which long lens ?

B

Bikeman

Messages
129
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
I posted this question on the"equipment" section but this area may get a better response.
Im going to bite the bullet and get a prime tele lens, mid life crisis might be to blame but I dont really want a soft top sports car.
Its the " life is to short " and " you cant take it with you " syndrome :LOL:

My question is Do I go for a fast 400mm F2.8 or a 500mm F4 or a 600mm F4 ??
Im not bothered about weight and realize they are all a major move from smaller hand holdable zooms, or even from a 300mm.2.8.
Your experience in the pros and cons and do's and donts would be a help in my decision making .
Thaanks.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The 500mm is actually the lightest of all those, as well as the cheapest. With a 1.4x permanently welded to it, it is one of the most-seen bird photography set-ups. If you are truly not bothered about the weight I would be surprised. Many people say that, but it is simply a huge amount to lug about all the time. The 500 in my opinion has the best relationship of focal length to weight and cost. It is even hand-holdable for short periods, Regards
Jonathan
 
footman said:
Double posting is not good forum etiquette. Give it time and you would get lots of response to your original post.
Most of us on here are equipment freaks and love nothing more than a bit of argy-bargy about "which long lens"!
Click to expand...

Ill keep that in mind, my train of thought was long lenses are used a lot in wildlife and so more people would see the thread.
I wasn't double posting intentionally it was really an afterthought that I might have put it on the wrong section.
 
Pedalman said:
Ill keep that in mind, my train of thought was long lenses are used a lot in wildlife and so more people would see the thread.
I wasn't double posting intentionally it was really an afterthought that I might have put it on the wrong section.
Click to expand...

(y) I'm sure you'll enjoy your time on this forum. I have learnt so much from the people here.
 
Price, weight come's into it quite a bit.
My two pence worth is the 500mm as said can be held and I found last week can be carried for most of the day (good strap) and be used. Results are incredably sharp and its probably the most comon lens seen in the field.

If weight and price aren't to much of a issue then you have to ask. Do I need the extra length like the 600mm or speed F2.8 400mm.

I wanted the 400mm but I am so pleased to have the 500mm instead. Its versitile and I rarely need F2.8. I saved and bought a Sigma 300mm F2.8 and I even may be selling it as its rarely used.
 
I think I'm right in saying that the Canon 400mm 2.8 is their heaviest lens. From what I have seen (I don't have one yet) the 500mm wins on both weight and reach. I will certainly be considering one.

I'm actually considering it at the moment.
My bank manager (sorry account consultant) is not considering me buying one at the moment.

Mind you what does he know about anything.
 
Last edited:
Which ever long lens you buy, allow for a really good tripod and gimble head also. Your images will improve no end.
 
Thanks everyone, seems the 500mm with a 1.4 converter has the majority vote, just shows its best to ask ...I would have thought the 400 2.8 and the 600 f4 would have been in the top spots one against the other with the 500mm as a third option. The reasons you all give for the 500mm make good sense and I have been swayed to think in that direction.
Just to fill in some info to questions, Im using Nikon and Ill be shooting wildlife ,the budget is what it takes to get one, new or used , if used Ill be looking for one in excellent condition but they are hard to find.
As I mentioned this will be a once in a lifetime "mid life crisis" purchase
(I don't want a sports car) to own a lens like this and enjoy using it hopefully for many years before Im eventually nailed into a wooden box.:LOL::bonk:
 
It's really down to a choice between the 500 and 600mm lenses. For maximum reach there's no argument that the 600mm wins hands down, but it isn't always about maximum reach - with closer birds the 600mm can give you serious DOF problems. I sometimes find the 500mm f4L too long which is why I have the 300mm 2.8L as an alternative.

Don't dismiss the weight of these lenses as inconsequential the 500mm in a backpack kicks the crap out of me if there's a lot of walking involved.
 
CT said:
Don't dismiss the weight of these lenses as inconsequential the 500mm in a backpack kicks the crap out of me if there's a lot of walking involved.
Click to expand...

I know what you are saying about the weight of these things cos I did use a borrowed 400 2.8 a short while ago and I may be :wacky: a bit cuckoo but I would carry anything to total exhaustion if it was the tool for the job.

Im fairly lucky in a way as Im fairly fit/strong with good heart and lungs from loads of cycling and running so the weight and physical effort doesn't affect me I treat it like a workout.:wacky::bonk: I know Im mad !

I think its a choice between the two long lenses 500 600 ? .
The concern with the 600mm is something I read yesterday in that the minimum focusing distance of the 600 is aprox 35ft and Quote "a small bird will not fill the frame at that distance" does anybody have any thoughts/expierience on that point ?

I really appreciate everyones help and thoughts on this as its a big amount of dosh to make a mistake with . Thanks. :)
 
Have you considered the Sigma 300-800?
 
Pedalman said:
I know what you are saying about the weight of these things cos I did use a borrowed 400 2.8 a short while ago and I may be :wacky: a bit cuckoo but I would carry anything to total exhaustion if it was the tool for the job.

Im fairly lucky in a way as Im fairly fit/strong with good heart and lungs from loads of cycling and running so the weight and physical effort doesn't affect me I treat it like a workout.:wacky::bonk: I know Im mad !

I think its a choice between the two long lenses 500 600 ? .
The concern with the 600mm is something I read yesterday in that the minimum focusing distance of the 600 is aprox 35ft and Quote "a small bird will not fill the frame at that distance" does anybody have any thoughts/expierience on that point ?

I really appreciate everyones help and thoughts on this as its a big amount of dosh to make a mistake with . Thanks. :)
Click to expand...

LOL I don't think you're cuckoo - age and physical fitness all need to be considered. My 500mm f4L has a minimum focusing distance of around 15 feet and I find quite a lot of shots are taken between that distance and say 25 feet. DOF is a definite issue at those distances, as given the typical light we get in this country I'm usually shooting wide open. Stopping down is a often a luxury in only the best light, and I find myself shooting at 800 ISO pretty well by default most of the time.

Using the 500mm with a 1.4X converter gives an actual 700mm with little or no perceptible loss of IQ. The other point I'd make is that high pixel density camera like the 50D and 7D have enormously improved the effective reach and cropping ability of all lenses - in fact you'll get the best reach with any lens with that type of body, so you really need to weigh into the equation the sensor size you'll be using with the lens.
 
Pedalman said:
I think its a choice between the two long lenses 500 600 ? .
The concern with the 600mm is something I read yesterday in that the minimum focusing distance of the 600 is aprox 35ft
I regularly use my Nikon 600mm F4 with a 1.4tc. The lens has a minimum focus distance of around 5 mtrs (15ft). Photographed a dartford last weekend, it half filled the frame. Which lens has a 35ft minimum focus distance?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
glynh said:
Pedalman said:
I think its a choice between the two long lenses 500 600 ? .
The concern with the 600mm is something I read yesterday in that the minimum focusing distance of the 600 is aprox 35ft
I regularly use my Nikon 600mm F4 with a 1.4tc. The lens has a minimum focus distance of around 5 mtrs (15ft). Photographed a dartford last weekend, it half filled the frame. Which lens has a 35ft minimum focus distance?
Click to expand...

The Canon 600mm f4 has a close focusing distance of about 15 feet.

The newer version 11 of the lens is slightly less at just over 14 feet.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Oops, sorry having problems posting
 
Last edited:
I use the canon 300 f2.8 with the x1.4 or the x2 extenders. I find still takes a nice shot at 600mm f5.6. I thought about the 500mm f4 and budget wasn't an issue. but I like to take pictures as I walk about and the 300mm still lets me do this all day
 
(QUOTE) I regularly use my Nikon 600mm F4 with a 1.4tc. The lens has a minimum focus distance of around 5 mtrs (15ft). Photographed a dartford last weekend, it half filled the frame. Which lens has a 35ft minimum focus distance?[/QUOTE]

OOPS ! yes I meant to write 15 ft not 35ft , from what you have just said my concern about filling the frame with the 600 is not correct , the person who wrote that comment obviously hasn't used a 600mm and this is the main reason I asked the question on this forum, to get some answers from people with experience of these lenses.
many thanks, think Im getting tempted by the 600 now .
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hi Alan

Feel free to take my advice with a pinch-of-salt as they say because I have a 600f4IS for sale on this forum.

BUT, if you want possibly the best optics and certainly the most pixels-per-duck at a given focal length (including the 800f5.6) then the 600f4IS is the one to go for.

If you sit in a hide and do not carry your gear long distances this is THE lens, IMHO.

"Why are you selling yours then ?" you may ask. Well, I hardly ever sit in hides and cover large(ish) distances and do not like using mono or tripods so I am looking to trade down to a lightweight set-up. I am only a hobbyist so am happy to take a bit of a hit in IQ.

If your shooting style permits though the 600 is a killer lens; try to find even an indifferent never mind a bad review of it !

All the best.
 
gary43 said:
and certainly the most pixels-per-duck at a given focal length (including the 800f5.6) then the 600f4IS is the one to go for.
Click to expand...
Just wondering what you mean by this and how you calculate it Gary? I though the 'pixels-per-duck' would be more to do with the Camera than the lens - Not a criticism but just curious as to how this is calculated.
 
Hold on for the 200-400mm with integrated TC
 
Roy C said:
Just wondering what you mean by this and how you calculate it Gary? I though the 'pixels-per-duck' would be more to do with the Camera than the lens - Not a criticism but just curious as to how this is calculated.
Click to expand...

Hi Roy

Basically, if you stack a x2TC onto your 300 you get a 600f5.6 so for a particular camera, say you fill half the frame by area on your 7D, you get 9 M pixels per mallard.

Given a 500f4 you get 700 mm at f5.6 so you get 16.7% more reach in both directions on the sensor so 12.25 M pixels per mallard.

Given the 800 f5.6 in the same scenario that will be (800/600)squared x 9 = 16 M pixels per mallard.

The 600f4 gives 840 mm at f5.6 so (840/600)squared x 9 = 17.64 M pixels per mallard.

Obviously these absolute numbers change depending upon what f numbers and camera bodies you chose (I have arbitrarilly chosen f5.6 and the 7D to make the sums easy) but the ratios do not.

Please note, as ever, I reserve the right to be wrong !

Hope this is clear.

Gary
 
Last edited:
Sorry, did not mean to hijack this thread just answering Roy's question above.

I'm sure others could comment on the long lens situation asked by the OP ?
 
gary43 said:
Hi Roy

Basically, if you stack a x2TC onto your 300 you get a 600f5.6 so for a particular camera, say you fill half the frame by area on your 7D, you get 9 M pixels per mallard.

Given a 500f4 you get 700 mm at f5.6 so you get 16.7% more reach in both directions on the sensor so 12.25 M pixels per mallard.

Given the 800 f5.6 in the same scenario that will be (800/600)squared x 9 = 16 M pixels per mallard.

The 600f4 gives 840 mm at f5.6 so (840/600)squared x 9 = 17.64 M pixels per mallard.

Obviously these absolute numbers change depending upon what f numbers and camera bodies you chose (I have arbitrarilly chosen f5.6 and the 7D to make the sums easy) but the ratios do not.

Please note, as ever, I reserve the right to be wrong !

Hope this is clear.

Gary
Click to expand...

Hmm - I assume you are just comparing the possible focal lengths of all the lenses when used at f5.6 with tc's Gary - in which case of course the 600/4 does give a longer focal length Than the 500/4 or 800/5.6 - having said that, whether a lens like the 600/4 + 1.4 tc would give better IQ and AF than the 800/5.6 bare would be questionable IMO but that is another debate for another time. Your point about pixels per bird somewhat confused the issue for me because if you get near enough you could get just as many pixels-per-duck with a 50mm lens as any other lens lol.

Don't get me wrong, I am sure the 600/4 is an absolute cracker of a lens and the more focal length you can get with bird photography the better.There is no doubting that at 600mm the bare 600/4 would give far better results than, say, the 300/2.8 at 600mm but the pixels per bird would be exactly the same given the same Camera and shooting distance, which says to me that pixels-per-bird is somewhat meaningless. its all a case of balancing between Focal length , weight and cost I guess. I am sure you will have no problems selling the 600/4 Gary as such gems rarely come up for sale.


To the OP I do know is the likes of Art Morris has ditched his 500/4 for the 800/5.6.

BTW I think all this debate is relevant to Pedalman's post for a long lens.
 
Last edited:
Hi Roy

I was indeed just comparing what would happen with different lenses on the same body at equivalent apertures and chose f5.6 just to make the maths easy for me.

You are of course correct that shorter lenses can be used to shoot wildlife but would suggest that real wildlife, as opposed to animals in nature reserves or parks, where they tend to be less shy of humans tends to require as much FL as possible; at least for the small birds.

I am not saying the pixels-per-duck value is all important but it is certainly part of the equation and is relevant information for the OP and so is not at all meaninless. It does mean you can crop more, for example.

As well as for other reasons lots of wildlife shooters like crop bodies precisely for this reason. I do know other factors are important.

Thanks for your comments.
 
Last edited:
Roy C , The 800mm ? I cant stretch to that its maybe a bit big anyhow, Im firstly looking for a good secondhand Nikon 500/600 F4 , if I cant find a used one I will probably look at new but the 800mm is waaay over the budget.

All this is very interesting, Im reading these last few replies several times over, trying to get to grips with all the technical stuff, some of which I had not thought about when using long lenses.
Thanks for all your replies, much appreciated.
Regards Alan.
 
Hello again , after a loooong "think" I am now a lot poorer financially :help: :LOL: but richer in the long lens department and after weighing up all the information and advice you all posted (y) I eventually got the 600 f4.
Whichever lens I decided on I would always have had doubts about the decision, even now Im thinking should I have got the 400 2.8 (better in low light) ........so now I just have to live with and learn how to use the 600.
I couldnt resist the longer reach and with a 1.4 converter its a beast, even with a D300 x1.5 sensor but mostly I have a D3 and the 1.4 converter bolted on.
I already had a sturdy tripod and gimbal head so the support is good but the long lens technique that I read about needs practice and from my astronomy interest I know the effect that even the wind or touching the camera can have on sharpness with this kind of magnification......I will probably be picking your brains again in the near future on how to get the best out of it.
 
400 F2.8 is rubbish for wildlife stuff. It is far too big at the lens hood end and has not got enough reach. Also, how many wildlife shots are taken at F2.8?
Not so many I would wager.
 
Good choice. The 500 is easy to carry about but when you're spending that sort of money, and you don't mind the weight, the 600 is worth getting. I'd never get rid of mine!

Good decision (y)

P.S. It has prob been covered but there was talk abotu min focus of the 600 being 35 feet further up, as I'm sure you are aware now, that's wrong and it's much much closer at about 15 or 16 feet :)
 
It depends how fit you are i use the 600mm f4 i.s and hand hold at times
see below

1492.JPG


When i went to orkney this year i carried the 600mm f4 the 300mm f2.8 the 24-105mm f4 and the 1d mk4 and the 7d and the 1.4 extender and did 6 miles with it

In the thread below these were taken with the 7D and the 600mm f4 with the 1.4 fitted notice the birds are not worried as i have not entered their fear circle i was shooting in the open. For small birds im quite happy to live with the extra weight and before i bought the 600mm i tried all the above mentioned lenses

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=334389

Regards

Richard
 
Last edited:
Hi again, Thanks for all the advice , after using the 600 f4 for a few weeks now I love it, yes a learning process is important with long lenses and the dof at min focus distance whow you have to be spot on with the focus point. Richard(Peters) thanks for the thumbs up makes me feel better after the £ spend, that 35ft min distance mistake was me I hit the wrong number key 15ft 35ft .
Richard ( lost) thats a stunningly superb bearded tit shot ....and hand held !
I seem to have the same approach as you, I carry everything I might need and throw the weight consequences to the wind.
Alan.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
"i use the 600mm f4 i.s and hand hold at times"

Arms like a gorilla!!

you could of course put a 2X converter on the 400 f2.8 and have an 800mm f5.6. The IQ loss might even be worth it.
 
Pedalman said:
Hi again, Thanks for all the advice , after using the 600 f4 for a few weeks now I love it, yes a learning process is important with long lenses and the dof at min focus distance whow you have to be spot on with the focus point. Richard(Peters) thanks for the thumbs up makes me feel better after the £ spend, that 35ft min distance mistake was me I hit the wrong number key 15ft 35ft .
Richard ( lost) thats a stunningly superb bearded tit shot ....and hand held !
I seem to have the same approach as you, I carry everything I might need and throw the weight consequences to the wind.
Alan.
Click to expand...

Thanks Alan
Horses for courses with these lenses thats another reason i have the three different cameras for using on these lenses. Full Frame 1Ds & 5Dmk2, 1.3 crop on the 1d mk4 & 1.6 crop on the 7D one lens 600mm,780mm and 960mm
Again something to consider with the 300mm i have 300mm,390mm and 480mm if you throw a 1.4 extender into the mix and you have so many possibilities :thinking: don't worry about the weight it's the picture that counts even if you get a hernia :D
Regards
Richard
 
Hi Richard,

Ive also got the hernia popping camera bag and kit now, one long 600 lens a zoom, a couple of bodies full frame D3 and x1.5 D300 and converter combination and yes a hernia is a possibility but the NHS is a great organisation.....they can even fix rugby players up.

Alan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top