# Patent: Canon EF 300-600 f/5.6 w/1.4x TC



## Canon Rumors Guy (Dec 6, 2013)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=15142"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=15142">Tweet</a></div>
<strong>Super telephoto patent</strong>
A new Canon patent showing other lens formulas using a built-in 1.4x teleconverter. Two of the primary lenses are an EF 300-600 f/5.6L IS 1.4x and a 600 f/4L IS with a built in TC.</p>
<p>The same patent also shows the <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/973129-REG/canon_5176b002_ef_200_400mm_f_4l_is.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x TC</a>. Perhaps Canon sees value in this setup for longer lenses? Here’s hoping so.</p>
<p><strong>Example 2</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>Focal length f = 585.10mm</li>
<li>Fno. 4.12</li>
<li>Half angle ω = 2.12 °</li>
<li>Image height Y = 21.64mm</li>
<li>The overall length of the lens 467.32mm</li>
<li>BF 83.15mm</li>
<li>Teleconference insertion</li>
<li>Focal length f = 819.00mm</li>
<li>Fno. 5.77</li>
<li>Half angle ω = 1.51 °</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Example 3</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>Zoom ratio 1.90</li>
<li>Focal length f = 307.50 – 585.00mm</li>
<li>Fno. 5.88</li>
<li>Half angle ω = 4.02 – 2.12 °</li>
<li>Image height Y = 21.64mm</li>
<li>The overall length of the lens 405.00mm</li>
<li>BF 75.70mm</li>
<li>Teleconference insertion</li>
<li>Focal length f = 427.00 – 812.33mm</li>
<li>Fno. 8.17</li>
<li>Half angle ω = 2.90 – 1.53 °</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Source: [<a href="http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2013-12-06" target="_blank">EG</a>]</strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 6, 2013)

I'd love a 600/4 with a built-in 1.4x TC. Not sure we'll see one soon, though.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 6, 2013)

And I'm sure it will be for slightly less cost than the Tamron 150-600 lens....


----------



## mackguyver (Dec 6, 2013)

I know patents are often done purely for protective purposes and never see the light of day, but I would love to see these designs come true! My wallet is crying just from the mention of this patent, however  :'(


----------



## docsmith (Dec 6, 2013)

I really fault Canon for not being very creative or innovative ;D ;D ;D

A 300-600 f5.6 with a 1.4TC that is optically on par with the big whites? That is a dream lens. I probably can't afford it.


----------



## optikus (Dec 6, 2013)

Hi,

I'd often thought about the further use of the 200-400's system due to it's overwhelmingly reactions in the pro's market. And what is shown here is a consequent reaction. If F5,6 is the end of what is possible may be a question, perhaps F4.5 would hit more precise what is demanded - but it is a right step on Canon's way to stay the No. 1 in the market.

Joerg


----------



## unfocused (Dec 6, 2013)

I would be nice if this were in an "affordable" range, but I'm not holding my breath.

At the same time I'm wondering about the f5.6 maximum aperture with a 1.4 TC. Which means this would only autofocus on the 5DIII and 1DX with the extender, correct? Could this be an indication that the 7DII will autofocus at f8? That would certainly be one way to add value to the next generation.


----------



## Sabaki (Dec 6, 2013)

Anybody else getting the idea that 2014 is gonna be a Canon year in a big way?


----------



## Northstar (Dec 6, 2013)

this would be nice…but i'm sensing a $15,000 price tag


----------



## MrFotoFool (Dec 6, 2013)

unfocused said:


> I would be nice if this were in an "affordable" range, but I'm not holding my breath...



No worries - price will be a very affordable $30,000 US. Plus it will come with dual tripod mounts to accomodate the two tripods necessary to hold it up!


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 6, 2013)

The FD version was 150-600/5.6. So should this be. 300/420 at the WIDE end isn't wide enough. Sigma and Tamron both have super tele's with wider zoom ranges than 2x.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 6, 2013)

MrFotoFool said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > I would be nice if this were in an "affordable" range, but I'm not holding my breath...
> ...



Yes...I should have engaged brain before keyboard. Looks like my best hope will be the Tamron.


----------



## tron (Dec 6, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> And I'm sure it will be for slightly less cost than the Tamron 150-600 lens....


 ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


----------



## mrsfotografie (Dec 6, 2013)

unfocused said:


> I would be nice if this were in an "affordable" range, but I'm not holding my breath.
> 
> At the same time I'm wondering about the f5.6 maximum aperture with a 1.4 TC. Which means this would only autofocus on the 5DIII and 1DX with the extender, correct? Could this be an indication that the 7DII will autofocus at f8? That would certainly be one way to add value to the next generation.



I don't see Canon releasing anything with an 'f/8' maximum aperture.


----------



## Harv (Dec 6, 2013)

I'd have to sell a kidney. And maybe a lung.


----------



## Zv (Dec 6, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> I'd love a 600/4 with a built-in 1.4x TC. Not sure we'll see one soon, though.



I wonder what has more probability of seeing production? This or an 800mm f5.6 II? I could see the 600 1.4x being far more useful. 

I think the success of 200-400 1.4x might sway Canon into making this badboy. The two lenses would cover a lot of subject matter and might even be cheaper than a 300, 400, 600 and 800 prime.


----------



## scottkinfw (Dec 6, 2013)

As I am home bound in Texas due to the winter snow conditions, and bored. My mind is playing evil tricks. I'm well aware that one can live happily with only one kidney as suggested. Nah.... Anybody know how much a kidney goes for by the way?


----------



## sanj (Dec 6, 2013)

scottkinfw said:


> As I am home bound in Texas due to the winter snow conditions, and bored. My mind is playing evil tricks. I'm well aware that one can live happily with only one kidney as suggested. Nah.... Anybody know how much a kidney goes for by the way?



he he


----------



## surapon (Dec 6, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> I'd love a 600/4 with a built-in 1.4x TC. Not sure we'll see one soon, though.



+ 1 for me too.
Surapon


----------



## surapon (Dec 6, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> And I'm sure it will be for slightly less cost than the Tamron 150-600 lens....




Dear Mr. Haines----That will be my best dream too, But From the Cost of 200-400 mm L = $ 11,799 at B&H now, The New 300-600 mm. must be X 2 = $ 24,000 US Dollars, Ha, Ha, Ha.
Yes, Just 1 or 2 of Members of CR. can buy this Light weight super Zoom Lens.
Nice to talk to you, Sir.
Surapon


----------



## Lurker (Dec 6, 2013)

I know nothing and am not too bright so be kind.

I see the 200-400 as part of the 24-70/70-200 f/2.8 L II line of lenses.
I expect the 300-600 will be part fo the 24-70 f/4 L , 70-300 f/4-5.6 L line of lenses.

Relative to the 200-400 I'd expect to sacrifice some image and build quality but in return get significant $ in my pocket and a relatively lighter lens. I'm going to set my flag at the $8000 price point. I would not be surprised if it was even lower.

Like I said, I know nothing and am not too bright so be kind.


----------



## Dylan777 (Dec 6, 2013)

It just getting better and better with Canon lenses.

*BIG QUESTION: HOW MUCH?*

I need to start 2nd job ;D


----------



## J.R. (Dec 6, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> It just getting better and better with Canon lenses.
> 
> *BIG QUESTION: HOW MUCH?*
> 
> I need to start 2nd job ;D



Probably $ 24,000... How much moonlighting can you do???


----------



## willis (Dec 6, 2013)

Cool patent, but how about $$$? Double that too so it's $21 999 lens :


----------



## KyleSTL (Dec 6, 2013)

Lurker said:


> I know nothing and am not too bright so be kind.
> 
> I see the 200-400 as part of the 24-70/70-200 f/2.8 L II line of lenses.
> I expect the 300-600 will be part fo the 24-70 f/4 L , 70-300 f/4-5.6 L line of lenses.
> ...


Why would you say that? It will be about the same size as the existing 200-400, with a longer reach. Frankly, I'm not sure why they would produce this lens. How is it any different than buying a 200-400 and a 1.4x III? With these two items you'll have almost identical ranges of 280-560mm f/5.6 and 400-800mm f/8, with the added benefit of using it natively without the TC as a 200-400mm f/4. Granted, Canon could optimize the lens better to have slightly better IQ without double-stacked 1.4x TCs, but does that really justify this lens? The front element will be slightly larger (107mm vs. 100mm, theoretical), the rumored lens will likely be longer and weigh slightly more, so no size/weigh advantage exists. And I'd imagine with its longer reach it will be more expensive than the current offering + the cost of a 1.4x TC. Anyone have any other ideas about this rumored lens' raison d'être?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 6, 2013)

Since Canon knows how to build the 200-400mm lens now, many of the production risks go away. This means they know the cost to produce such a lens with good certainty.

Size wide, it would be only slightly larger than the 200-400, and price wise only slightly more. Since Canon knows the actual sales figures for the 200-400, they also can estimate sales for this lens. With money being tight, its a matter of putting the money they have to invest into products that return the most profit. There is also the pride in having the best telephoto out there in a focal length range, and the new Tamron certainly must have them worrying.

I hope a miracle happens and we see one for under $10K.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Dec 6, 2013)

Lurker said:


> I know nothing and am not too bright so be kind.
> 
> I see the 200-400 as part of the 24-70/70-200 f/2.8 L II line of lenses.
> I expect the 300-600 will be part fo the 24-70 f/4 L , 70-300 f/4-5.6 L line of lenses.
> ...



Brilliant!


----------



## surapon (Dec 6, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Since Canon knows how to build the 200-400mm lens now, many of the production risks go away. This means they know the cost to produce such a lens with good certainty.
> 
> Size wide, it would be only slightly larger than the 200-400, and price wise only slightly more. Since Canon knows the actual sales figures for the 200-400, they also can estimate sales for this lens. With money being tight, its a matter of putting the money they have to invest into products that return the most profit. There is also the pride in having the best telephoto out there in a focal length range, and the new Tamron certainly must have them worrying.
> 
> I hope a miracle happens and we see one for under $10K.




+ 1 for me too.
Yes, Sir, dear teacher Mr. Mt Spokane.
"I hope a miracle happens and we see one for under $10K."----That will be our days, to support Canon MFG. again.
Surapon


----------



## docsmith (Dec 6, 2013)

The >$20,000 estimates seem really high to me. My understanding is that the front element is a significant cost driver for these lenses. Dropping from f/4 to f/5.6 is a big deal. Assessing the size of the front element using the focal length/max aperture, the 400/4 = 100 mm and 600/5.6 = 107 mm. And the patent is actually for 585 mm/5.6 = 104 mm. If this holds true, then I'd expect these 300-600 to be priced similarly to the 200-400. Say ~$12,500?


----------



## AlanF (Dec 6, 2013)

Canon Rumors said:


> <li>Teleconference insertion</li>



I like the idea of being able to insert a Teleconference. If we all get one, then we could confer over each shot.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 6, 2013)

AlanF said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > <li>Teleconference insertion</li>
> ...



+1 I teleconference when shooting with my 600 II, but I have to use my iPhone and BT headset for that - having a built in option means one less accessory to carry.


----------



## J.R. (Dec 6, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > Canon Rumors said:
> ...



Yeah what an awesome feature... And people say canon isn't innovating... Take that Sony!


----------



## kirispupis (Dec 6, 2013)

I am right now diligently saving up for the 200-400/1.4x with hopes of purchasing one early next year. A 300-600/5.6 sounds like an interesting lens, but personally I would prefer the 200-400 and would not consider purchasing a 300-600 because the 5.6 aperture limits AF and light as would the f8 aperture with the extender even more.

A 600/4 with an extender is a different issue, though I expect it to sell for $15k-$16k - making it far beyond my budget. Still, paired with the 200-400 that would be a dream wildlife combo.


----------



## vlim (Dec 6, 2013)

Now they handle the technic, Canon might think about a line of zooms with built in converter

i would like to see a 70-300 f/4 IS with x1.4


----------



## 9VIII (Dec 6, 2013)

600f4+1.4TC? Yes please!
If an 800f5.6II was significantly lighter and optically superior, then that would be my preferred choice, but as is I would take either one.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 6, 2013)

vlim said:


> Now they handle the technic, Canon might think about a line of zooms with built in converter
> 
> i would like to see a 70-300 f/4 IS with x1.4



Why? It's unlikely to be as good as the old 100-400 at 400, and probably much worse than a new 100-400mm II, and even less likely to be seen.


----------



## Vern (Dec 6, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> I'd love a 600/4 with a built-in 1.4x TC. Not sure we'll see one soon, though.



Been wishing for this since the 200-400 w built-in 1.4 was announced. Actually, I think there is a good rationale for building a 1.4 into all the superteles above 400mm. The added weight/cost will not outweigh (puny) the extra usability for the intended consumers. I know I often switch the 1.4 on and off my 600 when stalking wildlife and it requires too much fiddling around - even if you get 'good' at it. I'm less enamored of the big zooms just b/c I need the speed and reach of the primes in 99% of my photo situations. Having a built-in 1.4 gives you that little bit of quick flexibility to frame the shot better. And quickly switch from say a whitetail at 40 yards (600) to a chickadee at 15 yards (840).


----------



## jrista (Dec 6, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> I'd love a 600/4 with a built-in 1.4x TC. Not sure we'll see one soon, though.



Ditto, that would be amazing. Not that I would buy one...I can't imagine selling the 600/4 II I just bought this year, and the existing TC's work excellent on it...but the convenience of just flipping a switch would indeed be nice. 


I'm intrigued by the 300-600 f/5.6 TC. Quite intriguing. I never expected to see a zoom in such a focal length from Canon. Maybe we never will, but the fact that they are researching it is indeed intriguing.


----------



## jrista (Dec 6, 2013)

Lee Jay said:


> The FD version was 150-600/5.6. So should this be. 300/420 at the WIDE end isn't wide enough. Sigma and Tamron both have super tele's with wider zoom ranges than 2x.



You have to figure there would have to be IQ compromises to support 150-600 though. In the film era, the difference would probably not have been noticeable. With constantly increasing sensor resolution these days, I'd rather have a 300-600 f/5.6 if it means the lens is sharper with better contrast.


----------



## hoodlum (Dec 6, 2013)

Vern said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > I'd love a 600/4 with a built-in 1.4x TC. Not sure we'll see one soon, though.
> ...



The problem is that the added cost to us is significantly greater than the cost for Canon to add the 1.4x TC capability. It is a cash cow for them and so it is no surpise they would want to extend this to longer focal lengths. Just don't be surprised when you see the price.

The Tamron can't get here soon enough.


----------



## jrista (Dec 6, 2013)

hoodlum said:


> Vern said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Initial prices can indeed be scary high, but if you wait, and time your purchase well, you can get unbelievably incredible deals. I bought the 600mm f/4 L IS II this year. The lens listed for $12799 at the time, and one sale had it for around $12500. I purchased mine for $10,860 thanks to a sale in a Canadian store. Even after the import costs, it was still less than $11,000. Just because the list price is a shocker, doesn't mean you actually spend that much buying it. I suspect a 300-600 f/5.6 will land in the realm of $13000 to $15000. I suspect people will buy it for around $11000 to $13000 over the long term, until an official price drop occurs a few years down the road.


----------



## ME (Dec 7, 2013)

I dont think it will happen. But it's fun to dream. Besides, there is already the Sigma 200-500 f2.8 with built-in 2x teleconverter. That means [email protected] And you get all of that for only $26,000. And it weighs only 34.54 lb. What more could you ask for?  ???


----------



## eml58 (Dec 7, 2013)

The 300-600 is a possibility, but I'de not hold my breath waiting, I could only imagine a quite small market, but when you consider the size of the 200-400, I wouldn't imagine the 300-600 being much bigger in size than the current 600, slightly heavier, as is the case of the 200-400 over the 400f/2.8 II. Price ?? I'de imagine a similar premium that we have on the 400f/2.8 to the 200-400f/4, So around 20% more expensive than the current 600f/4 II.

The 600f/4 (1.4x) I see as a definite, Nikon are offering their own Long Lenses now with a dedicated Converter as part of the package, albeit it's similar to what is currently being offered but tuned to the particular Lens, which I feel is a good idea.

Having the 200-400f/4 (1.4x) I immediately saw the possibilities for Canon with the built in 1.4x Converter especially if it was offered as a "Build to Order" option on the 400/500/600/800, that way they could keep the standard no converter Models as they currently do, and the current prices, but have the more expensive "Option" for those that see the benefit and can afford it of the Built in Converter & don't mind waiting 6 months for a Special Build Option.

If they offer it up I'm certainly offloading my current 600f/4 II & jumping into the 600 with the Built in Converter, great idea.

Need Gura Gear to make a slightly longer Battaflea 32L Bag then, currently the 600f/4 fits one side, just (but not with the 1.4x Attached), and the 200-400f/4 the other side.


----------



## scyrene (Dec 7, 2013)

If it was more expensive than the 600mm f/4 (forgive me, all your talk of dollars confuses me), I would rather save up for that. I don't find I miss a zoom; losing a stop of aperture would really hurt though.


----------



## jrista (Dec 7, 2013)

scyrene said:


> If it was more expensive than the 600mm f/4 (forgive me, all your talk of dollars confuses me), I would rather save up for that. I don't find I miss a zoom; losing a stop of aperture would really hurt though.



Personally, I totally agree. But I think it depends on what you shoot. As a bird and wildlife photographer, I am pretty happy with a fixed focal length, or at least one that can be changed with a TC if needed, especially when I am mobile.

However, if I was a sports photographer, sitting in a fixed location, I could see the value of having not only a supertele zoom lens, but one with a built in TC to instantly change that zoom range when I felt I needed it. Sometimes you might want to get right in on a pitcher's face at 840mm, where as at other times you might want the relatively "wide" field of 300mm when tracing a runner to a base while the ball is being thrown in (just to throw out an entirely random, fabricated example. ;P) 

It seems the 200-400/4+TC has taken pretty well to wildlifers, but I think the focal range fits there. I think a 300-600/5.6+TC could fit in very well with sports photographers, especially those with a 1D X.


----------



## arbitrage (Dec 7, 2013)

I wonder if Canon would decide to not develop an 800mm f/5.6 IS II and instead just release a 600 f/4 IS with 1.4TC instead?? Already the 600II with external 1.4 TC has equal IQ and AF to the 800 IS I. So a built in TC that could be even better optically paired to the lens may make a 800 II a useless proposition.


----------



## garyknrd (Dec 7, 2013)

arbitrage said:


> I wonder if Canon would decide to not develop an 800mm f/5.6 IS II and instead just release a 600 f/4 IS with 1.4TC instead?? Already the 600II with external 1.4 TC has equal IQ and AF to the 800 IS I. So a built in TC that could be even better optically paired to the lens may make a 800 II a useless proposition.



Not sure about that one. But I bet they would sell a lot more of the 600 + 1.4 T.C.. I would love that lens. Here is hoping the stock market holds and someone else is not chewing my food for me before it is avaliable.. 

www.flickr.com/photos/avianphotos
www.birdsthatfart.com


----------



## eml58 (Dec 7, 2013)

arbitrage said:


> I wonder if Canon would decide to not develop an 800mm f/5.6 IS II and instead just release a 600 f/4 IS with 1.4TC instead?? Already the 600II with external 1.4 TC has equal IQ and AF to the 800 IS I. So a built in TC that could be even better optically paired to the lens may make a 800 II a useless proposition.



I don't think Canon can afford not to go ahead with the 800f/5.6 V II Lens, Nikon have had their new 800f/5.6 out now for a little while, coupled with a 1.25x Converter matched to the Lens, for a US$18k price Tag, Canon have to follow through and I would think 2014 first half will see this Lens on the Shelves, I'm a little surprised they've taken so long considering the other 300/400/500 & 600 Version II Lens releases.

I think the 800f/5.6 Lens is the most specialised of all the Large Lenses, very small Market, very big price Tag.


----------



## jrista (Dec 7, 2013)

eml58 said:


> arbitrage said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder if Canon would decide to not develop an 800mm f/5.6 IS II and instead just release a 600 f/4 IS with 1.4TC instead?? Already the 600II with external 1.4 TC has equal IQ and AF to the 800 IS I. So a built in TC that could be even better optically paired to the lens may make a 800 II a useless proposition.
> ...



The 800/5.6 was, technically, the first, and the 300/400/500/600 came after it. They may be Mark II's of their respective lines, but they got all their fancy new technology form the R&D that went into making the original 800 in the first place. Keep in mind, the 800 was only released, what, 2008? Most of the rest of the superteles are from 1998 or 1999, a decade before the 800. 

I personally believe there will be an 800/5.6 L II. There are quite a number of pro bird photographers who simply refuse to stick a TC on ANYTHING. They are interested in the absolute top notch perfect quality that money can buy, and they KNOW how to extract the maximum detail from every single photo.

While the 600/4+1.4x TC can perform as well as the 800...it just barely does. Before the 600/4 II, there was no question the 800/5.6 produced better quality, and I highly doubt an 800/5.6 II would only offer as much resolving power as the 600/4+TC. No matter how you slice it, fewer optical elements mean better results (that's why the exceptionally simple design of a 50/1.8 can get sharper results than the more complex and far more costly design of a 50/1.2), and even if a TC was integrated into a future 600/4, it's still more optical elements.


----------



## scyrene (Dec 7, 2013)

jrista said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > If it was more expensive than the 600mm f/4 (forgive me, all your talk of dollars confuses me), I would rather save up for that. I don't find I miss a zoom; losing a stop of aperture would really hurt though.
> ...



You're right of course, I was speaking from a bird perspective. Although I have to imagine the 200-400 is more for big animals (lions and owls and suchlike) than little songbirds. Maybe it speaks to my field craft, but I find 1000mm (500+2x) is rarely enough without cropping.


----------



## dolina (Dec 7, 2013)

Should weigh about 3kg,

Will Canon be selling bodies that can AF at f/8 other than the center AF point?


----------



## jrista (Dec 7, 2013)

scyrene said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > scyrene said:
> ...



For birds, which is also what I mostly do, 840mm is enough if you know how to get close, and 600mm on FF is enough if you have exceptional sneaking skills. ;P Cropping is just as much an artistic factor as it is sometimes a necessity. Personally, I find that completely filling the frame with a bird limits your ability to fix composition errors in post, so I try to leave some space around my subjects. Reduces pixels on subject, but it gives you the option of fixing rotation, using crop to shift the subject toward one side to improve composition, or if you print on canvas like I do, gives you that extra bit of necessary room for the wrapped edges in gallery wraps. The only reason I would likely use 1200mm f/8 on a 5D III would be to give the birds more space, instead of crowding them (although it entirely depends on the bird and the environment whether that improves their behavior or not...many birds don't care about proximity, some care very much, but only in certain circumstances or times of the year.)


----------



## scottkinfw (Dec 7, 2013)

On your first day of orientation for that second job they will teach you to say the following, "Would you like to biggie size that?" 



Dylan777 said:


> It just getting better and better with Canon lenses.
> 
> *BIG QUESTION: HOW MUCH?*
> 
> I need to start 2nd job ;D


----------



## scottburgess (Dec 7, 2013)

I remember when the original Tamron 200-400mm came out, and people were salivating over it. Not sharp enough, even way back then. When the Canon 200-400mm arrived and turned out to be sharp, I thought I might start saving for it. Now? I'm saving for the 300-600mm since I can believe that if-ever/whenever it arrives it will be what I'm really looking for.


----------



## scottkinfw (Dec 7, 2013)

Like Dylan, I just ordered my first big white (300 2.8 LL) and the $6700 was a quantum threshold for me to cross. I don't know, perhaps after this getting past a 10K barrier will be easier, but somehow, I don't think so. I am wondering how other people do it? Are that many professionals (i.e., people making a decent living from photography using these lenses) to justify the price, and drive Canon profits, or are the lenses selling to people like me who are avid/rabid enthusiasts? Just a question.

Scott.



docsmith said:


> The >$20,000 estimates seem really high to me. My understanding is that the front element is a significant cost driver for these lenses. Dropping from f/4 to f/5.6 is a big deal. Assessing the size of the front element using the focal length/max aperture, the 400/4 = 100 mm and 600/5.6 = 107 mm. And the patent is actually for 585 mm/5.6 = 104 mm. If this holds true, then I'd expect these 300-600 to be priced similarly to the 200-400. Say ~$12,500?


----------



## mrsfotografie (Dec 7, 2013)

ME said:


> I dont think it will happen. But it's fun to dream. Besides, there is already the Sigma 200-500 f2.8 with built-in 2x teleconverter. That means [email protected] And you get all of that for only $26,000. And it weighs only 34.54 lb. What more could you ask for?  ???



The Sigma has a dedicated TC, but it is _not_ built-in


----------



## vlim (Dec 7, 2013)

> Why? It's unlikely to be as good as the old 100-400 at 400, and probably much worse than a new 100-400mm II, and even less likely to be seen.



i don't see why ? the actual 70-300 f4-5.6 IS is way better than the 100-400 ! and the new 100-400 II still not exists and might never exists


----------



## CarlTN (Dec 7, 2013)

Why would anyone be enthusiastic about an f/5.6 zoom lens with a built in TC, especially one that is still large but limited to 300mm at the wide end? F/5.6 is dark enough...an f/8 lens is limited in its usefulness, even if by some miracle future pro AF sensors will work with all their points at f/8. It's still a very dark lens...perhaps useful on ski slopes during bright sunlight.

What should get built instead (or at least...first), is a smaller and more affordable, light weight prime lens, but with the TC built in. How about say, a 330mm f/3.5 DO (with some major technological breakthroughs in resolution), that weighs 3 pounds or less, and has an option to switch out two different TC's that then mount internally? Maybe a 1.4x and a 1.7x? Canon could still charge $3500 to $5000 for it, and lots more people could justify buying it. It would be highly portable, hand-holdable, and usable for long hikes, or a long day shooting at an event, etc. I say it would be more useful to more people, than a $10,000+ 300-600mm f/5.6 zoom (which is basically a very similar sized lens to the 200-400 f/4...which itself also seems more useful than a 300-600 f/5.6).

Most importantly, it would be a light bucket by comparison, at f/3.5 and 330mm...yet weigh half as much, and cost half as much! Then of course its AF speed and accuracy, could easily exceed that of all but perhaps the 300mm f/2.8 ii...I suppose if it did all this Canon would charge closer to $6000, but it might be worth it! It could be nicknamed the "mini mighty whitey"!! Hahaha...

I just have to think the AF speed freaks, would look down their noses at a 300-600 f/5.6 zoom. 

What's next, a 10mm to 100mm fisheye zoom?? :


----------



## jrista (Dec 7, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> Why would anyone be enthusiastic about an f/5.6 zoom lens with a built in TC, especially one that is still large but limited to 300mm at the wide end? F/5.6 is dark enough...an f/8 lens is limited in its usefulness, even if by some miracle future pro AF sensors will work with all their points at f/8. It's still a very dark lens...perhaps useful on ski slopes during bright sunlight.
> 
> What should get built instead (or at least...first), is a smaller and more affordable, light weight prime lens, but with the TC built in. How about say, a 330mm f/3.5 DO (with some major technological breakthroughs in resolution), that weighs 3 pounds or less, and has an option to switch out two different TC's that then mount internally? Maybe a 1.4x and a 1.7x? Canon could still charge $3500 to $5000 for it, and lots more people could justify buying it. It would be highly portable, hand-holdable, and usable for long hikes, or a long day shooting at an event, etc. I say it would be more useful to more people, than a $10,000+ 300-600mm f/5.6 zoom (which is basically a very similar sized lens to the 200-400 f/4...which itself also seems more useful than a 300-600 f/5.6).
> 
> ...



I think a 300-600/5.6 TC would primarily be a pro sports/olympics lens. In that case, it would probably almost always be used with a 1D X, where usable ISO tops 12800, and for newspaper and magazine print, is quite viable up to 25600. I'd also point out that the 1D X is faster than any other camera at f/8 AF. It certainly isn't f/4 fast, but it isn't all that much slower than f/5.6 AF on a 5D III or any lesser model.


----------



## WPJ (Dec 7, 2013)

scottburgess said:


> I remember when the original Tamron 200-400mm came out, and people were salivating over it. Not sharp enough, even way back then. When the Canon 200-400mm arrived and turned out to be sharp, I thought I might start saving for it. Now? I'm saving for the 300-600mm since I can believe that if-ever/whenever it arrives it will be what I'm really looking for.



I would,be much better if it was f4 then 5.6 with the Tele....

I think,I would be all over it at 10-15k


----------



## Eldar (Dec 7, 2013)

WPJ said:


> scottburgess said:
> 
> 
> > I remember when the original Tamron 200-400mm came out, and people were salivating over it. Not sharp enough, even way back then. When the Canon 200-400mm arrived and turned out to be sharp, I thought I might start saving for it. Now? I'm saving for the 300-600mm since I can believe that if-ever/whenever it arrives it will be what I'm really looking for.
> ...


At f4 it would be Big and, considering the price for the 600 f4L IS II and the 200-400, I would be very surprised if it came out below 15-16k. Tempting thought though.


----------



## WPJ (Dec 7, 2013)

Eldar said:


> WPJ said:
> 
> 
> > scottburgess said:
> ...



Ya I would be, but the 600 now is f4 so that's my wish.


----------



## arbitrage (Dec 7, 2013)

scottkinfw said:


> Like Dylan, I just ordered my first big white (300 2.8 LL) and the $6700 was a quantum threshold for me to cross. I don't know, perhaps after this getting past a 10K barrier will be easier, but somehow, I don't think so. I am wondering how other people do it? Are that many professionals (i.e., people making a decent living from photography using these lenses) to justify the price, and drive Canon profits, or are the lenses selling to people like me who are avid/rabid enthusiasts? Just a question.
> 
> Scott.



Don't worry, you will cross the $10,000 barrier eventually ;D I went all out first with 600II so that the 300II was "cheap" a year later!!

These lenses sell to two markets:
1) Large photo agencies that supply them to their pros. 
2) Affluent amateurs...doctors, lawyers, dentists, executives, business owners, etc...
I think the actual amount of professional photographers buying these would be very low. Sports pros get them supplied for the most part and wildlife photographers that can actually make a living are a rare breed.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 7, 2013)

vlim said:


> > Why? It's unlikely to be as good as the old 100-400 at 400, and probably much worse than a new 100-400mm II, and even less likely to be seen.
> 
> 
> 
> i don't see why ? the actual 70-300 f4-5.6 IS is way better than the 100-400 ! and the new 100-400 II still not exists and might never exists



Because the current relatively new 70-300 L with a 1.4xTC at 420mm is not nearly as good as the old 100-400mm - see

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=113&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=0&LensComp=738&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0


----------



## ME (Dec 7, 2013)

mrsfotografie said:


> ME said:
> 
> 
> > I dont think it will happen. But it's fun to dream. Besides, there is already the Sigma 200-500 f2.8 with built-in 2x teleconverter. That means [email protected] And you get all of that for only $26,000. And it weighs only 34.54 lb. What more could you ask for?  ???
> ...



Details. Details. So important. In that case, I have decided to not get one. Thanks for pointing that out to me and to all of the other readers who might be seriously considering buying this lens. And a couple of winks to you


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 7, 2013)

AlanF said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > <li>Teleconference insertion</li>
> ...


 
In this day and age, a video conference would make more sense


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 7, 2013)

dolina said:


> Should weigh about 3kg,
> 
> Will Canon be selling bodies that can AF at f/8 other than the center AF point?


The 70D can AF at f/11 with live view using the dual pixel technology, ind its a still largely undeveloped technology.

I think its a reasonable assumption that f/8 at off center points can happen in the near future, maybe f/11.


----------



## Hannes (Dec 7, 2013)

besides, the target audience for a lens like that won't be using a rebel body anyway.

Last year at the london olympics I was getting a shutter speed of 1/800, f5.6, iso 3200. Even at f8 and 840mm you'll still get pretty good separation of the subject from the background and with the low light capabilities of a modern top end dslr the f8 will be less of a hindrance for those kinds of situations. AF will obviously be trickier but if the dual pixel tech gets a bit more refined that may well be the answer.


----------



## dolina (Dec 8, 2013)

300-600 should weigh about 3kg. Would sell between $7,300-11,800. I'd love to see a EOS body that can AF at f/8 at more than 1 AF point.

If you scroll down there is a patent for a 600/4 with built in 1.4x TC. Should weigh about 4.1kg. Would sell for north of $13,500.

Patents are probably filled to deter other manufacturers to make such products in the future.


----------



## eml58 (Dec 8, 2013)

arbitrage said:


> These lenses sell to two markets:
> 1) Large photo agencies that supply them to their pros.
> 2) Affluent amateurs...doctors, lawyers, dentists, executives, business owners, etc...
> I think the actual amount of professional photographers buying these would be very low. Sports pros get them supplied for the most part and wildlife photographers that can actually make a living are a rare breed.



I agree, and my thought would be area 2 being the larger Market.

Good friend of mine is a Pro Photographer & shoots the D3x + Nikon 200-400f/4 V1, he won Wildlife Photographer of the Year 2013, he simply can't afford the new Canon Big Whites (but would move to the White side if he could), and Nikon South Africa doesn't support Pro Photographers with Loaners, it's Sad but True, not too many Pro Photographers are making a success of a Business surrounding being a Pro Photographer, mostly (at least in Africa) make a living around the Safari Business, Photography being an adjunct to that Business.


----------



## dufflover (Dec 8, 2013)

If this lens ever does make it to production (I doubt it) I agree with the mob it will basically be an alternative to the 200-400. Like similar size, similar price range, give or take a thousand. I mean yeah that's a lot of money but it will be in that $10k+ price range.

Sadly my biggest/longest lenses will be in that Sigma 120-300/Tamron 150-600 price range, i.e. $3k give or take, not $5k+ super tele price.


----------



## scyrene (Dec 8, 2013)

jrista said:


> For birds, which is also what I mostly do, 840mm is enough if you know how to get close, and 600mm on FF is enough if you have exceptional sneaking skills. ;P Cropping is just as much an artistic factor as it is sometimes a necessity. Personally, I find that completely filling the frame with a bird limits your ability to fix composition errors in post, so I try to leave some space around my subjects. Reduces pixels on subject, but it gives you the option of fixing rotation, using crop to shift the subject toward one side to improve composition, or if you print on canvas like I do, gives you that extra bit of necessary room for the wrapped edges in gallery wraps. The only reason I would likely use 1200mm f/8 on a 5D III would be to give the birds more space, instead of crowding them (although it entirely depends on the bird and the environment whether that improves their behavior or not...many birds don't care about proximity, some care very much, but only in certain circumstances or times of the year.)



Nice insight on the canvas printing. I've done it, but not yet mounted them, that's worth bearing in mind, thanks 

As far as birds are concerned, I dunno. Maybe it's me. Maybe it's the birds. Some are very confiding, of course, but in that case you can get incredible detail at 1000mm near the minimum focus distance. Many species, in most circumstances, see you and skedaddle. In open situations, like beaches or beside open water, it can be very difficult indeed (I do have a portable hide, perhaps I should start using it more - but that seems rather extreme most of the time). Either way, having the focal length is better than not; if I get closer to the birds, I can always take off the teleconverter.


----------



## jrista (Dec 9, 2013)

scyrene said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > For birds, which is also what I mostly do, 840mm is enough if you know how to get close, and 600mm on FF is enough if you have exceptional sneaking skills. ;P Cropping is just as much an artistic factor as it is sometimes a necessity. Personally, I find that completely filling the frame with a bird limits your ability to fix composition errors in post, so I try to leave some space around my subjects. Reduces pixels on subject, but it gives you the option of fixing rotation, using crop to shift the subject toward one side to improve composition, or if you print on canvas like I do, gives you that extra bit of necessary room for the wrapped edges in gallery wraps. The only reason I would likely use 1200mm f/8 on a 5D III would be to give the birds more space, instead of crowding them (although it entirely depends on the bird and the environment whether that improves their behavior or not...many birds don't care about proximity, some care very much, but only in certain circumstances or times of the year.)
> ...



Birds take patience, and maybe some camo clothing (but NOT a hide, unless you have somewhere to hide the hide...if it stands out in the open, birds will take notice and stay clear.) My closest shots always come about an hour after I head out. I tend to stay low, usually laying in the sand, with my tripod set up such that the legs are collapsed and angled flat, so I get the lowest clearance from the ground possible. I wear a camo jacket and this cheap camo net overlay to pull over my pants. Then I just wait. Shorebirds, for example, move up and down and back up the shore. If you set yourself up with the sun behind you, it is really just a matter of time before the birds come wading right up to you, then past you, then back again. In between encounters, you can shift your position, or creep in closer by a few feet at a time. Eventually you can get so close that you'll take the TC off!


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 10, 2013)

jrista said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > The FD version was 150-600/5.6. So should this be. 300/420 at the WIDE end isn't wide enough. Sigma and Tamron both have super tele's with wider zoom ranges than 2x.
> ...



The 70-200/2.8L IS II shows the folly of that thinking. Building an f/5.6 lens to be optically excellent is much easier than building an f/2.8 lens.


----------



## jrista (Dec 10, 2013)

Lee Jay said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



I would also bet that no FD lens that Canon ever designed came even remotely close to producing the kind of IQ that a modern Mark II supertele produces. An f/5.6 aperture at 600mm is also quite a bit larger than f/2.8 at 200mm (102mm vs. 71mm), so from the get go we are talking about a particularly non-trivial front element.

Zooms require compromise, and the greater the zoom ratio, the greater the compromise (especially when the wide end varies so much, in terms of AoV, from the long end.) The 70-200 has a 2.77x AoV factor (34.4°/12.4°), where as a 150-600 would have a 4.32x AoV factor (17.8°/4.13°). They aren't similar enough to be compared, and even though the patent is for an f/5.6, I would be willing to bet hard money that a 300-600mm focal range (which has a mere 2x AoV factor (8.25°/4.13°) is more amicable to modern Mark II IQ than a 150-600mm focal range.


----------



## CarlTN (Dec 10, 2013)

jrista said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > Why would anyone be enthusiastic about an f/5.6 zoom lens with a built in TC, especially one that is still large but limited to 300mm at the wide end? F/5.6 is dark enough...an f/8 lens is limited in its usefulness, even if by some miracle future pro AF sensors will work with all their points at f/8. It's still a very dark lens...perhaps useful on ski slopes during bright sunlight.
> ...



Still at f/8, that's only one single tiny center point for AF, is it not?


----------



## Eldar (Dec 10, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> Still at f/8, that's only one single tiny center point for AF, is it not?


Yes, and to me at least, that makes focusing quite a challenge on action oriented shooting. It is OK to shoot a musk ox grassing, but hopeless on something running or flying. I hardly ever use the 2x extender on the 600 f4 because of that.


----------



## CarlTN (Dec 10, 2013)

Eldar said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > Still at f/8, that's only one single tiny center point for AF, is it not?
> ...



Thanks for your insights and experience! Again, I wonder why the hell anyone would build such a lens? The 200-400 already is not known to be the fastest at autofocusing...so why build something that will be substantially slower than it, even at f/5.6 (let alone f/8)? I know why...it's because they can use a similar housing, and charge a lot of money. Problem is, nobody is really going to buy it. It would have to be a very limited production run, it seems to me. The lens I called for would actually make them a lot more profit...there's a gaping hole in the pro lens pricing structure. I could be wrong, but I don't see how. It's so obvious.


----------



## 9VIII (Dec 10, 2013)

jrista said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



It's unfortunate that third party manufacturers seem to sell more lenses with a big zoom range than high quality primes, or good zooms with a short zoom range. I guess we need more people birding. All it would take is a good 600f5.6 lens and most of the large supertelephoto lenses would become practically obsolete (or at least redundant), but it sounds like there will never be a big enough market for that without company pride on the line.


----------



## jrista (Dec 10, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > CarlTN said:
> ...



On a 1D IV, yes. On a 5D III or 1D X, no...it is the center point plus expansion, which is actually fairly large. It isn't a huge problem, though. If you want flexible composition in non-tracking scenarios, you can always use rear-button AF, lock onto your subject, stop AF, recompose, and take the shot (which can be done in a fraction of a second with some skill.) 

For tracking subjects, it's always been the recommendation that you use the center points anyway, as they are the most precise and accurate. So overall, unless you have a particular style of shooting where you frequently use the outer AF points to do tracking with extremely long supertelephoto focal lengths...you should be fine.


----------



## jrista (Dec 10, 2013)

9VIII said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



I dunno. Personally, I'd still buy the 600/4 over a 600/5.6 (or even a 300-600/5.6). I wouldn't want to sacrifice the extra stop of light, which is really the primary draw of a lens like the 600/4 (and often essential to get good IQ, especially in the kinds of circumstances you frequently find with bird photography). Same reason I would buy the 300/2.8 over a 300/4. The 300/4 is certainly cheaper, but the 300/2.8 cannot be beat for the balance of sharpness & AF speed vs. portability...not to mention it's versatility with teleconverters. It is the ideal wildlifers lens if you have a few thousand dollars to spend.


----------



## dallasdave22 (Dec 10, 2013)

And still no 100-400 mark 2


----------



## tron (Dec 10, 2013)

dallasdave22 said:


> And still no 100-400 mark 2


+1  :-\


----------



## Click (Dec 10, 2013)

tron said:


> dallasdave22 said:
> 
> 
> > And still no 100-400 mark 2
> ...



+2


----------



## CarlTN (Dec 10, 2013)

jrista said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



It's amusing that you're advocating "focus-recompose", when all you've done is criticize the technique thus far. Also it seems like you're arguing for something that you likely won't ever have a vested interest in (this particular lens).

I mean, to advocate servo tracking in the center of an image, when you and at least one other notable were so happy to say it should not be done, because you're not a real photographer if you don't use all those vast number of AF points with their large array...kind of trying to have your cake and eat it to, from the point of criticizing those who've done it, aren't you? Implying you have the skill to do it, but others don't...kind of arrogant.

Again, I state the 300-600 f/5.6 is a lens nobody in the pro sports world needs for stills photography. They already have the same focal length covered when using the internal TC with the 200-400. And F/8 AF is going to be sluggish at best, and by your own admission, will require focus-recompose even with the 1DX. Perhaps it would be ideal for videography though, and that's something I've not seriously considered until just today. But for stills photography with fast paced subjects, I don't see this lens as delivering good value for money at all. They need to just make a non-L, STM lens for video use, rather than another mega-dollar L lens for stills with such a dark aperture.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 10, 2013)

Eldar said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > Still at f/8, that's only one single tiny center point for AF, is it not?
> ...



American Bittern in flight, shot handheld with the 1D X, 600mm f/4L IS II + 2xIII, 1/1600 s, f/8, ISO 3200.


----------



## CarlTN (Dec 10, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > CarlTN said:
> ...



Kind of soft, distant and uninteresting. It's not worth using the equipment it took to get the shot, in my opinion. You don't mention how much cropping there is, if any. If it's heavily cropped, then that's at least something...especially at 1200mm. You probably should have set for a bit faster shutter speed? The panning IS is only helping in one axis...as you know.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 10, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> Kind of soft, distant and uninteresting. It's not worth using the equipment it took to get the shot, in my opinion. You don't mention how much cropping there is, if any. If it's heavily cropped, then that's at least something...especially at 1200mm. You probably should have set for a bit faster shutter speed? The panning IS is only helping in one axis...as you know.



The point was that it's possible to shoot BIF handheld with the 600 II + 2xIII. Hit rate was ~50%, due to the difficulty of keeping the center + 4 AF points on the bird, but it can be done.

The bittern shot is cropped by about a third,...it was a gray, ugly day at the end of October, 2012. This shot from 40 minutes later that day (also with the 600 II + 2xIII) shows the rain that started falling on us, being blown nearly sideways by the strong winds…it was the outskirts of Hurricane Sandy.


----------



## Eldar (Dec 10, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> The point was that it's possible to shoot BIF handheld with the 600 II + 2xIII. Hit rate was ~50%, due to the difficulty of keeping the center + 4 AF points on the bird, but it can be done.
> 
> The bittern shot is cropped by about a third,...it was a gray, ugly day at the end of October, 2012. This shot from 40 minutes later that day (also with the 600 II + 2xIII) shows the rain that started falling on us, being blown nearly sideways by the strong winds…it was the outskirts of Hurricane Sandy.


I agree that it is possible, but AF is too limited. Keeper rate is low and 1200mm is difficult on anything that moves, regardless of AF functionality.


----------



## CarlTN (Dec 10, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > Kind of soft, distant and uninteresting. It's not worth using the equipment it took to get the shot, in my opinion. You don't mention how much cropping there is, if any. If it's heavily cropped, then that's at least something...especially at 1200mm. You probably should have set for a bit faster shutter speed? The panning IS is only helping in one axis...as you know.
> ...



Interesting. So you weren't in servo mode for the bittern shot? Seems like you wouldn't need it, depending on if you had been following it along the perpendicular path to your position, for very long.

My point wasn't that AF could not be done. But a 50% hit rate, would be ridiculed in any other context. Even my 6D has a much better than 50% hit rate with an f/5.6 lens in similar light...yet you're happy to slam its AF weaknesses anyway, because it's not 80 to 100% hit rate, and thus "not professional". Yet you're advocating using such megapriced equipment in a situation where a pro would never use it for critical work, due to such a low hitrate. So again, the 300-600 being intended for professionals, I really must ask why? Sure the IQ would be better for it (without its extender) than with the 200-400 _with_ its extender switched in, but how much better? Enough for those pros to buy both lenses? Or is this a matter of spending "government" (as in "free public untraceable unaccountable") funds on the equipment?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 10, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> My point wasn't that AF could not be done. But a 50% hit rate, would be ridiculed in any other context. Even my 6D has a much better than 50% hit rate with an f/5.6 lens in similar light...yet you're happy to slam its AF weaknesses anyway, because it's not 80 to 100% hit rate, and thus "not professional". Yet you're advocating using such megapriced equipment in a situation where a pro would never use it for critical work, due to such a low hitrate.



Well, it depends on how you define hit rate. I suppose you could say the hit rate for the bittern shots was 100% - but 50% of the time it was perfectly focused on the bird, and the other 50% of the time it was perfectly focused on the background, when the AF point drifted off the bird. That's not the camera's AF weakness, it's my inability to handhold the 12 pound, 26" long setup perfectly stable. The fact that there were _any_ shots in focus at all is a testament to the speed of the AF (even with the TC on, it was able to achieve focus fast) and the frame rate of the 1D X (which gave me 3-4 frames for each of the fractions of seconds I had the AF points over the bird). Not that I had a 6D along for comparison, but if I had, well…the 6D doesn't even support AF with an f/8 combo now, does it? 

This was far from a critical situation, I was walking along a path to the beach, and happened to look to the side and see the bittern flying by at a distance…too much distance, actually, and I knew it at the time. I raised the camera that was hanging from a Blackrapid strap, and took a couple of bursts.


----------



## KyleSTL (Dec 10, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> I raised the camera *[1Dx and 600mm f/4L IS II USM with 2.0x III TC]* that was *hanging from a Blackrapid strap*, and took a couple of bursts.


I want to see a picture of that (rig hanging on a BR), it sounds rather epic. Please tell me you have a DR-2 and had your EOS M and 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM on the other side.


----------



## jrista (Dec 11, 2013)

Eldar said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > The point was that it's possible to shoot BIF handheld with the 600 II + 2xIII. Hit rate was ~50%, due to the difficulty of keeping the center + 4 AF points on the bird, but it can be done.
> ...



You guys must not pay much attention to professional bird photographers. Many of them use the 600II + 2xTC III. Some of them rarely ever use anything else! Most of them used the 800/5.6 before, many never removed their 1.4x TC's from it. One of the primary reasons professional bird photographers buy 1D series is for the f/8 AF, because they use it CONSTANTLY.

Keep in mind, the 1D *officially *supports f/8 AF. It isn't like the makeshift f/8 AF you can get with a Kenko slapped onto a 400mm f/5.6 on a 7D, where your luck is basically a roll of the dice, and AF performance is excruciating. Nor is it even like the 5D III, which supports f/8 AF, but isn't as fast as the 1D series. I am guessing, at best, most of you calling f/8 AF slow have only used the 5D III. Try rending a 1D IV sometime, or if you know a friend with one, see if you can borrow it. When it is officially supported, especially these days with support for expansion mode (where a total of five central AF points are used in the 1D X/5D III), it is fast, accurate, and very usable.

Now, granted, f/8 lenses aren't ideal for tracking birds in flight. Usually, if a bird is flying towards you or angled across your field of view, f/8 lenses, which are usually over 800mm in length, are just too long...you need something wider anyway to compose properly and leave a little room for some of that necessary cropping and straitening. So it isn't like anyone expects f/8 AF to be used to track one of the most complex and difficult subjects that you can track. That's the reason f/4 supertelephotos exist...LOT of light, FAST af...you track BIF with a 500mm or 600mm f/4. The f/8 is most frequently used for perching birds, shorebirds, waders like herons, waterfowl, distant wildlife, etc. where you don't have to bother tracking...you just point, focus, and shoot. Both the 5D III and 1D X are MORE than capable of doing that with an f/8 lens.


----------



## CarlTN (Dec 11, 2013)

jrista said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



I rented the 1D4 last year, and used the 2x ii TC on a 300mm f/4. I even posted some of the shots on here. It worked, but it was slow to AF...and as you said, it only worked with the center point, where the 1DX and 5D3 use a cluster. Certainly that lens combo was very far from the top tier for AF speed or sharpness, but that was what I had on hand to employ the f/8 AF at the time.

I presume you're saying the 300-600 f/5.6 lens, would be intended for birders? In any case, certainly the 600 f/4 with TC's will make a better birding setup, as you have said.

I suppose future AF sensors and techniques will make f/8 AF even faster with a better hitrate. Still I guess I am annoyed that Canon would make yet another mega lens that is an even darker aperture zoom, rather than trying to fill in holes in their lineup with something more akin to an f/3.5 lens like I mentioned a couple of pages back. If they do wind up putting this 300-600 in production, then there might be a decent market for it. They would know better than me.


----------



## CarlTN (Dec 11, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > My point wasn't that AF could not be done. But a 50% hit rate, would be ridiculed in any other context. Even my 6D has a much better than 50% hit rate with an f/5.6 lens in similar light...yet you're happy to slam its AF weaknesses anyway, because it's not 80 to 100% hit rate, and thus "not professional". Yet you're advocating using such megapriced equipment in a situation where a pro would never use it for critical work, due to such a low hitrate.
> ...



“It depends on what the meaning of the word “is” is…” Hahaha…

You still didn’t tell me if you were in servo mode for the bittern shot. I assume you were. 12 pounds...so this was the series 1 600mm lens?

_“I suppose you could say the hit rate for the bittern shots was 100% - but 50% of the time it was perfectly focused on the bird, and the other 50% of the time it was perfectly focused on the background, when the AF point drifted off the bird.”_

Um, that’s effectively a 50% hit rate…and if you're saying it was only 1 AF point, why would that be? I thought you said the 1DX used a central cluster, in which case it should have been easier to keep the cluster over the bird, than if it was a single point. 

_“Not that I had a 6D along for comparison, but if I had, well…the 6D doesn't even support AF with an f/8 combo now, does it?”_

Never said it did, now did I? And you know I wasn’t referring to a 6D’s AF ability at F/8…so let’s not get silly. It’s me who owns and enjoys the 6D, and it’s you who doesn’t like that. I don’t mind that you have a 1DX, or that you will likely pre-order the new 2014 1 series as quickly as you’re able to…if not several of them. 

_“I raised the camera that was hanging from a Blackrapid strap, and took a couple of bursts.”_

Fine by me. My point was, it’s not a picture that is worth the cost it took to get it. (No doubt you have others that are, but that’s not what I’m referring to here). I’ve seen a bit of your photography, and much of it is not bad at all (don’t let this go to your head though!). But this one is unremarkable as a photograph. It’s simply a shot that you filed away in a folder for the sake of posting it to show that you were able to do it handheld at f/8 at 1200mm, yada yada…it’s not really all that mind-blowing that you did it, though. You simply held the lens, pointed, and shot…Now if it had been children running through dark tents in the foreground, and you were able to servo focus on them and capture what each was thinking, while also following the bittern all the way back to its nest…that would have been a more interesting shot. 

Again though, if that was the series 1 600mm lens, and it was in servo mode, then even a 50% hit rate is not what I would call bad, especially if it's a continuous 12 fps.

My point in criticizing the AF speed, had more to do with sports. In particular people who shoot action that is moving rapidly toward or away from the camera. I don't see this 300-600 zoom lens being able to do that well enough to justify its price. It seems to me that the 200-400 only AF's barely adequately enough for professional sports...rather its advantage is of course that it's a zoom.


----------



## Eldar (Dec 11, 2013)

jrista said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


I can only repeat myself. It is doable, but keeper rate is low and it is very difficult to use on anything that moves. I don´t know if you have any practical experience with a 600 f4L/2x extender combo. I do. And for fairly stationary subjects, like a bird on a branch, grassing mammals etc. it works. For anything that moves, it doesn´t work well enough. I rather use the 600/1.4x combo and crop.


----------



## jrista (Dec 11, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Eldar said:
> ...



One thing I will add is that lens choice DOES play a role. The AF motors in lenses are NOT all equal. A $10k+ lens is going to have a far superior AF drive and motor, and are explicitly designed to utilize more power, than something like the 300/4. So sure, a 300/4+2x is definitely going to focus slower, but that is as much lens limitation as aperture limitation. The 300/2.8, 400/2.8, 500/4, 600/4 mark IIs and 800/5.6 all contain the most advanced AF drive systems, and all of them actually require more power in order to operate that fast. To my knowledge, only 1D series bodies are capable of driving them properly...and it may be that only the 1D X itself is actually able to supply enough power to drive them at the highest power level.

I would be willing to bet that a 1D IV with a 300/2.8 or 600/4 + 2x TC performs remarkably better than the 300/4+2x. 



Eldar said:


> I can only repeat myself. It is doable, but keeper rate is low and it is very difficult to use on anything that moves. I don´t know if you have any practical experience with a 600 f4L/2x extender combo. I do. And for fairly stationary subjects, like a bird on a branch, grassing mammals etc. it works. For anything that moves, it doesn´t work well enough. I rather use the 600/1.4x combo and crop.



I do have experience with the 600/4+2x on a 1D IV. I have not had the luxury of trying it on a 1D X, however from my understanding of the device specification for each, f/8 AF on the 1D X EXPLICITLY with Mark II superteles should be faster since the 1D X was designed to supply the necessary power, and has the necessary processing to back up the AF and metering unit for performant f/8 operation. 

Again, as I mentioned before, I don't know many people who would even WANT to use a lens 800mm or longer for BIF. Unless the birds are sufficiently far away, but in that case you often have atmospheric effects that eliminate any benefit of using a longer lens vs. getting up and moving closer to the action. Personally, I only do BIF with 600mm f/4, and even that, on occasion, results in birds that are much too large in the frame (although that is 7D...with a FF, 600/4 would be PERFECT! I couldn't imagine using the 600/4+1.4x for BIF.) 

So, given the use cases, I still don't see a problem with f/8 AF. As I said before, plenty of professional and otherwise highly skilled bird photographers use f/8 lenses all the time for shorebirds, perching birds, etc. and the results are phenomenal. I never hear any of them complaining about how slow the AF is, with either a 1D X or 5D III (the latter of which is just as common.)


----------



## Eldar (Dec 11, 2013)

jrista said:


> I never hear any of them complaining about how slow the AF is, with either a 1D X or 5D III (the latter of which is just as common.)


I agree with that. AF speed is not the issue. The problem, with such a focal length, is to be able to position the One focus point you have, where you want it. If the subject is stationary or near stationary, it works. And the IQ is still great, provided the air is clear enough.


----------



## CarlTN (Dec 11, 2013)

Jrista, I only mentioned the 300 f/4 because that’s what I used at the time, not because I think it’s comparable to the mega lenses. I realize it uses different motors, etc...however those motors have more mass to move.

As for the power supply, well it comes from those three 18650 batteries that make up the pack in the 1 series, operating at over 11 volts…so of course that power source can drive motors better. However, that was the power source I was using at that time with the 1D4.

_“I would be willing to bet that a 1D IV with a 300/2.8 or 600/4 + 2x TC performs remarkably better than the 300/4+2x.”_

I would be willing to bet the same, along with a bet that the sun will rise tomorrow…haha. Never said the contrary.

I certainly agree on the atmospheric effects of birds at a distance, especially at or above 800mm.
Certainly birders who shoot in bright conditions aren’t going to complain about a 300-600 f/5.6 lens with a 1.4x TC built in. But are they the primary customer for such a lens? If so, are there enough of them to justify building the lens? It seems to me, the primary use for all the big whites, is professional sports photography. So again, that use case is what I am questioning. Perhaps this is meant to be a pro snow skiing lens, in which case I guess it's not a coincidence that there is an upcoming winter Olympics.


----------



## jrista (Dec 11, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> I certainly agree on the atmospheric effects of birds at a distance, especially at or above 800mm.
> Certainly birders who shoot in bright conditions aren’t going to complain about a 300-600 f/5.6 lens with a 1.4x TC built in. But are they the primary customer for such a lens? If so, are there enough of them to justify building the lens? It seems to me, the primary use for all the big whites, is professional sports photography. So again, that use case is what I am questioning. Perhaps this is meant to be a pro snow skiing lens, in which case I guess it's not a coincidence that there is an upcoming winter Olympics.



I think that birders are probably primary customers of the 500/4 and 600/4, along with the 1.4x and 2x TCs. (And, I would bet, if Canon ever made a 1.7x TC, birders would be ALL OVER it! )

I think the 300-600/5.6 TC would be a sports/olympics lens. I can see it being awesome for Olympic ski games. Maybe a wildlifers lens...but in my own experience, I find myself liking ~400mm better for wildlife than 600mm or higher. The times when I need the longest focal lengths possible are small shorebirds and small songbirds wading or perching or otherwise doing non-flight activity. For flight activity, I'd much prefer the 300/2.8, along with a 1.4x TC at times. That would basically be my ideal BIF and wildlife lens.

It may also be a lens that is catered slightly more to DSLR cinematographers. Since Canon's DPAF can focus at f/11, and high ISO is getting so clean on Canon cameras now, it could very well be that this is some kind of stopgap supertele cine+stills lens. Since future video photographers won't necessarily need a focus puller, with DPAF doing the job for them, the aperture wouldn't actually matter (and from the couple people I know who do a lot of video, they HATE narrow DOF! They are happy to take deeper DOF so long as their backgrounds keep that nice blurry cinematic look...which should be a synch with a telephoto lens.)


----------



## CarlTN (Dec 11, 2013)

jrista said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > I certainly agree on the atmospheric effects of birds at a distance, especially at or above 800mm.
> ...



Yes I would be all over a 1.7x TC too. But I guess since Nikon has had one for a decade, Canon needs to wait another couple of decades before they bring one to market. You know, just to make sure they get it right!

You seem to think like I do, a bit. I had also mentioned video usage a couple of posts ago for this 300-600. 

So for stills shooters, why not embrace my idea of a 330mm f/3.5 DO prime lens, with a switchable internal TC that can be exchanged. They could make a 1.55x, a 1.7x, 2.4x, and so on. I’ve long thought 1.55x is the ideal TC magnifier, rather than 1.4x. This lens could sell for under $6000, rather than $30k. It wouldn’t even have to be platinum plated! They could charge their extra $500 for each of the insert-able TC’s…but it would come with one of them installed.

Yes, I mean…with video and cinema…most every movie and tv show you see, has quite deep focus. It’s what the producers and the audience seem to want, much of the time. Sure shallow DOF can look awesome, but as I read somewhere…how many movies have you seen where the majority of scenes were shot in shallow DOF? None…maybe a few scenes done by wedding videographers.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 11, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> You still didn’t tell me if you were in servo mode for the bittern shot. I assume you were. 12 pounds...so this was the series 1 600mm lens?



AI Servo mode. 

I have the 600/4L IS II lens. It weighs 8.6 lbs by itself. I'm not sure why some people seem to think that because a lens is big and expensive, it can record images all by itself. Carl, please don't tell me you're like dilbert, who thinks that lenses are cameras... The 1D X is ~3.4 lbs (so in fact, the 1D X + 2xIII + 600 II combo comes to ~12.7 lbs).


----------



## KyleSTL (Dec 11, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> Yes I would be all over a 1.7x TC too. But I guess since Nikon has had one for a decade, Canon needs to wait another couple of decades before they bring one to market. You know, just to make sure they get it right!



Oh, you mean like ultrasonic motors (Canon: 1987, Nikon: 1998)?
Or image stabilization in 35mm lenses (Canon: 1995, Nikon: 2000)?
Or electromagnetic aperture mechanisms (Canon: 1987, Nikon: 2008)?
How about full frame digital sensors (Canon: 2002, Nikon: 2007)?
Or CMOS sensors for DSLRs (Canon: 2000, Nikon: 2004)?
Built in teleconverter (Canon: 1984 [2012 for AF], Nikon: never)?

Yeah, like those.

I know I have cherry-picked a few examples, but you can't possibly think that Nikon is a substantially faster-moving and more innovative company overall. And that 1.7x TC you desire, there are two versions for Nikon: 1) that works only with AF-S and AF-I lenses, and 2) a version that is manual focus only for all lenses. Own an nice AF 300mm f/2.8 or 80-200mm f/2.8D? Tough luck, no AF for you (not that Nikon AF lenses are fast by anyone's definition).

Grass still greener?


----------



## garyknrd (Dec 12, 2013)

jrista said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



I've tried a 2X a few times. And I see the pro's using it.
It drives me to drink. I finally just gave up. LOL
I cannot get the hang of it. I am 2x challenged for sure.


----------



## scyrene (Dec 12, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > CarlTN said:
> ...



Mind if I ask, why did you stick with f/8? I always stop down the 500+2x to f/10 as I find it gives a little extra sharpness. The only exception would be in extreme low light.


----------



## scyrene (Dec 12, 2013)

jrista said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



FWIW (and bearing in mind the replies since this post) I was on tenterhooks waiting for the 5D3 f/8 autofocus update, and swapped from the 500+1.4x to 500+2x without looking back. The extra focal length is almost cancelled out, but not quite, so it's worth it.

That being said, autofocus is something I'd love to see improved. It works, and that's brilliant - before, I was manually focusing sometimes (e.g. at 1400mm with both extenders mounted), even on birds in flight, but the hit rate was tiny. Any improvement is good, and what the update in April provided was very welcome. But it is inaccurate, as you might imagine - birds in flight are more often than not impossible. I'm torn between frustration and gratitude.

Still the ability to do it at all is awesome, so on balance I am happy.


----------



## scyrene (Dec 12, 2013)

jrista said:
 

> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...




I think partly it's that I don't tend to go out for a given species; I photograph what I see. Then there's the not wanting to look ridiculous - I know that's holding me back. Camouflage, I suppose I'll give into; getting dirtier seems inevitable (and that's fair enough). 

I had what you said in mind when I went to photograph snow buntings on the shore the other day, and it worked well. Lying on my belly, they came close, and I got good shots (see below), albeit at the expense of a couple of days' neck pain. I'll try this with waders next time I get the chance, thanks


----------



## jrista (Dec 12, 2013)

scyrene said:


> FWIW (and bearing in mind the replies since this post) I was on tenterhooks waiting for the 5D3 f/8 autofocus update, and swapped from the 500+1.4x to 500+2x without looking back. The extra focal length is almost cancelled out, but not quite, so it's worth it.



Hmm....I'm not sure it is possible for a 2x TC, even a bad one, to cancel out the benefit of the extra focal length. Subject size in the frame is the square of the ratio of the focal lengths. In your case, you went from 500mm to 1000mm, so your subject quadrupled in size in the frame ((1000/500)^2 = 4). There is no way that the TC is introducing so much CA that it is overpowering having FOUR TIMES as many pixels on subject...that would mean your CA was like 13µm in size...which I simply don't believe. Not to mention that CA adds color fringing, which can be corrected, and the overall general softening due to the 2x TC III is relatively low. I mean, it definitely has an impact, but it isn't entirely canceling the benefit of having twice the focal length. 



scyrene said:


> That being said, autofocus is something I'd love to see improved. It works, and that's brilliant - before, I was manually focusing sometimes (e.g. at 1400mm with both extenders mounted), even on birds in flight, but the hit rate was tiny. Any improvement is good, and what the update in April provided was very welcome. But it is inaccurate, as you might imagine - birds in flight are more often than not impossible. I'm torn between frustration and gratitude.
> 
> Still the ability to do it at all is awesome, so on balance I am happy.



It's expected that f/8 AF for BIF is pretty much a no-go unless you are exceptionally skilled (and there are a few who are that skilled.) Even with the 100-400 + 1.4x Kenko on my 7D (which is atrocious), for stationary subjects I was still able to AF a reasonable amount of time. That is with a Kenko TC on a 7D...WORLDS different than a 1D X with an EF 2x TC III mounted on a Mark II telephoto. The 5D III runs circles around the 7D+Kenko. It isn't blazing fast instantaneous focus, but it doesn't take minutes either. On the 5D III f/8 AF is fast enough, and consistently functional, which is all you really need for stationary birds, or birds that are slowly moving rather than flying. And that is what f/8 AF is usually used for in the birding world.

Don't expect to be able to f/8 AF for fast moving subjects. It just isn't practical, isn't realistic, and isn't expected (and yet, that seems to be what most people are referring to when talking about how bad f/8 AF is, not even just here on CR...any time I hear someone complaining about f/8 AF they are either trying to BIF, or photograph rutting elk or something of the fast action sort...which is just not gonna happen.)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 12, 2013)

scyrene said:


> Mind if I ask, why did you stick with f/8? I always stop down the 500+2x to f/10 as I find it gives a little extra sharpness. The only exception would be in extreme low light.



I was in a hurry... :-[ I looked over as the bird took flight, raised the camera and shot. It was in standby mode, but when birding I walk around with it in my BIF mode (C3), which is 1/1600 s, f/6.3, Auto ISO. That's set for the bare 600 or with the 1.4xIII, so it defaulted to the wide open f/8 with the 2xIII attached.


----------



## garyknrd (Dec 13, 2013)

My main problem with a 2x is camera or lens shake. Even on a very stable tripod, locked down. It is tough. I have used a bean bag with a little more success. I admire you guys. Way out of my league.


----------



## 9VIII (Dec 13, 2013)

jrista said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



It seems to me that stopping down on big whites is actually fairly common (as seen above). I'm constantly surprised at the high apertures people actually use when shooting wildlife. Sometimes you even see relatively extreme apertures that, on paper at least, I would want to avoid due to diffraction.
I'm sure the option of using f4 comes in handy every once in a while, but in practice it looks like the wide apertures get used for TC compatibility more than anything. Options are nice but getting the lens at the focal length you want is still the best choice. The 600f4+TC is top dog for birding right now, but if/when a new 800f5.6 comes out I don't think many people will miss the extra stop of light.


----------



## tron (Dec 13, 2013)

This lens may appeal to some but with the embedded teleconverter it will have many major handicaps. Size, Weight, price. Well regarding the latter I am not in a position to know how much more it would cost due to the teleconverter. However, the first two factors would be affected so much as to negate every portability advantage due to the f/5.6 max aperture. A 300-600 f/5.6 lens would be much smaller (judging from the tamron and assuming that it would be retractable) so it would make the perfect travel super telephoto...


----------



## jrista (Dec 13, 2013)

9VIII said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > 9VIII said:
> ...



The wide aperture affects AF speed and AF point precision and capability. Remember, particularly in the 61pt AF system, there are f/2.8 double cross type points, f/4 cross type points, f/5.6 line points, and the center expansion f/8 points. With an f/4 lens, you ALWAYS AF at f/4, no matter what you stop down to for actual shooting. The extra stop of light allows the AF system to operate more quickly and more accurately. When f/4 AF points are used, they tend to be more precise than f/5.6 points, which need larger pixels in order to sense as well as f/4 pixels.

The point of an f/4 lens isn't that you always shoot wide open (although in the evening, it isn't uncommon...I tend to be around f/8 aperture for shooting during daytime, and f/4-5.6 for shooting around sunset, for wildlife.) It's that you ALWAYS AF wide open (by design.) And yes, with an f/4 lens, when you slap on a 1.4x TC, you still AF at f/5.6, which is still better than AF at f/8, no question.


----------



## garyknrd (Dec 13, 2013)

Bingo.. I was wondering when someone was going to mention this. When shooting in good light I sometimes use a 1.4. 

Most of my shooting is in dismal light. Making T.C. work miserable for me. 

I was in a hide shooting pittas about two months ago. With my F/2.8, 300mm using the 2.8 focus points of the Mark IV. I was running circles around the other photographers. There was no comparison. I ended up with the best shots by far in a few minutes. Where most hard core birders had been there for days.

Moving from F/2.8 to F/4.0. Makes a noticeable difference in AF performance. Simple things like this will get the shots others will not. I have run circles around guys shooting 500 + 600 mm F/4.0 lenses in very poor light. Many ask me why aren't you using your 500? I just smile and start shooting the eyes out of the birds. While they are having to move back and suffer the handicapped AF performance of F/4.0.

It is the main reason I own a 300 2.8 lens. Over here the guys that run down the 300 2.8 saying it is to short. Loose big time in low light close quarter shooting which is common in the jungle. 

I am looking forward to the next generation of cameras. I skipped the IDx. But would love to try one just to play with the AF. 

Great hobby. Just a lot of fun...

www.flickr.com/photos/avianphotos
www.birdsthatfart.com


----------



## Northstar (Dec 13, 2013)

jrista said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



Jrista....help me better understand this. If I have two 1dx cameras(same settings) each with a 300 2.8 attached, but one set at 2.8 and one set at f5.6....are you saying that the one set at 2.8 will have faster more accurate AF capabilities?


----------



## jrista (Dec 13, 2013)

Northstar said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > 9VIII said:
> ...



That is actually exactly the opposite of what I said. Let me quote myself, for clarity:



> "With an f/4 lens, you ALWAYS AF at f/4, _*no matter what you stop down to for actual shooting*_."



If you have two 1D X bodies both with a 300mm f/2.8 attached, BOTH will AF at exactly the same speed, with exactly the same capabilities...REGARDLESS of whether one of them is stopped down to f/5.6.

When it comes to AF, only the MAXIMUM aperture matters, because Canon bodies always, ALWAYS AF at the maximum aperture, then stop down the aperture and actuate the shutter after AF has locked.


----------



## jrista (Dec 13, 2013)

garyknrd said:


> Bingo.. I was wondering when someone was going to mention this. When shooting in good light I sometimes use a 1.4.
> 
> Most of my shooting is in dismal light. Making T.C. work miserable for me.
> 
> ...



In jungle quarters, I'd be using a 300/2.8 as well. No contest there, as the rainforest canopy is almost total in coverage...it can get quite dark underneath all that foliage. 

In more "normal" circumstances, 300mm is reach limited, especially when it comes to shy birds. Most of what I have the opportunity to shoot here in Colorado (which is really only two times a year, spring and fall migration) are jittery migrants...wading birds, shorebirds, waterfowl, raptors, etc. None of these birds like your proximity, and it takes a hell of a lot of skill to get close. A long lens, even one with an f/5.6 aperture, is generally preferable to a short lens with a monster aperture. With my 7D, I certainly suffer from ISO problems, but with bodies like the 5D III and 1D X, using higher ISO to compensate for the narrower aperture isn't such a big deal, and overall you still generally have more light (often CONSIDERABLY more light) than you do in a rainforest, even with teleconverters attached. When it comes to BIF, I prefer to use 300 f/2.8 (sometimes with a 1.4x TC for 420 f/4) and at times a 500 or 600 f/4 (depends, but sometimes even though the AF performance is better with the 300, the birds just end up too small in the frame.)


----------



## Northstar (Dec 14, 2013)

jrista said:


> Northstar said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



Good....because thats what i always had thought. Somehow i misunderstood what u wrote.


----------



## jrista (Dec 14, 2013)

Northstar said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Northstar said:
> ...



Yeah, it's generally common knowledge...but sometimes people don't quite make the connection.  Just wanted to be clear...I like my 600/4 because it is f/4...for AF. I can choose to stop down to whatever is necessary to get the DOF I need, but it will always AF at f/4. I don't want to lose that extra stop of light "for AF" first and foremost by going to something like a 300-600 f/5.6. That was what I was trying to say before.


----------



## 9VIII (Dec 14, 2013)

jrista said:


> The wide aperture affects AF speed and AF point precision and capability. Remember, particularly in the 61pt AF system, there are f/2.8 double cross type points, f/4 cross type points, f/5.6 line points, and the center expansion f/8 points. With an f/4 lens, you ALWAYS AF at f/4, no matter what you stop down to for actual shooting. The extra stop of light allows the AF system to operate more quickly and more accurately. When f/4 AF points are used, they tend to be more precise than f/5.6 points, which need larger pixels in order to sense as well as f/4 pixels.
> 
> The point of an f/4 lens isn't that you always shoot wide open (although in the evening, it isn't uncommon...I tend to be around f/8 aperture for shooting during daytime, and f/4-5.6 for shooting around sunset, for wildlife.) It's that you ALWAYS AF wide open (by design.) And yes, with an f/4 lens, when you slap on a 1.4x TC, you still AF at f/5.6, which is still better than AF at f/8, no question.



Jrista, thank you. 
I actually completely forgot about the difference between f4 AF points and f5.6 ones. The high precision f2.8 AF points are referenced so much I guess I clumped all the others into the same group. (After reading multiple articles detailing all the AF points, and watching the entire B&H Canon AF seminar [ ww.youtube.com/watch?v=iAx86nblZ2g ][great video BTW], you would think that someone would remember something like that. I guess a guy can only fill his head with so much.)
That changes my perception of the TCs quite a bit. I've been assuming that you get "worse AF" when using a TC because of a combination of optical performance and some kind of interference in the circuitry, if on the other hand it's actually just due to the change in the type of AF points used, then the 600f4+1.4xTC is actually going to AF exactly the same as the 800f5.6. I was assuming the latter would have an advantage.
Indeed that does make a very good case for the 600f4, and makes the 300f2.8 more appealing now that I know it's not some mystical interference from the teleconverter making AF worse at 600mm.


----------



## garyknrd (Dec 14, 2013)

9VIII said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > The wide aperture affects AF speed and AF point precision and capability. Remember, particularly in the 61pt AF system, there are f/2.8 double cross type points, f/4 cross type points, f/5.6 line points, and the center expansion f/8 points. With an f/4 lens, you ALWAYS AF at f/4, no matter what you stop down to for actual shooting. The extra stop of light allows the AF system to operate more quickly and more accurately. When f/4 AF points are used, they tend to be more precise than f/5.6 points, which need larger pixels in order to sense as well as f/4 pixels.
> ...



IMO a teleconverter, no mater how good it is ( and how sharp the lens is ) degrades the image. And that also has an effect on AF accuracy and speed. As well as the loss of 1 or two stops of light. 
I would love to see a auto-focus test using the 600 II with a 1.4 against the bare 800 F/5.6 lens. With the same camera it is my guess! The 800 would win. Not only being faster ( though very slightly ) but more important more accurate. Looking at the MTF charts of the two lenses it would be a very close race for sure. 

Look at this link 1.4 tc III on the 200 f/2.8 lens. http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1367/cat/62 

And here for the 2.0tc III: http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1366/cat/62

Looking at that data. Pretty much clears things up for me when using a t.c. I wish these guys would test the 600 II and 500 II using T.C.'s. 

But even if that is true. I would much rather have a 600 II with a teleconverter any day... ;D


----------



## jrista (Dec 14, 2013)

garyknrd said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



I don't think it is quite as simple as that. Yes, adding more optical elements has an impact, however those additional optical elements also enlarge the subject. Optical elements tend to be pixel-level issues...the two primary ones are increased distortion (which primarily affects the corners), and increased CA. CA, while it usually shows up and looks bad in ISO 12280 test charts, is a PIXEL-LEVEL issue, and those ISO 12280 test charts are shot at consistent framing, so the benefit of increased subject size is LOST.

In a real-world situation, the theory here does not actually demonstrate actuality all that well. The subject increases by a factor of (840/600)^2, or 1.4x squared, two fold. In the case of a 2x teleconverter, the subject increases by a factor of four. That puts a LOT more pixels onto the subject. They may be slightly softer pixels with a little more CA...but it is still FOUR TIMES the pixels on subject. Assuming a normalized comparison scenario, one could crop the 600mm image and downsample the 840mm image to the same cropped dimensions, and the 840mm image will *always* win in terms of IQ. CA can be removed easily (if it even shows up as a problem.) 



garyknrd said:


> And that also has an effect on AF accuracy and speed. As well as the loss of 1 or two stops of light.
> I would love to see a auto-focus test using the 600 II with a 1.4 against the bare 800 F/5.6 lens. With the same camera it is my guess! The 800 would win. Not only being faster ( though very slightly ) but more important more accurate. Looking at the MTF charts of the two lenses it would be a very close race for sure.



Yeah, I would agree, a AF at a lenses native maximum aperture is probably going to perform a bit better than AF with a TC attached. I think there is a bit of a myth about Canon TCs intentionally slowing down AF, but only in comparison to the likes of third party TCs like Kenko. The problem with a Kenko TC is they effectively cheat. They trick the body into thinking the attached lens has a different maximum aperture. For example, with my 600+1.4x Kenko, the camera thinks the maximum aperture is still f/4. That is generally what leads to the sometimes funky behavior of AF with a third-party TC, it attempts to utilize AF points that MAY not have enough light to operate properly. You would get roughly the same kind of quirky behavior if you pin-taped a Canon 14x TC. Canon TCs report everything properly, so the AF system doesn't even try to use f/4 AF points when the relative aperture is actually f/5.6.



garyknrd said:


> Look at this link 1.4 tc III on the 200 f/2.8 lens. http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1367/cat/62
> 
> And here for the 2.0tc III: http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1366/cat/62
> 
> ...



Again, as I mentioned before...these tests are done for identical framing. Of course that will put any lens with a teleconverter attached at a disadvantage, because you are basically ignoring the improvement in reach. It would be like switching from a 300mm f/2.8 to a 300mm f/2.8 + 2x TC, then doubling your distance to the subject by getting up and walking farther away from it. No one does that. You use a longer lens *from the same vantage point.* 

Standardized test charts only exhibit the worst qualities of a lens or teleconverter, but never demonstrate their benefits. IMO, the proper way to demonstrate the true qualities of a lens in a visual, standardized lens test would be to shoot the test scene with A) identical framing and then B) at an identical subject distance, focusing the central point on the same location then sampling the results to the same final image dimensions. (i.e., in the test charts from the reviews you linked above, the little circular Proportional Scale ruler would be an IDEAL test case for standard distance comparisons.)

In every case, the longer lens, used at the same subject distance, will always resolve more detail and increase magnification. Unless you are using a TC with cheap plastic lenses that don't even qualify as optical grade, I cannot imagine that attaching a TC would ever result in lower final output IQ than using a lens without a TC. You either put fewer pixels on the subject and crop, or put more pixels on the subject and don't crop. More pixels on the subject, even if some of them have more CA, is almost always going to be preferable. It's really just a bummer that standardized tests never demonstrate that.


----------



## garyknrd (Dec 14, 2013)

Good points. 

Looking at the MTF charts for my two Canon lenses it follows what you say to a tee. I have to agree also with what I have found with my two lenses.
The bare lens is reet. Beautiful flat field wide open. Stopped down with a 1.4 T.C = a flat field, and a sharp enough image. For me the 2.0x is a no fly zone. 

My two Canon lenses perform so good with out a t.c. I don't worry about my settings other than correct exposure. All the pressure is off. And I just enjoy the hobby. 

Great thread.


----------



## jrista (Dec 14, 2013)

garyknrd said:


> Good points.
> 
> Looking at the MTF charts for my two Canon lenses it follows what you say to a tee. I have to agree also with what I have found with my two lenses.
> The bare lens is reet. Beautiful flat field wide open. Stopped down with a 1.4 T.C = a flat field, and a sharp enough image. For me the 2.0x is a no fly zone.
> ...



Just to demonstrate how a 600mm f/4 with a 2x TC can and does produce stellar IQ. Here is Art Morris discussing his IQ with the 1200mm combo:

http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/2013/12/10/three-lenses-and-the-power-of-twelve/

Half way down, under the section "The Power of Twelve Hundred Millimeters":

[quote author=Art Morris]"To create the relatively large-in-the-frame vertical image above I went with the 600II/2X III combo. _Though many state openly that it is not possible to create critically sharp images with a 2X teleconverter_ *I do just that consistently*. "[/quote]

By "I do just that consistently", he means he creates "critically sharp images" with a 2x TC on a consistent basis. His work truly demonstrates that fact. It is ALWAYS "critically sharp", as he would never accept anything less. For many people, they simply cannot accept that fact, and will only use lenses without teleconverters, at any cost. That is certainly an OK personal choice, I understand the desire for maximizing IQ. Real world results speak for themselves, though...and a good lens with a 2x TC IS indeed capable of producing critical sharpness.


----------



## jrista (Dec 14, 2013)

Here are a bunch more shots by Art Morris with the 600/4 II + 2x TC:

http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/2013/11/29/your-goose-is-cooked/

Every single one of them is amazingly sharp. If it wasn't for Art's REAL WORLD examples, I might also think that the 2x TC was an IQ guzzler that produced nothing but soft, unusable images. On the contrary, I honestly can't wait to get my hands on a 5D III so I can put my 600/4 + 2x TC to good use.


----------



## Eldar (Dec 14, 2013)

jrista said:


> Here are a bunch more shots by Art Morris with the 600/4 II + 2x TC:
> 
> http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/2013/11/29/your-goose-is-cooked/
> 
> Every single one of them is amazingly sharp. If it wasn't for Art's REAL WORLD examples, I might also think that the 2x TC was an IQ guzzler that produced nothing but soft, unusable images. On the contrary, I honestly can't wait to get my hands on a 5D III so I can put my 600/4 + 2x TC to good use.


As long as you have a fairly stable object, where you can position the focus point, ref. the attached link, you get excellent quality images. But to try to find a moving object in the viewer at 1200mm and then follow it and get focus right ... clearly beyond my capabilities.


----------



## jrista (Dec 14, 2013)

Eldar said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Here are a bunch more shots by Art Morris with the 600/4 II + 2x TC:
> ...



Sure, but as I've mentioned many times before...no one would even bother trying to frame a bird in flight at 1200mm!  Few people would even bother at 800/840mm. It is natural and expected that you would use a shorter focal length. For one, the kinds of birds we usually photograph in flight are larger than the average bird you would use 1200mm for (shorebirds, songbirds, etc.) So they are probably going to clip the frame at 1200mm anyway. At 800mm they are going to fill the frame, but because of the instability of your hands, they are rarely going to be center frame. It simply isn't logical to even consider BIF at such long focal lengths. At 600mm on the 7D, framing is still too tight, however 600mm on FF is almost just right (500mm is actually better.)

I know the argument is continually brought up, that no one BIFs at f/8, but its a naive point to make. Of course not! But BIF is actually a smaller part of bird photography as a whole...a considerably more significant amount of bird photography is of stationary birds. That makes the discussion of f/8 AF and high focal lengths like 840mm and 1200mm entirely relevant. And the fundamental argument I was making...that the 2x TC does NOT degrade IQ to unusable levels, is true regardless.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 14, 2013)

jrista said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...


I bring along a folding chair and a good book.... after a while they seem to forget about you and then you can get down to business... until someone comes past walking their dog


----------



## Eldar (Dec 14, 2013)

jrista said:


> Sure, but as I've mentioned many times before...no one would even bother trying to frame a bird in flight at 1200mm!  Few people would even bother at 800/840mm. It is natural and expected that you would use a shorter focal length.


At 1200mm I find it close to impossible, but at 840mm it can be done. This one is 840mm, f6.3, 1/800s handheld.


----------



## jrista (Dec 15, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > scyrene said:
> ...



LOL! OMG, you have no idea how relevant that is to just about EVERY bird photography outing I've ever been on. Even today...I was trying to photograph this beautiful little Kestrel...and this old lady with her dog just kept going back and forth along the same path, and EVERY time she scared the little hawk off. Too me forever to finally get it to think I was just a noisy bush and get some good shots. (I'll try to post them once I get them processed...just got back home from that little photo trip, and haven't even imported them yet.)


----------



## jrista (Dec 15, 2013)

Eldar said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Sure, but as I've mentioned many times before...no one would even bother trying to frame a bird in flight at 1200mm!  Few people would even bother at 800/840mm. It is natural and expected that you would use a shorter focal length.
> ...



I use 840mm when it feels appropriate. I actually just photographed a hawk that was hunting overhead today. I have not yet imported the photos, but I'll post some when I do. I think my exposures were 840mm f/8 and f/9 at various shutter speeds, all hand held. (Was a real PITA, too...the bird kept flying directly overhead, and the sun was just off to the side...so there's me, gigantic lens pointed STRAIT UP...bleh....)


----------



## garyknrd (Dec 15, 2013)

jrista said:


> garyknrd said:
> 
> 
> > Good points.
> ...



By "I do just that consistently", he means he creates "critically sharp images" with a 2x TC on a consistent basis. His work truly demonstrates that fact. It is ALWAYS "critically sharp", as he would never accept anything less. For many people, they simply cannot accept that fact, and will only use lenses without teleconverters, at any cost. That is certainly an OK personal choice, I understand the desire for maximizing IQ. Real world results speak for themselves, though...and a good lens with a 2x TC IS indeed capable of producing critical sharpness.
[/quote]

Yep, he does it consistently. A nice guy also.
Still a no go zone for me though. At this point anyway.
I'm bowing out. Heading out for some photography in the sticks...


----------



## jrista (Dec 15, 2013)

garyknrd said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > garyknrd said:
> ...



Yep, he does it consistently. A nice guy also.
Still a no go zone for me though. At this point anyway.
I'm bowing out. Heading out for some photography in the sticks...
[/quote]

Have fun! Bring back the critically sharp!


----------



## CarlTN (Dec 15, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > You still didn’t tell me if you were in servo mode for the bittern shot. I assume you were. 12 pounds...so this was the series 1 600mm lens?
> ...



My mistake, I thought you were referring to the lens alone being 12 pounds. However, it is kind of the way you worded it that made me think that way. If that makes me like Dilbert to you, so be it! In any case, you should have used a monopod.


----------



## CarlTN (Dec 15, 2013)

KyleSTL said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > Yes I would be all over a 1.7x TC too. But I guess since Nikon has had one for a decade, Canon needs to wait another couple of decades before they bring one to market. You know, just to make sure they get it right!
> ...



Yes, yes I do think Nikon is the faster, more innovative company! And I'll meet you on the field of battle if you say otherwise!!!

Get over yourself here dude...how about the 200-400 zoom? Nikon brought theirs out when? 2003? How about the Nikon D4 vs. 1DX rollout? How come the general public couldn't buy the 1DX in any significant quantity until the summer that year, where the D4 could be bought by anyone by what, February?

How about a 14-24 f/2.8 zoom?? Which company has one of those again? 

Why does Nikon have to announce a D300S replacement before Canon would even consider a development announcement of a 7D2?? Why do they need to get their little leakers to leak that there just may not be a 7D2?? Silly games on Canon's part...

See? I can cherry pick too!

*Of course I'm being sarcastic, I know Nikon is the less innovative company*, but they do tend to do things first. They just don't do them best...except of course for their dynamic range under ISO 1000. Hopefully that will come to an end in 2014, but it just may not! What then???

I stand by my word, that Canon will bring a 1.7x TC to market. It will be announced in the fall of 2112, and will be available at authorized dealers a century later, if not sooner!!


----------



## jrista (Dec 15, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> KyleSTL said:
> 
> 
> > CarlTN said:
> ...



Technically speaking, Sony did ISO 100 DR...Nikon only used their innovation. Canon also pioneered the use of large artificially grown fluorite lens elements, UD glass elements, diffractive optics, and a whole host of other true innovations in the photographic industry. Canon is particularly innovative on the optical side of things, but they have still been plenty innovative on the digital technology side of things as well.

The thing about Nikon is their business is built on alliance, rather than innovation. That approach allows them to be faster, but it is also fragile...the failure of an alliance can have a devastating impact on Nikon. I would also point out that Nikon is a little schizophrenic when it comes to their management and marketing policies. The best example of that is the naming of their camera models...does ANYONE understand the logic behind Nikon camera names? It seems to change every few years, sometimes a Dxxx means something specific, but then the next time a similar camera rolls around, it suddenly has a Dxxxx designation, then you have the D800 and D600, both of which interfere with potential future naming for the successors of the D300 line, so on and so forth. 

Nikon may be quick to market, but that is quite simply BECAUSE they are not as innovative. They don't have to spend as much time researching and designing new products and new technology from the ground up...they simply have to find the right parts, buy them, and assembly a new product. Oh, and maybe throw in a little bit of innovation here and there...a true RGB metering sensor, then a reticular AF sensor....maybe, just MAYBE, something else. But for the most part, Nikon assembles parts, rather than designing cameras. 

It should come as no surprise that the 1D X, therefor, took longer to hit the shelves. The single most critically important thing for Canon's reputation with the 1D X was the AF sensor. It was a completely new AF unit design, with a completely new AF sensor designed from scratch, paired with a unique new processor that intertwined metering, the RGB image the meter recorded, and the AF system with special logic to produce the most accurate AF system the world has ever seen. It was absolutely CRITICAL, especially after the issues with their prior AF units in 1D bodies, that the AF system worked perfectly out the gate. It was wise for Canon to withhold the product until the early issues were worked out. There is no question that Canon's 61pt AF system is faster, more consistent, more accurate, and more precise while concurrently covering a much broader area of the frame than anything available from Nikon. Nikon may have been first with a reticular AF unit, but Canon did it WAY better.


----------



## scyrene (Dec 16, 2013)

jrista said:


> Hmm....I'm not sure it is possible for a 2x TC, even a bad one, to cancel out the benefit of the extra focal length. Subject size in the frame is the square of the ratio of the focal lengths. In your case, you went from 500mm to 1000mm, so your subject quadrupled in size in the frame ((1000/500)^2 = 4). There is no way that the TC is introducing so much CA that it is overpowering having FOUR TIMES as many pixels on subject...that would mean your CA was like 13µm in size...which I simply don't believe. Not to mention that CA adds color fringing, which can be corrected, and the overall general softening due to the 2x TC III is relatively low. I mean, it definitely has an impact, but it isn't entirely canceling the benefit of having twice the focal length.



I meant 1000mm vs 700mm, sorry to be ambiguous. There is definitely an advantage over the bare lens; the difference between the two extenders is less obvious, but in general I prefer more focal length whenever possible (but the loss of nearly 2 stops (as I stop down to f/10 with the 2x, whilst leaving the 1.4x at f/5.6) means the longer combination is not usable in poor light). It has to be said though (and this is probably partly due to my 2x extender being the mark II, whereas my 1.4x is the III), the 700mm combination behaves like a single lens, whereas at 1000mm it doesn't.


----------



## scyrene (Dec 16, 2013)

jrista said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



Dog walkers are the enemy of bird photographers, I agree! I get VERY frustrated with them, almost every time.


----------



## scyrene (Dec 16, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > Mind if I ask, why did you stick with f/8? I always stop down the 500+2x to f/10 as I find it gives a little extra sharpness. The only exception would be in extreme low light.
> ...



Understandable. You are forgiven!


----------



## CarlTN (Dec 16, 2013)

jrista said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > KyleSTL said:
> ...



Thank you for expounding on and helping to prove my point! Very interesting tidbits...especially regarding the Nikon reticular AF. I had known that but didn't articulate it. Thanks again!

However, the delay of the 1DX past the spring of that year, had more to do with production issues than with development...as early units displayed at the previous fall launch were the same camera as those sold the next summer. *If I am wrong, please help to clarify. *There were indeed certain privileged pros who were able to purchase their 1DX's at the same time that the D4 became available (January or February?), but everyone else had to wait months later into, July wasn't it?


----------



## jrista (Dec 17, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> However, the delay of the 1DX past the spring of that year, had more to do with production issues than with development...as early units displayed at the previous fall launch were the same camera as those sold the next summer. *If I am wrong, please help to clarify. *There were indeed certain privileged pros who were able to purchase their 1DX's at the same time that the D4 became available (January or February?), but everyone else had to wait months later into, July wasn't it?



There were definitely AF unit issues with the 1D X. That was the primary reason for it's delay. We aren't talking about the f/8 stuff, there were apparently other AF issues that had to be delt with. As far as I understand, for the "early release" models, they were actually prototypes that were effectively loaned out to those privileged pros until the final production models were really ready...at which time the loaners had to be turned in. The 1D X released officially just a few weeks before the Olympics got rolling, IIRC, and those who had loaners and were already packed up and shipped out for the Olympics were allowed to keep those models until the Olympics were over. Similarly, there were quite a number of 200-400mm TC lenses loaned out for the Olympics as well.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Dec 17, 2013)

jrista said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > However, the delay of the 1DX past the spring of that year, had more to do with production issues than with development...as early units displayed at the previous fall launch were the same camera as those sold the next summer. *If I am wrong, please help to clarify. *There were indeed certain privileged pros who were able to purchase their 1DX's at the same time that the D4 became available (January or February?), but everyone else had to wait months later into, July wasn't it?
> ...



Yes, I read somewhere that the 200-400 LIS lenses at the Olympics were all prototypes and needed a tweek due to a re-arrangement of the control switches, which arose due to pro comments during the Olympics. This then caused a further three month delay to the final launch date.


----------



## CarlTN (Dec 18, 2013)

jrista said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > However, the delay of the 1DX past the spring of that year, had more to do with production issues than with development...as early units displayed at the previous fall launch were the same camera as those sold the next summer. *If I am wrong, please help to clarify. *There were indeed certain privileged pros who were able to purchase their 1DX's at the same time that the D4 became available (January or February?), but everyone else had to wait months later into, July wasn't it?
> ...



Thank you. Yes I had read on here about those 200-400's...that was well over a year before the public could buy one.


----------



## 9VIII (Dec 19, 2013)

9VIII said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > The wide aperture affects AF speed and AF point precision and capability. Remember, particularly in the 61pt AF system, there are f/2.8 double cross type points, f/4 cross type points, f/5.6 line points, and the center expansion f/8 points. With an f/4 lens, you ALWAYS AF at f/4, no matter what you stop down to for actual shooting. The extra stop of light allows the AF system to operate more quickly and more accurately. When f/4 AF points are used, they tend to be more precise than f/5.6 points, which need larger pixels in order to sense as well as f/4 pixels.
> ...



A little digging brings this up

From the TDP review http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-Extender-EF-1.4x-III-Review.aspx



> Shooting with the Canon EF 1.4x III Extender mounted results in reduction of autofocus speed. According to Chuck Westfall (Canon USA): "As with previous EF Extenders, usage of Series III EF Extenders lowers AF drive speed to improve AF performance. When Extender EF 1.4X III is used, AF drive speed is reduced by 50%. When Extender EF 2X III is used, AF drive speed is reduced by 75%. This may seem like a drawback, but in reality subject tracking performance remains quite high when Series III Extenders are used with IS II lenses. This is due to improvements in AF precision made possible by the new microcomputer in the extenders."



So adding an extender does specifically and purposefully slow down AF.


----------



## jrista (Dec 19, 2013)

9VIII said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



Maximum drive speed is determined by the body, though. The 1D X drives lenses faster than a 5D III, which drives them faster than a 7D. Yes, adding an EF TC III does reduce speed, but it is still faster with higher grade bodies than lower grade bodies.


----------



## 9VIII (Dec 20, 2013)

I'm just saying that my question has been answered, bare lenses are better (AF wise).
Which speaks very highly of the 300f2.8ISII when you still hear people say that with a 1.4xTC it performs similarly to the 400f5.6. That thing must have the fastest AF on the planet.


----------



## CarlTN (Dec 28, 2013)

9VIII said:


> I'm just saying that my question has been answered, bare lenses are better (AF wise).
> Which speaks very highly of the 300f2.8ISII when you still hear people say that with a 1.4xTC it performs similarly to the 400f5.6. That thing must have the fastest AF on the planet.



Which has the fastest AF on the planet, the 300mm?


----------



## 9VIII (Dec 28, 2013)

That's right. If the 300f2.8ISII with its AF speed cut in half is still as fast as other prime lenses already known for being blazing fast, the bare lens has got to be something incredible.


----------



## jrista (Dec 28, 2013)

9VIII said:


> That's right. If the 300f2.8ISII with its AF speed cut in half is still as fast as other prime lenses already known for being blazing fast, the bare lens has got to be something incredible.



It is indeed something incredible.  It was the first great white lens I rented...which is what got me hooked on 'em. Because of the incalculable performance of the 300/2.8 II, I am now forever slaved to buying the EF Mark II supertelephoto primes...nothing else will ever do. :\


----------



## krisbell (Mar 18, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> I know patents are often done purely for protective purposes and never see the light of day, but I would love to see these designs come true! My wallet is crying just from the mention of this patent, however  :'(



Yep - my thoughts exactly. Whenever I see patent news on this site I get mixed feelings as the vast majority of patents never see the light of day and are increasingly used as a barrier to innovation - the exact opposite of their intended purpose. Patents were filed decades ago for flying saucers!

FWIW I would love to see a 300-600mm lens. I love zooms and can never have enough reach. Going for a f5.6 should help keep the size, weight and cost down a little (here's hoping!).


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Mar 18, 2014)

jrista said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > 9VIII said:
> ...



I read a comment by Chuck Wesfall, who said that AF speed difference between the 1D and non 1D cameras was due to the slightly higher voltage the 1D series runs at. Different batteries, different voltage, slightly different AF speed.


----------



## CarlTN (Mar 19, 2014)

GMCPhotographics said:


> I read a comment by Chuck Wesfall, who said that AF speed difference between the 1D and non 1D cameras was due to the slightly higher voltage the 1D series runs at. Different batteries, different voltage, slightly different AF speed.



Entirely possible, but that means the AF motor in the lenses, can operate at different voltages. I guess it can. The 1DX's pack uses three 18650 battery cells, each is 3.7 volts. 3.7 x 3 = 11.1 volts.


----------



## scyrene (Mar 20, 2014)

jrista said:


> Again, as I mentioned before, I don't know many people who would even WANT to use a lens 800mm or longer for BIF. Unless the birds are sufficiently far away, but in that case you often have atmospheric effects that eliminate any benefit of using a longer lens vs. getting up and moving closer to the action. Personally, I only do BIF with 600mm f/4, and even that, on occasion, results in birds that are much too large in the frame (although that is 7D...with a FF, 600/4 would be PERFECT! I couldn't imagine using the 600/4+1.4x for BIF.)



I was thinking about this yesterday. One advantage to using longer focal lengths (for birds flying further away) is that it requires less body movement to track them as they cross the field of view. I've tried shooting gulls many times (it's possible to get close to them in flight), and I simply can't move the lens fast enough to even track them with the focus point. Further away (implying longer focal length), you can follow them with relatively subtle body movement, if that makes sense.

Atmospheric effects are a consideration, but I'd argue birds in flight allow greater leeway with detail than perched ones if the overall form (the bird's pose) and composition are good enough.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 20, 2014)

jrista said:


> I couldn't imagine using the 600/4+1.4x for BIF.


Not only can I imagine it, I do it routinely.




EOS 1D X, EF 600mm f/4L IS II + EF 1.4x III Extender, 1/2500 s, f/8, ISO 640

With the 2x as well…




EOS 1D X, EF 600mm f/4L IS II + EF 2x III Extender, 1/2500 s, f/11, ISO 1000


----------



## Eldar (Mar 20, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I couldn't imagine using the 600/4+1.4x for BIF.
> ...


Great shots John!


----------



## 9VIII (Mar 21, 2014)

CarlTN said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > I read a comment by Chuck Wesfall, who said that AF speed difference between the 1D and non 1D cameras was due to the slightly higher voltage the 1D series runs at. Different batteries, different voltage, slightly different AF speed.
> ...



After reading a bit about modern flashlights I learned that there is a fairly wide range that most systems will operate at.
The CPU will be heavily regulated regardless, but if you can stick any lens on a 1d and it actually operates at 11 volts, I would expect to be able to use different batteries and get the same performance.
Maybe someone willing to risk frying a camera with a battery grip could try putting three CR123's in. you would have to use dummy cells for the empty slots.


----------



## CarlTN (Mar 21, 2014)

9VIII said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > GMCPhotographics said:
> ...



I won't be doing that, but you are welcome to try.  Two CR123's fit into either of my LED flashlights, in place of the one 18650. But the 18650 is said to last longer...these are just Chinese made "ultrafire" 3000 mah.


----------



## jrista (Mar 21, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I couldn't imagine using the 600/4+1.4x for BIF.
> ...



Wow! You have some great technique! Of course, I bet that 12fps and faster AF drive of the 1DX is immensely helpful, too! 

The shot taken with the 2x is good, but the atmospheric blurring is generally why I probably wouldn't do that much. But seeing what you did with the 1.4x...if I ever get, or rent, a 1D X, I'd be willing to give it a try. I'm not sure how well a 5D III would fare. I know for a fact that my 7D doesn't handle the 600+1.4x for BIF very well...it's just too slow.


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 21, 2014)

Neuro, those are great shots, particularly that first one where the shape of the trees and the negative space really frames the bird. Were these hand held, or (I assume, at least at 1200mm) from a gimbal?

jrista, the 7D AF blows the old AF out of the water, but the 5DIII is definitely yet another big step up from the 7D, particularly with subject tracking. Being able to lock an AF point on a bird and have it track it over 2/3 of the frame is amazing. The 6FPS frame rate is a bit of a let down after the 7D, but is still fast enough to get good action shots most of the time, which is why I sold my 7D about 6 months after getting the 5DIII. The image quality, high ISO performance, and AF more than make up the FF and FPS loss.

I just had a 1D X delivered yesterday and haven't tried it out yet, but I'm excited, especially after looking at the 1D X photo thread and Neuro's shots above


----------



## expatinasia (Mar 21, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I couldn't imagine using the 600/4+1.4x for BIF.
> ...



Great shots, Neuro! Love the side on view (one you did not post).


----------



## expatinasia (Mar 21, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> I just had a 1D X delivered yesterday and haven't tried it out yet, but I'm excited, especially after looking at the 1D X photo thread and Neuro's shots above



I hope you do not mind me saying, but try to make the first shot something special, as the camera will blow you away.

I will never forget my first real shots with the 1D X as all I thought was "oh s**t"!

Enjoy, and congrats!!


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 21, 2014)

expatinasia said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > I just had a 1D X delivered yesterday and haven't tried it out yet, but I'm excited, especially after looking at the 1D X photo thread and Neuro's shots above
> ...


I don't mind at all, and thanks! I tried the burst mode last night and so I've already had one "oh s**t" moment! It seems 20x faster than the 5DIII, not twice as fast


----------



## Northstar (Mar 21, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> expatinasia said:
> 
> 
> > mackguyver said:
> ...



it sure is fun holding that button down isn't it!!


----------



## expatinasia (Mar 21, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> expatinasia said:
> 
> 
> > mackguyver said:
> ...



Not quite what I meant, as I was referring more to the IQ and FPS, but is all good. Enjoy.


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 21, 2014)

Northstar said:


> it sure is fun holding that button down isn't it!!


Oh yeah! Now I know why the shutter rating is so much higher, too!



expatinasia said:


> Not quite what I meant, as I was referring more to the IQ and FPS, but is all good. Enjoy.


I know what you meant, I was just saying that my first impression was holy crap! I can't wait to actually use it, but alas my consulting gig has me stuck behind the desk today, but I'm off to the beach tomorrow...


----------



## expatinasia (Mar 21, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Northstar said:
> 
> 
> > it sure is fun holding that button down isn't it!!
> ...



Haha, great times, wow. Can't wait to see your pics! Enjoy.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 21, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Neuro, those are great shots, particularly that first one where the shape of the trees and the negative space really frames the bird. Were these hand held, or (I assume, at least at 1200mm) from a gimbal?



Thanks!

The red tail was from a monopod, the snowy was from a tripod+gimbal. The choice depends a lot more on what/where I'm shooting than the focal length (600 vs. 840 vs. 1200). For snowys and eagles, there's a lot of waiting around, so the tripod is a better choice. The rest of the time, I'm usually using the monopod or handholding.


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 21, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > Neuro, those are great shots, particularly that first one where the shape of the trees and the negative space really frames the bird. Were these hand held, or (I assume, at least at 1200mm) from a gimbal?
> ...


That makes sense and when I "evaluated" the 800L I found that the monopod worked best in most situations, other than ones where you have to hang around or can hand hold, as you say. Not that I handheld much with the 800, though...


----------



## drjlo (Mar 21, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> the 5DIII is definitely yet another big step up from the 7D, particularly with subject tracking. Being able to lock an AF point on a bird and have it track it over 2/3 of the frame is amazing.



I am still experimenting with 5D III for BIF, which is a bit difficult due to AF point not lighting up in Al servo and 6 fps. Which Al servo "mode" do you prefer for BIF, and which AF point distribution (all AF pts on, double cross only, center only, center expanded, etc)?


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 21, 2014)

drjlo said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > the 5DIII is definitely yet another big step up from the 7D, particularly with subject tracking. Being able to lock an AF point on a bird and have it track it over 2/3 of the frame is amazing.
> ...


The two modes I've been using are Zone AF (if the bird is further away or I expect to track it in the center of the frame) which was my go to mode in the 7D or 61-pt auto with a pre-selected point if I'm set up and waiting for a bird to alight or land. I realize the points don't light up, so you just have to trust it, and most of the time it works extremely well. 

The 61-pt auto selected point only picks up the closest object so it's not always good - I prefer to pre-select a point. I hold one finger over the shutter while my thumb hovers over the AF back button, and when the bird appears (or takes flight), I put the pre-selected point on the bird, lock it on, and then fire away with the shutter. Personally I prefer to select a cross point on the side I expect to lock onto the bird in and let the camera track it into the middle and/or through the frame.


----------



## CarlTN (Mar 28, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> drjlo said:
> 
> 
> > mackguyver said:
> ...



Makes sense, good explanation!


----------



## scyrene (Mar 31, 2014)

I've been meaning to ask for a while about birds in flight actually - as in, which AF scenario to use. I must admit, the 5D3's autofocus options have always rather baffled me - even though it gives examples, I've never known which is most appropriate for birds. I don't do much BIF work, as I'm mostly shooting small songbirds, and not the big owls/eagles that you guys have access to in North America (and other such places). But when I see, say, a duck, crow, or cormorant (i.e. a medium-sized bird) flying, and I try and focus on it, the camera almost never chooses the bird, choosing the sky instead (that being the much larger target). I'm hand holding, and so keeping the AF point on the bird is very hard, but using multiple points or a zone doesn't seem to help. Sorry if all this has been covered before, but I thought I'd ask here anyway


----------



## mackguyver (Apr 1, 2014)

scyrene said:


> I've been meaning to ask for a while about birds in flight actually - as in, which AF scenario to use. I must admit, the 5D3's autofocus options have always rather baffled me - even though it gives examples, I've never known which is most appropriate for birds. I don't do much BIF work, as I'm mostly shooting small songbirds, and not the big owls/eagles that you guys have access to in North America (and other such places). But when I see, say, a duck, crow, or cormorant (i.e. a medium-sized bird) flying, and I try and focus on it, the camera almost never chooses the bird, choosing the sky instead (that being the much larger target). I'm hand holding, and so keeping the AF point on the bird is very hard, but using multiple points or a zone doesn't seem to help. Sorry if all this has been covered before, but I thought I'd ask here anyway


First of all, a caveat: shooting birds in flight is tough. Even the best gear and technique won't guarantee a good shot, but there are ways to increase your success. The best way to do this is to set up in a stationary location and wait for birds to fly over. It also helps to pre-focus at the distance you expert to acquire the target (BIF). In terms of AF settings, the 7D works best with Zone AF, and the 5DIII and 1D X works best with the the 61-pt auto-select, but it often picks the sky (as you say) if you don't get the BIF with the right initial AF point. The most reliable thing you can do is set it to 61-pt, AI Servo and use the AF Point selection to pick the center AF point. Case 1 seems to work well for me most BIFs, but I'll use Case 2 when there are trees in the way and Case 5 when shooting small birds like swifts. The key is getting the initial AF point on target, holding it until you can verify that it locked, following the target for a moment, and _then _pressing the shutter. With small distant birds and/or with birds in a gray sky, that can be really tough, but the sooner you are able to lock onto the BIF and start tracking it, the better. If it doesn't lock on, release the AF button and push it again. Sometimes I'll do that 2-3x before it will lock if the BIF is small/distant.

So to recap, set up in a place you expect to see BIFs, lock onto them as soon as you can, confirm focus lock/tracking, wait for key moment, then fire away.

The final key to BIF photos - practice, practice, practice.


----------



## scyrene (Apr 2, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > I've been meaning to ask for a while about birds in flight actually - as in, which AF scenario to use. I must admit, the 5D3's autofocus options have always rather baffled me - even though it gives examples, I've never known which is most appropriate for birds. I don't do much BIF work, as I'm mostly shooting small songbirds, and not the big owls/eagles that you guys have access to in North America (and other such places). But when I see, say, a duck, crow, or cormorant (i.e. a medium-sized bird) flying, and I try and focus on it, the camera almost never chooses the bird, choosing the sky instead (that being the much larger target). I'm hand holding, and so keeping the AF point on the bird is very hard, but using multiple points or a zone doesn't seem to help. Sorry if all this has been covered before, but I thought I'd ask here anyway
> ...



Thanks very much for this. Generally it's not possible to know (in my experience) where birds will be flying, although it's now swallow season (the first sand martins have arrived for the summer), so I will seek out where they congregate. I'll let you know!


----------



## mackguyver (Apr 3, 2014)

scyrene said:


> Thanks very much for this. Generally it's not possible to know (in my experience) where birds will be flying, although it's now swallow season (the first sand martins have arrived for the summer), so I will seek out where they congregate. I'll let you know!


I understand and unless they're bats coming out a cave, you never know the exact direction, so maybe I should have said to point your lens in the general direction where most birds seem to be flying in or out from . The key is staying stationary - moving around will usually leave you unprepared for BIFs. Good luck with the swallows - they're about as tough as they come!


----------



## scyrene (Apr 4, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks very much for this. Generally it's not possible to know (in my experience) where birds will be flying, although it's now swallow season (the first sand martins have arrived for the summer), so I will seek out where they congregate. I'll let you know!
> ...



Thanks again  Swallows are super tough - but they are so numerous in the summer, and they often fly quite low, back and forth over the same spots, that with enough patience even I've been able to get a few shots. I've never spent enough time on it, but you're right - if I stay in one place it should be easier


----------

