grumpybadger
Alan Rickman
- Messages
- 4,638
- Name
- Paul Beastall
- Edit My Images
- Yes
As some of you know, I invested in a Canon 500mm f/4L IS lens earlier this year as a replacement for my 400mm f/4DO IS. The primary reason for the swap was that I wanted a bit more reach for bird photography and also for more distant stuff on the plains of East Africa.
Well, it has now been on a number of trips with me and I have a library of just over 2000 shots that I have deemed to be worthy of keeping hold of so now seems like a good time for a review.
Firstly, this is a heavy lens. Coupled with a 1D Mk II, it is close to 6 kilos all up. To, although handheld is possible, I can't cope for very long at all. So, a good tripod and or mounting solution is essential in my opinion.
I use the lens with a Kirk BH-1 ballhead (or sometimes the smaller BH-3 if I am trying to travel light) and a Wimberley Sidekick. I've used the lens on a Kirk window mount in Africa and a Manfrotto Magfibre tripod in the UK. Each has worked fine. The IS seems to work well even when on a tripod and I keep it switched on almost all of the time.
I also seem to have had good success with the lens resting on a bean bag.
Now for the main issue - image quality. When I had the 400DO, I rated it as a pretty good lens (it stood up well against my 70-200 and 24-70) but the quality from the 500 has just blown me away. It is so sharp and has a fabulous bokeh. The image below is a 100% crop.
Depth of field is very shallow wide open and so you do have to be careful of focus.
It also takes both the 1.4x and 2x Canon Extenders very well and I do have a few shots taken at 1000mm equivalent that I am more than happy with.
I do miss the 400 as it was half the weight. If money was no object, I would have both and use the 400 as a walkaround lens. However, that isn't possible and if I could have only one, it would be the 500 f/4 for the picture quality. It isn't cheap and you have to be seriously keen (or wealthy) to justify one but for me, it is worth the money.
Paul
Well, it has now been on a number of trips with me and I have a library of just over 2000 shots that I have deemed to be worthy of keeping hold of so now seems like a good time for a review.
Firstly, this is a heavy lens. Coupled with a 1D Mk II, it is close to 6 kilos all up. To, although handheld is possible, I can't cope for very long at all. So, a good tripod and or mounting solution is essential in my opinion.
I use the lens with a Kirk BH-1 ballhead (or sometimes the smaller BH-3 if I am trying to travel light) and a Wimberley Sidekick. I've used the lens on a Kirk window mount in Africa and a Manfrotto Magfibre tripod in the UK. Each has worked fine. The IS seems to work well even when on a tripod and I keep it switched on almost all of the time.
I also seem to have had good success with the lens resting on a bean bag.
Now for the main issue - image quality. When I had the 400DO, I rated it as a pretty good lens (it stood up well against my 70-200 and 24-70) but the quality from the 500 has just blown me away. It is so sharp and has a fabulous bokeh. The image below is a 100% crop.
Depth of field is very shallow wide open and so you do have to be careful of focus.
It also takes both the 1.4x and 2x Canon Extenders very well and I do have a few shots taken at 1000mm equivalent that I am more than happy with.
I do miss the 400 as it was half the weight. If money was no object, I would have both and use the 400 as a walkaround lens. However, that isn't possible and if I could have only one, it would be the 500 f/4 for the picture quality. It isn't cheap and you have to be seriously keen (or wealthy) to justify one but for me, it is worth the money.
Paul