where are you?)

and that this image is at the limit of what can be done

magnification - focal length - MFD - lens design

I presumed that the only way to get closer and use more of the FX sensor, i.e. not to have to crop 80% to get that image would be to reduce the MFD of the lens ....... I saw no way of doing this, but it was suggested that this could be done by using extension tubes


I literally did not mean miles and it depends on the type of shot as obviously the 600mm is better at 250 mts than say the 300mm .......... I looked through all my 600mm shots and the distances I was away from the subject ..... including the greatest

The purpose of my postings in this thread was really to explore "should I get a 500mm or a 600mm lens" and my main point would be that the longer the focal length the more specialised and less "flexible" the lens will be ..... with a consequence that when shooting birds small and large you need to have other, shorter, focal length with you

600mm at 250 mtrs

Full Image

Cropped down

cropped down further

COMPOSITION

 

[markyboy.1967]

Yeah Bill, the 300/400/500 etc are more flexible than the 600 and the ratios you mention look to be about right or close to it. If i had a bare 300( no tc etc) then the 500 would be my choice however with having 420mm with a 1.4tc then the 600 made more sense.I often use the 420mm and crop a little rather than the 600 and not crop at all as there is very little image degradation with the small crop unless you pixel peep. It all depends on the OPs intended use and how close the distance to the subject he can normally find himself. With the 600 and a tc you can also run into atmospheric conditions degrading the image quality if your subject is a distance off, an example would be deer/eagles etc in the snow where it seems to sap contrast etc...Being closer will in theory gain you better detail however camera settings and conditions also play a major part so its not all about distance to subject.

 

[BillN_33]

Yeah Bill, the 300/400/500 etc are more flexible than the 600 and the ratios you mention look to be about right or close to it. If i had a bare 300( no tc etc) then the 500 would be my choice however with having 420mm with a 1.4tc then the 600 made more sense.I often use the 420mm and crop a little rather than the 600 and not crop at all as there is very little image degradation with the small crop unless you pixel peep. It all depends on the OPs intended use and how close the distance to the subject he can normally find himself. With the 600 and a tc you can also run into atmospheric conditions degrading the image quality if your subject is a distance off, an example would be deer/eagles etc in the snow where it seems to sap contrast etc...Being closer will in theory gain you better detail however camera settings and conditions also play a major part so its not all about distance to subject.

I am not complaining about the quality of the 600mm f4 at all

This year I have found Mark that with my type of shooting and the nearest I can now get to birds I am using 420mm /510mm more and more, maybe because it is just so handy ...... obviously and then cropping ....... so that's why the thread got me thinking

Money no object, I think a 400mm or 500mm f4 PF would be a great lens ..... as the 300mm PF is one better in accepting the TC - i.e. the 300mm f4 AFS was good with the 1,4TC - now the 300PF is just as good with the 1,7TC and it is half the size and weight

(I was surprised at the excellent quality Chris achieved on his trip to Spain using the 500mm f4)

 

[mufftrix]

I having used the 500 F4 and the 300 F2.8 with TC and now I am moving up to the 600 F4

For my kind of photography and am sure a lot of others reach is nearly always king? There very few times I have found the MFD to be an issue with the 500, it always the long end that I yearn for that 20% more the 600 will give me bare before having to use TC's?

I would say that the 300 F2.8 for me was a happy compromise being remarkably sharp with the 1.4 and more than acceptable with the 1.7TC but maybe a few less keepers 100% sharp and a small loss in focus speed?

I hear of people saying the 2x TC is good but for me the image is just too soft. it depends what you happy with but I am a pixel peeper and if it not sharp as sharp can be then I would sooner not use something that just ok. I cant see the point of spending thousands on a lens and then just being happy with mediocre results?

I think Bill has got it spot on using the 300 PF is a great lens weight ratio rather than lugging a 500 or 600 lens about and this is the biggest downside for me, the weight does get a pain if you like I do walk about a lot to get shots?

When I had both the 300 F2.8 and the 500 F4 the 300mm sat at home because I preferred the 500mm rather than the 420mm using the 1.4TC on the 300 F2.8 as 99% of my shots need cropping but the weight is getting to be a downside I not getting any younger lol!

Now after I am going to use a 300 PF with the 1.4TC stuck to it permanently for walk about or another 300 F2.8 if funds allow, it just so much more usable and easier than lugging the 500 or 600 around

For me I think that the biggest issue besides cost obviously it is the sheer weight? With the 300 PF especially it a breeze to walk about with and not restrictive for nipping in a shop on the way home or going in a cafe for a brew or getting to awkward places up hills etc etc rather than having to lug a 500/600 about, it all these other things that make life easier besides the actual photography you have to think about as well

If I know there something that going to need reach like grebes nesting etc that I will spend time watching then that when the big guns are ideal for that purpose.

So the bottom line for me is even if money was no object the 500 and 600 have there place but using say the D810 and a 300 with TC is a much better route to go first as it so much more flexible?

Below is a 300 F2.8 shot with the 1.7TC which was a long walk to get to the spot so a 500 would have been ok for the shot as well, but my back would have known about it and my arms would have been falling off by the time I got there and got the shot

Eurasian Jay by Mick Erwin, on Flickr


And here a shot using the 500 F4 with the 1.7TC so 850mm. This is a shot that I couldn't have got with the 300? Well I could but it would have been a much bigger crop so here the reach really paid off!


Little Grebe (Dab Chick) by Mick Erwin, on Flickr

 

[robinsslee]

All super telephoto lenses have their own place, the reason of 500mm are the most popular range and highly sought out on second hand market was the weight and FL ratio it is unbeatable. If you need reach the compromise are the weight and size, also traveling overseas such as South Africa or NA are very restricted.

I am using 100-400mm II and 500mm II both compliment to each other brilliantly, to hell now I am thinking about part exchange 500mm for a 400mm 2.8 for the sake of 2.8 when the light starts to fall off.

Last but not least, I am waiting for Canon to announce 600mm F4 DO and 400mm 2.8 with build in TC

 

[George]

Although I haven't seen anyone else on here commenting on it. the 400DO mk2 works absolutely brilliantly with both 1.4 and 2x converters, when combined with the new af feature at f8 of the 1 Dx2....but it's pricey, if you ever see a good 2nd hand one, snap it up!!

George.

 

[chris malcolm]

With quite different lenses I've struggled with these same compromises of reach, portability, cost, etc.. My long lens is the Sony 500mm reflex f8, the only AF reflex lens ever made, very small and light (and cheap) for a 500mm lens. On the other hand the IQ is poor compared to a conventional 500mm refractor lens -- low contrast, and the notoriously horrible "doughnut" bokeh. Often when I've posted a commented bird image taken with it, someone asks me when I'm going to get round to buying a "proper" 500mm lens, or even a decent 300mm lens, which with appropriate cropping would (so it was suggested) be at least as good as my 500mm.

I acquired a Tamron 70-300mm, reviewed as being a fair performer at the cheaper end of the 70-300mm market. Would this be good enough to retire my 500mm reflex? The local heron obligingly sat still while I swopped lenses between 300mm and 500mm. I cropped both down to the heron's head. There was no doubt about it. Even to a non-photographer there was obviously more detail in the 500mm shot. What's more, the 70-300mm is bigger and heavier than the 500mm.

A local shop gave me the opportunity to do a quick comparison of my 500mm against the Sony f4 70-400mm, regarded as a top class performer in that zoom range, and unusual in being optimised for best performance at the long 400mm end. They let me stand outside the shop with a monopod and shoot the tiles of a church roof about 100 metres away. A pixel peeping expert could see slightly better detail resolution in the well lit parts of the image. In a deeply shadowed part of the image the 400mm showed clear detail where the low contrast of the 500mm rendered only indistinct mush. Had I been able to afford it I would have bought the 70-400mm. On the other hand it was so much bigger and heavier than the 500mm that I would only ever take it out when I planned to do some serious long shots, and I wouldn't ever take it hill walking. Whereas the 500mm reflex is small and light enough to carry around in my gear bag just in case an unexpected 500mm opportunity turns up.

I've come to the conclusion that portability is for me such a winning feature that if I ever acquire a top quality 500mm (or 600mm or more ...) refractor prime it won't ever supplant my cheap and cheerfully portable 500mm reflex except for specially planned occasions.