SUPER telephoto - what would you do?

Thanks Doug - nice to see you still peruse the forum. Love the low fog, adds a great element. You still with the 5D? Mark ii or iii?

Ran into a guy with the 200-400 the other day. Has good reviews, but weights in almost 1.5 LBS more than the 500F4 and you lose a stop. I guess the trade off is for versatility to frame as you'd like. However living in AK I think I need range more than flexibility. I'll probably always have a FF body to "pull" me back, and/or the 70-200 with a 1.4 tele.

Didn't pull the trigger in the lens yet, but did get a RRS foot for the 500mm F4 IS ii, so, looks like it's just a matter of time before I click on "buy".
 
I'd do the 500mm. I don't do enough wildlife photography to justify a lens like that, but it sounds like you do. On the rare occasions I'm shooting wildlife, I'm working the 300 f/4 with 1.4 tele, so I definitely understand the limitations. I used to live up in South Dakota, though, and knew quite a few wildlife photographers. The 500mm f/4 seemed to be the most popular lens among them, along with a 1.4 or even 2.0 TC.

Anyway, that sucks that you've had so much bad luck with the 1Ds. I dreamed of that camera when I bought my 5DMII., but it was definitely with landscape photography in mind.
 
A couple years ago we stopped by a place that an eagle sits perched in a tree. We pulled up the same time as a guy in a van and all got out of the cars at the same time. I got in the back seat, switched the lens to the 300 f4 and a 1.4, layed the lens on the ski racks and fired off about 20 shots. Then, I looked at the other guy. He just got his huge tripod with a gimbal head set up and was attaching a Nikon 600mm 2.8 with a 2.0 TC on it. The drool was just flowing out my mouth. This thing was massive. I just couldn't stop watching. He gets the lens mounted and goes to start shooting. The eagle was gone. We both laughed for a bit. I played with the lens. Man it was sweet. :lol:
 
LOL, yeah that's why I always take the "documentary" photo before I go messing with my gear. I'd hate to miss that op.

I'm pretty decided on the 500mm F4. That on a FF is about the same as my 300 on the 7D now (480mm vs 500mm). So I can have silky images and be pulled back if I want, and then slap on the 7D body, or the Tele, or the 7D and the tele and have crazy reach for those times when it's needed.

Yeah, up in Alaska there is a lot of opportunity to use a lens like that if you're willing to get and do it. If I lived elsewhere unless I traveled a lot for photo trips I'm not sure I could justify it. heck, i can barely justify it now but at least I know up here I have opportunity to use it. if not, resale value will be great. Probably better then my car :).
 
Misled said:
You were right Steve, it must have been f4.
Click to expand...

Back in the days, I was trying to decide what to get and opted for the Nikon 500mm F4 and the Nikon 300mm F2.8. In retrospect, I think I would have been better with the Nikon 400mm F2.8 and Nikon 300mm F2.8.
 
snorvich said:
Back in the days, I was trying to decide what to get and opted for the Nikon 500mm F4 and the Nikon 300mm F2.8. In retrospect, I think I would have been better with the Nikon 400mm F2.8 and Nikon 300mm F2.8.
Click to expand...

Curious why? The 400 F 2.8 is a beast. Taking that and a 300 F2.8 would be like 14+ pounds alone.

Personally I'll probably be leaving my 300 F 2.8 behind if I'm taking the 500mm. Unless I'll be in the car most of the time. I think between a 70-200 F2.8, the 500 F4 and a FF and crop sensored body I'll be well covered.
 
IPT said:
Curious why? The 400 F 2.8 is a beast. Taking that and a 300 F2.8 would be like 14+ pounds alone.

Personally I'll probably be leaving my 300 F 2.8 behind if I'm taking the 500mm. Unless I'll be in the car most of the time. I think between a 70-200 F2.8, the 500 F4 and a FF and crop sensored body I'll be well covered.
Click to expand...

I could tele-extend the 400 F2.8 to 560 F4. And I really like fast lenses. Neither lens is really light weight. The 600 F4 was just too much for me. I use to take the largest lens I thought appropriate based on the shooting plan.
 
I think you are on the right path with the 500 f4. I've been thinking about this a lot lately and have been looking at picking up a used 500 f4 I or 600 f4 I to pair with my 7D, as my 400 5.6 is just too short for my main target, birds. I haven't been shooting much so I haven't pulled the trigger, but hoping to do so by spring. I plan on replacing my 400 5.6 with the 100-400, and I could pair either lens with my 6D if needed, but can't really see that happening. The times when you need less reach as opposed to more has to be less than 1% of the time (for me anyway when in pursuit of blinds). The 500 apparently takes the 1.4 converter fantastically, and is the best combo of length and versatility. Let us know what you decide.
 
How-To-Facebook-Like-Your-Google-Search.jpg
 
My wife's crappy cell phone picture. Skeeters were hellashish hence all the garb. The 500mm F4 with my wife using my old 300mm F4.



The 500 is insane. Both the price, and the quality. The pictures are just amazing. Truth is though sometimes it's almost too much lens. If i didn't live in Alaska, or shoot small critters all the time I'm not sure I could justify it but living up here there is ample opportunity to use it. If I rented one all the times I use it I'm sure it'd add up quick. I'll post some of this pics I took with it soon. I have some images at 1/30th of a second, some slower that are just razor sharp.
 
Last edited:
Nice shot!

I would love to take this lens out for a spin and see the difference between the 500 f4 and the 400 5.6. I'm not aware of anyone locally that rents it out though here in SW Ontario. The extra 100mm, extra stop, and IS over the 400 make it so enticing... but the cost difference is a bit of a deterrent, especially when I can't find the time to get out shooting as it is! Looking forward to seeing some of those shots, and experiencing the lens vicariously. :)
 
With ISO what it is today the one stop isn't a huge deal. However if I can I'll try and stay at 800. These owls are in the woods and shade mostly so i appreciate the one stop. it allows me to keep at 800 but I have images as low as 1/10th of a second. Once some robins were attacking the adult. I also appreciated the extra stop there. I bumped up to ISO 6400 just to try and freeze the action (almost did). Would have been worse without the one stop extra. In Fla I hand held almost the entire time (pics here: https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.761247667329242.1073741846.422933124494033&type=3) and again the extra stop was appreciated. Though there it was sunny so not as big of a deal. Love the soft backgrounds too with the F4. Also the new IS on the version || lenses have another stop or two. I'm amazed and what I get away hand holding. Shooting with a tele im at over 700mm so I keep the IS on even on the tripod. Works wonders.

The 500 has been awesome, though almost too big on occasion. However I just swap from the 7D to my 6D and it all works out (sans the frames per minute). Since I have the 300F4 I can have a 420mm F5.6 with a tele so a 400 F6 fixed didn't make any sense. Had some moose in my yard last night and even then sometimes the 300 was too much. Then again I used the 500 a few times and got some nice images of the baby's ears poking up from the grass (and a few head shots) with the mom softly focused behind :). Been so busy shooting haven't time to really process many yet but I'll get some up soon!

One of the Fla pics. Hand held from a moving boat (cropped).

 
Last edited:
I've always thought that if I do get a 500 f/4 someday, I'll trade my 400 in for a 100-400. That effectively would cover most of the focal range with two bodies and on those rare occasions where things come in "too close" lol, plan B will be available in those moments.

The 400 5.6 needs a lot of light. It suffers even on a FF body, especially when you consider the lost focal length on a crop body. The noise gets up there pretty quickly on the 7D in low light, unless you are able to fill the frame and not have to crop for composition in post. That said, I think I got some photos last night in my yard on my 6D at ISO 12800 that are going to turn out just fine :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

raidendex
Fixing White Balance
Replies
2
Views
102
wvned
wvned
D
how often do you feed your tank?
Replies
4
Views
322
Dustin07
D
Reefing102
I’m done with glue…what do you use?
Replies
11
Views
332
Reefing102
Reefing102
P
Can anyone tell me what my starfish was doing?
Replies
3
Views
299
SantaMonica
S
Jyetman
What to feed a no fish reef
Replies
1
Views
211
OrionN
OrionN
Back
Top