# Birding 11 Days with the 600mm



## revup67 (Dec 3, 2013)

Before considering a purchase of this lens, it was highly recommended to obtain a rental or loaner. I joined the CPS program, paid the annual fee and requested the 600mm as a loaner. The time period was from its arrival on 11-22-13 to 12-3-13.

My intent was to man handle this lens without use of a tripod or monopod for the entire duration on a Canon 5D Mark III. This would include 1-4 hour segments most every day including hiking on dirt trails, paved trails and the like.

I found one key trick to this whole process and that was to use a 3/8" male threaded cone shaped handle that would screw into the lens foot. (see attached photo). Along with the lens strap and camera strap, this was going to be my sole means of trekking with this lens. (I'm a 54 year old male, about 175 lbs. and workout approx. 2x a week for the past 13 years). I've only offered this info for no other reason other than to help formulate what it might take "should you desire to carry this lens hand held" vs. using a tripod with Gimbal or monopod. Let's put it another way, weight and cardio training will be to your advantage. Some of us out there would not buy such a lens if it is going to require anymore than carrying a lens and camera body though I know many that wouldn't consider it any other way than have a tripod/monpod and gimbal. A close friend of mine carries around a 1D IV and a 500mm on a Gitzo tripod with a high end gimbal head. I thought that was far too cumbersome for my personal taste so opted to hand hold the entire time. Again, that's just me and just trying to offer some confidence for those of you used to carrying around a 100-400 or a 400mm prime..this is solely the point here and potentially do able but testing this scenario first is recommended.

If you've not seen the lens in person, it extends with the lens hood about 28" with camera body total was close to 31".

Overall, I had excellent success (about 95% wild birding shots). I found that by using F4 was a disadvantage as when focusing on the birds eye especially at close range the DOF is wafer thin. So shooting at 1/1000 or higher in Tv mode and letting the camera select the Av was not a good choice. I reverted to Manual, F8 most of the time with a shutter of 1/1000 or higher and saw a significant improvement on my birding photos. If you are not familiar with the DOF calculator online, this would be wise to look into especially in using this type of lens.

In using the 5D Mark III my choices outside of the shutter and aperture were of course AI Servo, Case 2 tracking, Faithful, Evaluative and Auto ISO. On the lens itself, I was mostly on Mode 1 (sometimes Mode 2 when tracking birds in flight), IS was "on" (though I am aware of using IS beyond 1/640 shutter. I did try with IS off and noticed my hit rate went down quite a bit as to be expected.

I noticed "this lens" was quite slow "initially" finding a bird in flight. More specifically, a bird in flight against the skyline. I am unsure if this was my particular loaner or a possible camera choice. In either case, outside of this skyline issue, the focus was extremely fast and the drain on the battery was minimal. On average about 33% battery drain per day. I did encounter yesterday a lockup on the camera with a flashing "A" in my view finder. A simple reboot cleared this and I went on with my shoot. In calling Canon, they had not heard of this flashing "A" but are going to check the 5D this afternoon.

All in all, its quite impressive as you would imagine and if you have your eyes and wallet set on this, I would strongly recommend renting or acquiring a loaner first. Buying this sight unseen (for those that have never used a lens of this magnitude prior) may not be a wise choice as I wish to emphasize it's very cumbersome. For those of you coming off a NON IS version or Version 1 you'll notice a big improvement in weight distribution. its truly well balanced in that respect. 

I hope this write up will help anyone out there considering the 600mm IS II lens. If you're interested in seeing some birding photos and similar with this lens my flickr account is: http://www.flickr.com/photos/revup67/with/11185308965/. Thanks for reading.

Rev


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Dec 4, 2013)

I had the Mk1 (IS) version and it is a bit of a behemoth - but a wonderful lens none the less. I couldn't afford the Mk2 version so I went for a secondhand 800 F5.6 L IS. It's a bit lighter than the 600 Mk1 and really shines with my (just arrived) 1DX! + I don't have to use extenders to get what my 1D4 + 600 gave.
I did get a chance to play with the 600 Mk2 and it would be my lens of choice were it not for the silly pricing!


----------



## revup67 (Dec 4, 2013)

Interesting in that you wound up with the 800mm 5.6 as in my local birding community most bird photographers wound up acquiring the 500mm. And I would agree the 13k seems a bit over the top. Are you hand holding that 800mm lens or using a tripod/gimbal combo?

Congrats on the 1DX as well.


----------



## Mr Bean (Dec 4, 2013)

Thanks for the report. I have the 5D3 with grip, and, sometime mid next year, will get the 600mm series II. My primary use will be for birding and wildlife. I like the idea of the handle. As you have suggested, I'll hire one early next year, to get a better idea of what I'm taking on


----------



## revup67 (Dec 4, 2013)

Mr. Bean..you'll have a blast with it. A few other things I think I failed to mention: unless you are in the sheer solitude-wilderness, walking around in public will cause lots of attention. In a single day I got everything from a seedy looking character asking "how much was that lens"?. I replied with "no clue. I borrowed it". He said: "At least $5000 right?" I said: "far less a few things aren't working on the lens" and he then left me alone. Another woman bystander paused and said "Wow, what a big [pause]..lens!". Then a guy in his mid 70s wouldn't leave me alone for 20 minutes asking about magnification, etc. hence a few shots were missed...uggh. Another person said: "wow, what a big camera" <get it, camera [duh]. A nice looking woman said: "That's a huge lens, you gotta be strong to carry that thing around" [chuckle]. And finally, I heard a few birds yell "Paparazzi!" and they were gone.


----------



## Mr Bean (Dec 4, 2013)

revup67 said:


> Mr. Bean..you'll have a blast with it. A few other things I think I failed to mention: unless you are in the sheer solitude-wilderness, walking around in public will cause lots of attention.


Yeah, I can imagine the comments. It's bad enough with the 5D3 + 300mm f4 (a white lens) with the monopod 

I have a 20+ acre bush reserve behind my place, where it's just me, the camera and the birds, kangaroos, wallabies, etc.


----------



## CarlTN (Dec 4, 2013)

revup67 said:


> Interesting in that you wound up with the 800mm 5.6 as in my local birding community most bird photographers wound up acquiring the 500mm. And I would agree the 13k seems a bit over the top. Are you hand holding that 800mm lens or using a tripod/gimbal combo?
> 
> Congrats on the 1DX as well.



Nice little review, so did you purchase one of these?

I have to say if you shot all of those great bird images in that short of a period, that blows my mind! Perhaps it wasn't all those that show via that link, that you shot with the rented lens? Good job, either way! Do you just do this for fun, or do you sell them?

My cousin has had the Mk1 600mm since like 2005. He's done a lot of great bird shots with it, but thinks it's ridiculous to buy the Mk2. He doesn't do as much birding anymore anyway. He did get a 1DX this year, though, sold his 5D3. The Mk1 is definitely a beast, but then it was designed over a decade ago.

I'm also impressed that you hand-held it all the time, but I really think that was more about your pride in your fitness, than about technique (not saying technique wasn't a factor, but it is kind of obvious). There's nothing wrong with using tripods with gimbals, or especially monopods if you need more mobility. 

As for what most birders use, you probably know better than me. But I'm pretty sure Arthur Morris (perhaps the most prominent bird photographer in the USA) has preferred the 800mm f/5.6 with a 1D4, or at least that's what he used often for the images in his book published a couple of years ago. No doubt he likes all the big whites, as well as the 1DX now. 500mm really isn't enough for anything other than large birds in flight, or very close small birds in your yard less than 40 feet away, in my opinion (unless of course it's on a 20MP crop body).


----------



## revup67 (Dec 4, 2013)

Hello CarlTN

I have not purchased the 600mm F4 IS II, only borrowed from Canon at this point still undecided. So many great things of course but a few concerns. 

yes, indeed. All of those shots (as marked 600) were in fact shot with that lens all here in southern Cal. Coming off a 400mm 5.6 made it a slightly easier transition in knowing the camera well and bird behavior, their habitats, etc. I will confess, I barely had to do much in Light Room 5, literally. Extremely impressed with the combo's (5D M3 and 600) efficiency and accuracy in acquiring such an accurate image. The first day or two was touch and go until I had culled enough time to get a better handle on what I could have been doing better for then I was home free.

I have contributed about 125 images to a birding app for the iPhone called BirdsEye soon to be released for the Android. Have not sold anything as of yet but have licensed a variety of images (some birds some not) to PBS TV, this birding app and a few conservancy and park groups across the US.

Agreed on that IS 1 and the non-IS is even heavier. The upgrade in my opinion is worth it (used non IS and IS 1 versions) as I know some that won't even carry their lenses around anymore due to the weight and balancing issues.

Geez, I didn't mean to come across that way on the physical / gym part. I should go back and rewrite. My bad. My point was there's hope for many of those who are considering this lens and also for those that have been hauling around the older versions that an upgrade may be worth considering. Many of us enjoy hiking for hours on end and some new comers may have a fear this lens is too big. That was my initial fear prior to getting the lens (that it would prohibit lengthy hikes to great birding areas) and now that I've done it, its more do able than imagined. Personally, adding a tripod, gimbal and all those extras (for me) are too limiting and burdensome. Complete freedom of swinging a lens around in any direction with balance and stability is the ultimate. I felt quite close to this (if not exactly) to using this lens, handheld. Thanks for the words and reply.

Rev


----------



## CarlTN (Dec 4, 2013)

revup67 said:


> Hello CarlTN
> 
> I have not purchased the 600mm F4 IS II, only borrowed from Canon at this point still undecided. So many great things of course but a few concerns.
> 
> ...



Btw, does your name refer to a '67 muscle car or something?

You’re most welcome, and I too thank you for the quick reply!

My first reaction here is, you have entirely too many birds over there in CA, you need to force them to migrate over here!

That’s interesting, is there much money in licensing like that? I wish I could do that with my landscape shots.

As for hiking hours on end, I would think the weight of your drinking water would outweigh the lens (unless you drink directly out of streams like a horse or something! ). As for the weight of support, my Benro carbon fiber monopod weighs 1 pound, and can support 50 pounds. It also seems very easy to carry while mounted to the big whites I’ve rented (especially the 200 f/2), because you simply collapse it (has flip locks rather than twist), then use it as a handle similar to the one you used. You hold the “handle” a bit while carrying the lens/camera on a shoulder strap. If you use a quick release plate, then obviously you could separate lens from monopod quickly. I’ve tried to go the cheaper route on that, and it didn’t work so I returned it. I just screw the lens’ tripod mount directly into the monopod. A lot of others recommend doing this, but I suppose there is a very nice quick release plate out there that would work. However, it would cost $200 to $300, and I just can’t justify spending that right now. 

I’m also trying to sell my only long lens anyway, a 120-400…but I could foresee still wanting to use a monopod on occasion with something having a tad shorter focal length.

*I admire all those shots you got in such a short amount of time, truly superb work! * If you ever need any editing done, I work relatively cheap! I’ve been published in Outdoor Photographer…but don’t make much money from my nature photography...am trying to break into it. Mostly it's landscapes and a few abstractions. I like to do wildlife but I can't afford a big white, and there's not enough variety of bird species here most of the time. Also when the interesting ones do come, they're too sparse and hard to see. Lots of robins, titmouse, chickadee, but those bore me. I guess I'm not willing to camp out on a mountain top for a couple of months for the chance of seeing something exotic! I like the large birds too, but the only interesting ones around here are the great blue heron and wood ducks. The hawks are kind of blah, sometimes they look good. Most everybody photographs these, so would be hard to make money from that. There are the rare bald eagles, but PBS usually has that covered too, because they usually have something to do with introducing them in the first place...and they track them.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Dec 4, 2013)

revup67 said:


> Interesting in that you wound up with the 800mm 5.6 as in my local birding community most bird photographers wound up acquiring the 500mm. And I would agree the 13k seems a bit over the top. Are you hand holding that 800mm lens or using a tripod/gimbal combo?
> 
> Congrats on the 1DX as well.



I have tried a 500mm but find it a bit short, even the 600 needs to be close to minimum focus distance if you like to fill the frame with smaller birds. Where I go birding the 500 F4 is probably the most sought after lens, probably due to it's lighter weight and price though those that have tried my 800 hate me! Especially when they learn what it cost.
My 800 is normally on a Gitzo/Wimberley setup though it is OK on a mono pod and can be handheld (for short periods) if necessary. If hand holding then keepers start from a shutter speed of 1/125th or faster - it has 4 stop IS. Some say it is too big and too specialized - I disagree, I even store my camera on this lens as it is by far the lens I use most!


----------



## revup67 (Dec 8, 2013)

Hello Carl



> Btw, does your name refer to a '67 muscle car or something?


 You are perceptive. To clarify, the moniker comes from an 80s psychobilly band called the Revillos (aka Rezillos) a track called "Revup" and indeed I had a 1967 GTO for 24 years (ragtop) and the car is featured in an MTV video with Samantha Fox called "Naughty Girls Need Love Too" (youtube) or go here for images: http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/4849678607/#in/photolist-8oxSup-8oxSwD and http://www.flickr.com/photos/revup67/4849678737/#in/photolist-8oxSup-8oxSwD/

Thanks for the offer on editing. Been doing photo editing since 1992 when I got one of the first scanner by Umax. $1200 at the time. Currently using Lightroom 5, Photoshop and ACDSee. I try not to alter any colors with birding images especially for newbies who can get easily confused on a Bird ID with overly saturated shots

With birding its not so much the subject such as a Great Blue Heron - they are ubiquitous. But its more of the capture itself such as this one: 


&quot;Hung Out To Dry, then Eaten&quot; Great Blue Heron with Ground Squirrel by Revup67, on Flickr[/img] and this one 


Great Blue Heron with Squirrel In Flight (Pt. 2) by Revup67, on Flickr . A savage scene for sure.

Thanks for all the kind words..feel free to drop me a note with your images / links. PS when you say there are no birds here..where is here?
Anthony


----------



## revup67 (Dec 8, 2013)

Johnf3f

you wrote:


> I have tried a 500mm but find it a bit short, even the 600 needs to be close to minimum focus distance if you like to fill the frame with smaller birds. Where I go birding the 500 F4 is probably the most sought after lens, probably due to it's lighter weight and price though those that have tried my 800 hate me! Especially when they learn what it cost.
> My 800 is normally on a Gitzo/Wimberley setup though it is OK on a mono pod and can be handheld (for short periods) if necessary. If hand holding then keepers start from a shutter speed of 1/125th or faster - it has 4 stop IS. Some say it is too big and too specialized - I disagree, I even store my camera on this lens as it is by far the lens I use most!



John, that's most encouraging with that 800mm. Perhaps its one I should not overlook and weight is the same as I do enjoy small bird photos (warblers, sparrows, etc.)..thanks


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Dec 8, 2013)

revup67 said:


> Johnf3f
> 
> you wrote:
> 
> ...



I think it would be worth your while to give one a try (rent?). However if you can afford the 600 IS Mk2 + 1.4 Mk3 extender then, from what I read) that may be a better setup. I went for the 800 due to it's price/reach and the fact that I sold sell my 600 F4 to cover most of the cost. I am glad I did as I have recently purchased the 1DX (also very cheap) and am loving this combination.


----------



## 9VIII (Dec 9, 2013)

revup67 said:


> Overall, I had excellent success (about 95% wild birding shots). I found that by using F4 was a disadvantage as when focusing on the birds eye especially at close range the DOF is wafer thin. So shooting at 1/1000 or higher in Tv mode and letting the camera select the Av was not a good choice. * I reverted to Manual, F8* most of the time with a shutter of 1/1000 or higher and saw a significant improvement on my birding photos. If you are not familiar with the DOF calculator online, this would be wise to look into especially in using this type of lens.



Is that to say that you were using manual focus?
According to TDP tests, it looks like the 400f5.6 with a 1.4xTC is still very good. If you found yourself using a big white at f8 with manual focus then in practice the 400f5.6 is almost as good, just with a slight IQ hit.
My understanding though is that with an f4 native lens you're still going to get full AF and the lens just stops down during the shot. Is that right? Nevermind I figured out what you were saying.

On another note, I got to hold a 600f4 yesterday. Yup, it's big.
When I told the salesman that ("if" I were to get one) my plan was to hand hold it, he looked a little shocked. Now I know I'm not the only one with that idea.
If only Canon would go ahead and give the development announcement for an 800f5.6II, then I could put in a pre-order for one of those. Almost anything I see tends to be a long ways away and does not like people.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Dec 9, 2013)

If only Canon would go ahead and give the development announcement for an 800f5.6II, then I could put in a pre-order for one of those. Almost anything I see tends to be a long ways away and does not like people.
[/quote]

I don't know that they will change the 800 soon. It already has many of the Mk2 features such as the improved tripod collar (in fact it's much better than the 600 Mk2 in this respect), 4 stop IS, lighter construction, additional Flourite element etc. No it is not a true Mk2 but it is halfway there - so I think Canon will wait a bit.
Let's face it they are not going to sell many of these as most people are convinced they are too specialized - so did I until I bought one! No lens is without faults but this is certainly my best and most used lens.


----------



## CarlTN (Dec 10, 2013)

revup67 said:


> Hello Carl
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Great car, impressive that it got in a music video too! I'm in Tennessee. Here's one of my heron shots. The colors aren't that far off I don't think. This was just with a 50D and 135 f/2 + 2.0x TC ii, about 3 years ago.


----------



## revup67 (Dec 13, 2013)

Hi CarlTN

Ahh now the TN makes sense..thanks for that.



> Great car, impressive that it got in a music video too! I'm in Tennessee. Here's one of my heron shots. The colors aren't that far off I don't think. This was just with a 50D and 135 f/2 + 2.0x TC ii, about 3 years ago.



Colors and Bird plumage can vary quite a bit. Take a leucistic Yellow-rumped Warbler. We've over a 100,000 currently but I shot one about a month ago that an expert so. cal field birder (pver 50 years experience) stated he's only seen 3 in 35 years. My photos of the GBHE (great blue heron) are perhaps standard. Yours may be unique and even a hybrid of another heron (doubtful but possible)..hard to say. I've learned (takes much practice) one should consider time of year, regional location, breeding or non-breeding cycle, male or female, life cycle (meaning juvenile or adult which in some cases you can tell by primaries, secondaries ,coverts, etc) and other varying degrees of plumage in determining accuracy of a bird species/sub species. Leucistic (albino like) may also be a factor in some cases. In your image the bright daylight may have affected its natural colors as well. 

Happy birding!
Rev


----------



## CarlTN (Dec 15, 2013)

revup67 said:


> Hi CarlTN
> 
> Ahh now the TN makes sense..thanks for that.
> 
> ...



Thanks for the advice, I am in no way a serious birder! I don't think the color is off on my image, though. You kind of remind me of that birding movie with Steve Martin, that was insane haha! I don't think I've ever been that obsessed with any of my hobbies before, and I got too obsessed with one or two of them in the past.


----------



## revup67 (Dec 16, 2013)

> Thanks for the advice, I am in no way a serious birder! I don't think the color is off on my image, though. You kind of remind me of that birding movie with Steve Martin, that was insane haha! I don't think I've ever been that obsessed with any of my hobbies before, and I got too obsessed with one or two of them in the past.



Birding is unique - its one of those things and it bores a log of people quickly. I didn't know jack squat about 1.5 years ago. That 400mm brought things into close perspective and got tired of saying this was a "blue bird" or a black colored bird. 4 hours at a time was too long to figure out what was in the image that's when a pursuit ensued to increase my knowledge base and fast. PS that was a great movie a bit fictitious here and there such as that cabin scene in Alaska. The location they name is not where it was filmed. However the birds they are after all do exist. Cheers..Rev


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 25, 2014)

revup67 said:


> I have not purchased the 600mm F4 IS II, only borrowed from Canon at this point still undecided. So many great things of course but a few concerns.



So it's been a couple of months, have you changed your mind and decided to join The 700 600 Club? 

I loved the shot of the heron with the squirrel.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 25, 2014)

CarlTN said:


> Here's one of my heron shots. The colors aren't that far off I don't think. This was just with a 50D and 135 f/2 + 2.0x TC ii, about 3 years ago.



I like the composition, but overall the image is extremely soft, and I find the purple spot near the bottom to be very distracting.


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 25, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > Here's one of my heron shots. The colors aren't that far off I don't think. This was just with a 50D and 135 f/2 + 2.0x TC ii, about 3 years ago.
> ...



The purple spot is a defocused flower, one of the few my mom planted there, and I wanted to get it in and add some color. If it looks bad to you, so be it. It looks fine to me. Nothing is perfect, at least it's not "faked". It's soft because I didn't want to show a hi-rez version. This is a 16x20 print, it's quite sharp. If I had shown the high rez version, you would have been happy to still criticize it for not having the kind of sharpness that people in Massachusetts expect to have in their photos.


----------



## revup67 (Feb 25, 2014)

Hi Neuro - sorry for that long delay to your question - ultimately I chose the Canon 500mm F4 IS II. The MTF charts showed slightly better than the 600 and also thought the 600 was too much reach to have as a constant focal length. Grabbed the Canon 1.4 III tele for the extra reach when needed.

Got the 500mm for just under 8600.00 - new and from a Canon Authorized dealer vs. the 11,799 for the 600. For 3k+ in savings it made a bit more sense. With the savings I grabbed the 1.4 tele for $425 and a 600AW II trekker for about $150 and gave the balance to the wife 

Here's a photo from a few days ago with the 500mm straight - no tele




&quot;Coming To A Dinner Table Near You&quot; - Turkey Vulture (Bust shot) (13171) by Revup67, on Flickr


----------



## NancyP (Feb 25, 2014)

Thanks for the review. Does the cone grip help you keep your elbow against your body? Yes, the description of your fitness is very pertinent. I too shoot with the 400mm f/5.6L hand held, which is like a toy lens compared with one of the f/4 or f/2.8 lenses. One of my concerns is not being able to hand hold the 600mm lens, and I am indeed working with dumbbells to increase arm and upper core strength. I am guessing that I am going to need to get to at least 15# in endurance style sets, but what do I know? At any rate, once I get to my desired fitness level, I am going to rent first the 600mm and then if that's too heavy the 500mm.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 25, 2014)

revup67 said:


> Hi Neuro - sorry for that long delay to your question - ultimately I chose the Canon 500mm F4 IS II. The MTF charts showed slightly better than the 600 and also thought the 600 was too much reach to have as a constant focal length. Grabbed the Canon 1.4 III tele for the extra reach when needed.



It's a tough choice to decide between the 500 II and 600 II. The cost difference pays for both extenders and another decent lens...or better yet, the tripod and gimbal for the lens. 

I went with the 600 because I mainly shoot birds. I've never had it be too long, and there was only once it was sort of too long at 840mm, a red tail flying low directly overhead, I lost about 50% of shots to clipped wingtips. I use it with the 2x and don't find it too long. 

Great portrait of the vulture, Rev!


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 26, 2014)

revup67 said:


> Hi Neuro - sorry for that long delay to your question - ultimately I chose the Canon 500mm F4 IS II. The MTF charts showed slightly better than the 600 and also thought the 600 was too much reach to have as a constant focal length. Grabbed the Canon 1.4 III tele for the extra reach when needed.
> 
> Got the 500mm for just under 8600.00 - new and from a Canon Authorized dealer vs. the 11,799 for the 600. For 3k+ in savings it made a bit more sense. With the savings I grabbed the 1.4 tele for $425 and a 600AW II trekker for about $150 and gave the balance to the wife
> 
> ...



I agree with all of your decisions completely and would have done the same, up until the part where you gave the balance to the wife...hahaha!

Um, I want to say "nice shot", but that vulture is well, I don't think even his mother loves that face!


----------



## revup67 (Feb 26, 2014)

Thanks Carl and Neuro.

@Nancy wrote:


> Thanks for the review. Does the cone grip help you keep your elbow against your body? Yes, the description of your fitness is very pertinent. I too shoot with the 400mm f/5.6L hand held, which is like a toy lens compared with one of the f/4 or f/2.8 lenses. One of my concerns is not being able to hand hold the 600mm lens, and I am indeed working with dumbbells to increase arm and upper core strength. I am guessing that I am going to need to get to at least 15# in endurance style sets, but what do I know? At any rate, once I get to my desired fitness level, I am going to rent first the 600mm and then if that's too heavy the 500mm.



Nancy - yes that cone does help either against the belly or free holding (ps don't by the camera grip by Cinevate. Got that as a replacement / upgrade for the plastic one I have and had issues with it) Try searching or even calling B and H for a camera grip 1/4" that threads into that lens foot. I also wrapped the lens foot base with black foam that you see around A/C central air units piping. 
Thanks for agreeing on the fitness. I shoot with a friend that opts not to workout and he does carry a tripod and gimbal around. We're all different and find whatever works best for each of our needs. I applaud your strategy and think that is an excellent way to go. The hardest part of all this (I shoot almost exclusively birds) is juggling binoculars and a cell phone for bird ID and tracking along with the camera gear. The Samsung Note II goes in the back pocket but when the need to log a species is evident (frequent of course) that juggling aspect of phone and camera gear can be a bit daunting. I find I am best suited with the camera gear and phone only (no binos though I wish) as its simply overwhelming at that point.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Feb 26, 2014)

Congratulations on the 500 Mk2! I have had the opportunity to try one and was very impressed, especially as it is only a little heavier than my 300 F2.8 IS Mk1.
I shoot mainly the smaller bird species so the 800 is more appropriate for my needs but the 500 Mk2 is a fine lens and it won't break your back! My normal Birding load is the 800 F5.6 IS, the 300 F2.8 IS + a 1 series body - not too bad for weight. However when you add on the necessary extras like a tripod, head, spare battery, backpack, flask of tea (essential - I am British!) etc etc... it is around 50 lbs so I am not going too far with that lot!
The 500 Mk2 makes seriously long lenses very portable - you will be happy!


----------



## Dylan777 (Feb 26, 2014)

Hi Rev,
I went to http://bolsachica.org/ to test out my 400mm. The water there is calm. It's on Warner and Pacific Coast Highway 

Dylan


----------



## revup67 (Mar 1, 2014)

@johnf3f - you are a brave soul to carry all that gear. the 800 is one fine lens so a congrats back to you as well! I think with shooter larger birds, the 600 was too much reach as I've cut off wings and other body parts on birds like Pelicans. it is as you as portray a top notch lens for smaller birds. if you have a link on flickr would like to see your work.

@Dylan - Bolsa Chica is fabulous isn't it? Don't get up there as often as I would like but noted there is also a Flickr group dedicated to just Bolsa Chica. I've been at the Pacific Coast Highway entrance and also the entrance off Bolsa Chica Street (prefer this entrance especially) to see the Northern Harrier's, White-tailed Kites, Osprey and other raptors. Wonderful photo by the way.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Mar 1, 2014)

revup67 said:


> @johnf3f - you are a brave soul to carry all that gear. the 800 is one fine lens so a congrats back to you as well! I think with shooter larger birds, the 600 was too much reach as I've cut off wings and other body parts on birds like Pelicans. it is as you as portray a top notch lens for smaller birds. if you have a link on flickr would like to see your work.



I managed to get my Canon 800 F5.6 pretty cheap and find it easier to carry than the 600 F4 I used to have. As you say it is a fine lens, though I do find F5.6 a little limiting the IQ, reach and lighter weight more than make up for this. As you say it is a great lens for smaller birds, attached is a Bittern I spotted this morning - it is unedited just JPEGed and scaled for web.
You are right that the very long lenses are not ideal for birds in flight. At the ranges where you can fit in a large bird then the image is degraded by the distance between you and the birds. More importantly I find it very difficult to get the bird in the viewfinder at all! For this sort of thing I use a Canon 300 F2.8 L IS, which is why I often carry both!
I actually have a Flikr account but am having trouble accessing it so no images up yet.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Mar 2, 2014)

I cant imaging carrying an 800 would be easier but I guess there is more to sling over your shoulder to reduce the "pinch" points. I often carry the 600L with my 300 2.8L but often the weight it unbearable, especially if you have to hike a good distance to get to your subject. I find that whatever lens is used it never has enough reach. It's nice to have extenders but nothing is better than using a big prime without an extender where possible. The biggest issue I find with reach is that you usually succumb to distortions caused by air disturbances.

600mm F4L IS, 1.4xiii, 7D, post processed from RAW in DxO


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Mar 2, 2014)

East Wind Photography said:


> I cant imaging carrying an 800 would be easier but I guess there is more to sling over your shoulder to reduce the "pinch" points. I often carry the 600L with my 300 2.8L but often the weight it unbearable, especially if you have to hike a good distance to get to your subject. I find that whatever lens is used it never has enough reach. It's nice to have extenders but nothing is better than using a big prime without an extender where possible. The biggest issue I find with reach is that you usually succumb to distortions caused by air disturbances.
> 
> 600mm F4L IS, 1.4xiii, 7D, post processed from RAW in DxO



The Canon 800 F5.6 is easier to carry than the Canon 600 F40L IS (Mk1) because it is smaller and lighter. According to Canon the 800 is 5mm longer, 5mm thinner (much thinner nearer the camera end) and 860 grams lighter - that makes a surprising difference if you are carrying the 300 F2.8 as well!


----------



## Greatland (Mar 2, 2014)

I rented the 800 and took it to Svalbard..shared the expense with another photographer. We both had the 500 that we took with us as well. The 800 was very good without an extender, even the version III extender made the image soft. After the new 600 came out I sold my 500 and purchased the 600 II....when I combine it with the 1.4 III extender the quality of my pictures are SHARPER than the 800 was without an extender....so I now get 840 reach, with a lighter lense and a superior quality picture...and if I don't need the extender I have a little more flexibility with the 600 than the 800 provided....combined with my 1Dx and my recently purchased 200-400 I think that I have all of the bases covered, telephoto wise.....I am keeping both of these lenses.....you never know when you need the 840 reach when you are shooting wildlife....but can't handhold the 600, not and still get quality shots all of the time.....


----------



## eml58 (Mar 2, 2014)

Greatland said:


> I rented the 800 and took it to Svalbard..shared the expense with another photographer. We both had the 500 that we took with us as well. The 800 was very good without an extender, even the version III extender made the image soft. After the new 600 came out I sold my 500 and purchased the 600 II....when I combine it with the 1.4 III extender the quality of my pictures are SHARPER than the 800 was without an extender....so I now get 840 reach, with a lighter lense and a superior quality picture...and if I don't need the extender I have a little more flexibility with the 600 than the 800 provided....combined with my 1Dx and my recently purchased 200-400 I think that I have all of the bases covered, telephoto wise.....I am keeping both of these lenses.....you never know when you need the 840 reach when you are shooting wildlife....but can't handhold the 600, not and still get quality shots all of the time.....



Hi Guys, great Thread, enjoying it.

Although I've never used the 800f/5.6 in the right hands it's clearly an excellent Lens for Birding, I've gone though for a similar arrangement to "Greatland" 600f/4 II (with V III 1.4x) + the 200-400f/4 & my totally favourite Lens of all time, the 300f/2.8 II.

I have owned the 400f/2.8 Versions 1 & 2, but once I purchased the 200-400f/4 found it somewhat superfluous, as long as I have the 300f/2.8 in the background.

On a recent trip to Svalbard there were a couple of people on the "Stockholm" that had the 500f/4 II, I did trie this Lens and thought it was also an excellent Lens.

Canon have done a wonderful job with these White Lenses, especially the Version II editions.

Love the Shot of the Heron with the Squirrel, I'm a little concerned if Sporgon sees it we will get into another round of "Squirrel" Images, I'm a little surprised Nuero hasn't posted one or two.

CarlTN love the Heron Image, get your Mum to plant a few more of those Purple Flowers, adds some colour to the Image.

Happy Birding Guys, the little blighters move to quick for me.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Mar 3, 2014)

Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. 

I know I like my 300 II and extenders as needed for portability and shooting hand held. Recently I've been wondering about the 600 (that I can't afford) and I've basically concluded that it simply is not a hiking option but from this thread it seems the 500 is on the edge. I find I use 300 X2 most of the time and am reasonably happy. I assume 500 X1.4 would be a very decent option giving 700.

Do I make a case for a 500 over a 600, allowing also for the cost factor??

Jack


----------



## eml58 (Mar 3, 2014)

Jack Douglas said:


> Do I make a case for a 500 over a 600, allowing also for the cost factor??
> 
> Jack



Hi Jack, your 300 set up is just great, have used it myself for years, at first with the 300f/2.8 V1 then later with the V2, the 300 in my view is still the sharpest best all round lens that Canon make. The 200f/2 is also an amazingly sharp lens but I feel lacks the versatility of the 300.

I went to the 600 when I still had the 400f/2.8 II as I was just wowed with the Images Gary Samples was getting with this Lens, and the 600 with 1.4x @ 840 is immaculate.

But the 500f/4 II has almost as much versatility, lower entry price by a significant margin, and as you say, will get you out to 700 without reverting to the 2x converter, which I'm not enamoured of.

Your issue I would guess would be having the 500 & not having the 300, you will miss that f/2.8 a lot of the time, but if you could have both ?? Almost heaven.

I did a stint in my Army days as a peace keeper (Zimbabwe 1980), the values stuck.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Mar 3, 2014)

Greatland said:


> I rented the 800 and took it to Svalbard..shared the expense with another photographer. We both had the 500 that we took with us as well. The 800 was very good without an extender, even the version III extender made the image soft. After the new 600 came out I sold my 500 and purchased the 600 II....when I combine it with the 1.4 III extender the quality of my pictures are SHARPER than the 800 was without an extender....so I now get 840 reach, with a lighter lense and a superior quality picture...and if I don't need the extender I have a little more flexibility with the 600 than the 800 provided....combined with my 1Dx and my recently purchased 200-400 I think that I have all of the bases covered, telephoto wise.....I am keeping both of these lenses.....you never know when you need the 840 reach when you are shooting wildlife....but can't handhold the 600, not and still get quality shots all of the time.....



I have the Canon 1.4 Mk2 extender and find that it works reasonably well with my 800 F5.6 though there is some IQ loss. The Canon 800 is not the best lens for use with extenders.
When I was buying I picked up my, used but near mint, Canon 800 F5.6 for abut 45% of the cost of a new Canon 600 F4 Mk2. I would prefer the 600 Mk2 but the price is simply out of the question!
Pity - I quite fancy one.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Mar 3, 2014)

Thanks for that Edward. I think I will be aiming at a 500 sometime in the near future but I will not part with my 300. It was the recent advertized price of the 500 that really hit me - a lot more paletable than 10k-12k of the other options. A while back I bought the 70-200 2.8 II as a gap filler and am really happy with it. I try not to think what the total investment eventually will be.

I grew up in a loving family but my parents argued a lot. I much prefer peace; in forums too. 

Jack


----------



## revup67 (Mar 3, 2014)

@eml58 you wrote:


> But the 500f/4 II has almost as much versatility, lower entry price by a significant margin, and as you say, will get you out to 700 without reverting to the 2x converter, which I'm not enamoured of.
> 
> Your issue I would guess would be having the 500 & not having the 300, you will miss that f/2.8 a lot of the time, but if you could have both ?? Almost heaven.



Would agree with all you say though I have found at close range (MFD min. focal distance) with smaller birds that 2.8 (though offering more light) doesn't do much as the DOF disappears quickly. Even with the 500 @ F4 I've noticed this. That being said for birds at closer range, I typically up the F stop to 8 or more to capture more DOF from the crown to the tail. I rarely use F4 unless my subject is off in the distance and I am needing more light. 

Sample at close range at F8 with 500 IS II and 1.4 III (wish I had chosen a smaller F stop such as F16 in this instance - diffraction considered) as the detail diminishes quickly as you may note. (no right or wrong here, just my opinion and lesser desire for wider apertures with wildlife at close range)




California Thrasher (12595) by Revup67, on Flickr


----------



## Jack Douglas (Mar 3, 2014)

revup67, you make very good points. Sometimes the "focus" is so much on the eye that one tends to forget that it's nice to see all of the bird's beauty. I'm presently trying to come to grips with just that. Then there is the issue of not wanting background that is distracting due to too much DOF. If I've only learned one thing it's this: If you don't like compromises don't get into photography! 

Jack


----------



## East Wind Photography (Mar 3, 2014)

Jack Douglas said:


> revup67, you make very good points. Sometimes the "focus" is so much on the eye that one tends to forget that it's nice to see all of the bird's beauty. I'm presently trying to come to grips with just that. Then there is the issue of not wanting background that is distracting due to too much DOF. If I've only learned one thing it's this: If you don't like compromises don't get into photography!
> 
> Jack



Yes it's good to know the DOF for your lens and camera. A DOF app can help so you can get what you want in focus but still blur the background enough to isolate the subject.


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 3, 2014)

I'm just catching up on this thread, but I love the photos (esp. the squirrel / heron shots) and good discussion about lenses. I have borrowed the 800, 600 I, and 400 I from CPS and really liked the reach and IS of the 800 over the other lenses but found the size (and the weight somewhat) to be the biggest inconvenience. I was all set to buy the 200-400 1.4x until I realized the size and price were much more than I was expecting.

I tend to stalk, or stalk and wait, my subjects and have been amazed that I can carry and hand-hold the 300 II all day without needing a tripod or monopod. It's definitely limiting (even with the 2x III) for small or distant birds, but the ability to get closer to them counts for a lot. It's more work, but I love the challenge of wildlife photography and my income doesn't suffer (much) if I miss shots. While I understand their use, I have no interest in gimbal heads, and even though wiser men would stay further from some of the subjects I shoot, I find the 300mm length is perfect and the f/2.8 is amazing. I agree that it's too shallow for some shots, but the AF performance and ability to defocus the background is amazing. I also like the versatility to shoot it at 300, 420, and 600mm. I've shot portraits at 300mm, and I'm covering a horse event later this week and shooting the Blue Angels in a few weeks. I think 500mm+ would be really limiting for these purposes so I'm happy with the 300. 

I'm interested in the cone handle - the RRS replacement foot I have on my 300 is great for the tripod/monopod, but not too comfortable to carry around and hand hold. How did it ultimately work out?


----------



## Jack Douglas (Mar 3, 2014)

mackguyver, you and I and AlanF have pretty much expressed the same thing in different threads and I haven't changed my opinion on the 300. I also influenced a friend to buy it. However, in my case so far for birds I would almost never go out without 300 X2 and then I typically would end up cropping somewhat and so when I see the 600 prime shots, well, you know ......

Thinking about the 500 and getting to 700 without much degradation is tempting but I'm afraid it would be competition for the 300 and unless my better half was willing to pack it for me I can't see doing what you describe (trekking through the bush) carrying both! 

The result would probably be using the 300 for longer hikes and the 500 when stationed closer to a favorite spot and being quite immobile. The gimbal head is really good at times but often it's a pain and I don't pack a tripod on longer hikes unless I know for certain I'll want it. For me stalking is a mix of going where things look hopeful and then often just sitting, since many birds really do get used to one's presence after 15 or 20 minutes and I enjoy reflecting on the scenery and action in a given location. Usually, I don't prefer just walking and walking and walking but I'm at retirement age.

Compromises and more compromises, ugh. It's probably better when you just can't possibly afford it! 

Jack


----------



## CarlTN (Mar 4, 2014)

eml58 said:


> CarlTN love the Heron Image, get your Mum to plant a few more of those Purple Flowers, adds some colour to the Image.



Thank you very kindly!


----------



## CarlTN (Mar 4, 2014)

Jack Douglas said:


> mackguyver, you and I and AlanF have pretty much expressed the same thing in different threads and I haven't changed my opinion on the 300. I also influenced a friend to buy it. However, in my case so far for birds I would almost never go out without 300 X2 and then I typically would end up cropping somewhat and so when I see the 600 prime shots, well, you know ......
> 
> Thinking about the 500 and getting to 700 without much degradation is tempting but I'm afraid it would be competition for the 300 and unless my better half was willing to pack it for me I can't see doing what you describe (trekking through the bush) carrying both!
> 
> ...



I would never go anywhere with a lens that weighs more than 4 pounds without my monopod. I'm not exactly a weak guy, either. I guess it's all in what you are used to.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Mar 4, 2014)

CarlTn, I'm 5'-9, 145 lbs and retired but I can walk comfortably with my 6D and 300 X2 for hours, with breaks shooting of course. That's almost 7 lbs. There is a way I carry the camera/lens that really helps - the front of the Jobu foot caught by my right hand fingers and the camera cradled in the 90 degree bend of my right arm, strap over left shoulder and under right, quite short so it's tight when I shoot. I duck branches and jump puddles and so forth. No complaints.

Two more lbs for the 500 makes me wonder though. Its length might be more of a problem. For reference a 1Dx body is 3.4 lbs - my friend bought and I resisted after handling his so it's not like I'm ambivalent about the added weight of these choices. Don't think the cost doesn't factor in too!

But 6D, 300 X2 is quite OK, absolutely.

How do those of you hiking with the 500 handle it?


Jack


----------



## CarlTN (Mar 4, 2014)

Jack Douglas said:


> CarlTn, I'm 5'-9, 145 lbs and retired but I can walk comfortably with my 6D and 300 X2 for hours, with breaks shooting of course. That's almost 7 lbs. There is a way I carry the camera/lens that really helps - the front of the Jobu foot caught by my right hand fingers and the camera cradled in the 90 degree bend of my right arm, strap over left shoulder and under right, quite short so it's tight when I shoot. I duck branches and jump puddles and so forth. No complaints.
> 
> Two more lbs for the 500 makes me wonder though. Its length might be more of a problem. For reference a 1Dx body is 3.4 lbs - my friend bought and I resisted after handling his so it's not like I'm ambivalent about the added weight of these choices. Don't think the cost doesn't factor in too!
> 
> ...



Hey Jack, that sounds fine to me, I could probably do it that way as well. I'm younger, barely taller, quite a bit heavier...though if I was down to 150 lb I could probably walk two or three 600's on my shoulders all day long if I had to (especially if somebody like you paid me $20 an hour to do it hahaha! Lens-caddying, yeahhh!!)

All I have is an Optech strap at the moment. I retract the monopod for carrying, and hold it sort of like you hold your cone handle. I'm just saying, that when I stop and start taking pictures, I prefer to be able to not be in a strain...especially if the subject is at some distance and I need to either wait for the right moment, or else wind up shooting a lot of images of it...and then delete the "less good" ones as I review them.

I find that if I am handholding a camera-lens (without the monopod), and suddenly the right moment comes...as I bring the camera to my face and hold the lens up...the moment has passed, or else the animal gets spooked while I'm doing that...especially true with small birds. Small birds will fly incredibly quickly, about as fast as a hummingbird. There's no way I can get the camera and 4 pounds of lens to my face in 1/10 of a second!


----------



## East Wind Photography (Mar 4, 2014)

Jack Douglas said:


> mackguyver, you and I and AlanF have pretty much expressed the same thing in different threads and I haven't changed my opinion on the 300. I also influenced a friend to buy it. However, in my case so far for birds I would almost never go out without 300 X2 and then I typically would end up cropping somewhat and so when I see the 600 prime shots, well, you know ......
> 
> Thinking about the 500 and getting to 700 without much degradation is tempting but I'm afraid it would be competition for the 300 and unless my better half was willing to pack it for me I can't see doing what you describe (trekking through the bush) carrying both!
> 
> ...



The gimbal head has its purpose. Its useful in situations where you want to be ready with minimal movement. When im out shooting eagles fishing ill use my wimberly as most of the time you are waiting for something to happen. With a monopod you still need to hold it up for hours or raise the entire setup when its time.

I use the wimberly exclusively with my 600 mk1...painfully heavy.

I use my 300 mostly when im walking about...but sometimes i will take my 600 walking...and will pay the price later.


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 4, 2014)

The 600 Mk I is a beast and I can't imagine carrying it around or using it without a gimbal, but I found that a monopod and the 800mm were a perfect match. As Jack says, the length is probably what we find more limiting than even the weight on the big(ger) whites.

I carry my 300 + 5DIII & grip around much like Jack describes. I either hold it just by the RRS foot, or I hold the body in one hand and cross my arms so the lens lays across the opposite forearm. I think a Cotton Carrier would really rock, but I don't have one.

Carrying the lens around and holding it for a shot or several shots takes some getting used to, but I can hold it up for 5-10 minutes at a time now with no problems. A monopod is great if you're going to be somewhere for a while to take the weight off, but the few times I've used a monopod, it's just been in the way and annoyed me. I'd rather lower the camera and take breaks. I was shackled to a tripod for years with my 400 f/5.6, so that might be part of it, too 

The places I shoot aren't really conducive to the sit and wait approach, mainly because I'd be eaten alive by fire ants, mosquitoes and other bugs, but I'm sure a gimbal would be very welcome, especially if you're waiting for fishing eagles, ospreys, and such.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Mar 4, 2014)

CarlTN, your points are perfectly valid. The only thing I would add is I seldom try to follow a flitting bird. I've found that many/most smaller birds like warblers seem to travel over a territory and if I get out early and park myself where they typically pass, then they couldn't care less about the human object and they just putter around where I am for a while. Then, off they go and it's pointless for me to think I can follow them.

Now, everyone has their different techniques and style and not everyone has the time available to sit around like I do after hiking somewhere. That's the advantage of retirement!  I'll buy a cheap folding chair and just leave it somewhere once I see there are good possibilites like by my pond. No thefts so far.

These comments of mine along with those of others go into the pot for everyone to consider what might work for them. I enjoy soaking up all I can especially from those who obviously have it sorted out - wow! 

Jack


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 4, 2014)

Jack Douglas said:


> That's the advantage of retirement!


I'm very jealous!


----------



## revup67 (Mar 4, 2014)

> How do those of you hiking with the 500 handle it?



We're all different but I hand hold this 500mm IS II, 1.4 extender, 5D Mark III around my neck for about 3 hours with hiking included. I alternate with right hand grabbing by the collar as if I was carrying a baseball bat to offer an example. I sometimes put my my left hand under the hood and hold with right hand at collar or just carry upright with left hand on cone handle and right on camera grip. The tripod and gimbal are in my opinion just unnecessary every second counts with shooting birds. I won't lie, it's a bit cumbersome and sometimes you want that resting option in which this scenario does not offer. I usually carry along a Samsung Note II to track birds and play calls if needed, sometimes binos and it does take some getting used too..somewhat of a juggling act. Ultimately, you just know in the back of your head all the discomforts that this may bring on is reaped afterwards when viewing the end results. It just doesn't disappoint. I've a friend that uses the 300 2.8 and swears by it and its a great lens but I personally graduated from the 400 to the 500 as for smaller targets the 300 is simply a stretch and with birds you typically can't get close enough thus the extra focal range is needed. Hope this helps.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Mar 4, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Jack Douglas said:
> 
> 
> > That's the advantage of retirement!
> ...



The disadvantage is that most cannot afford a 500 or 600 mkii in retirement. Need to get your hard working kids to get you one for fathers day.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Mar 5, 2014)

revup67, I think you've convinced me that it is manageable. Of course it's not going to be as easy as the 300, and I do think the 300 is "easy".

What I don't need any convincing about is "looking at the final results". I graduated from a Nikon D5100 and a 70-300 zoom to what I have now and I'm covered in pinch marks from one year with the 300. I'm addicted and have the time.

It's what comes after retirement that's the problem, assuming there are years left in the old body, they are not always quality years. Still, shooting beats golf by a long shot - no offence folks. 

Father's day - not a chance! I'm pretty sure my 500 shooting will only be in my dreams, but I'll enjoy it never the less.

Any other 500 shooters out there with comments?

Jack


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Mar 6, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> The 600 Mk I is a beast and I can't imagine carrying it around or using it without a gimbal, but I found that a monopod and the 800mm were a perfect match. As Jack says, the length is probably what we find more limiting than even the weight on the big(ger) whites.



I caught a friend of mine doing some woodland landscape shots hand held with his (used to be mine) 600 F4 IS Mk1 - but then he is an idiot! Just a fairly strong one.

The 500 F4 Mk2 has been mentioned. I have only had a brief play with one of these and like it very much. The owner regularly walks 5 to 8 miles with it with a 1.4 extender and 1D4 attached. He doesn't normally bother with support as this lens balances beautifully for hand holding. Having tried it the 500 mk2 +1.4 extender is very easy to hand hold and even more so than my 300 F2.8 IS Mk1 with a 2 x extender and same body. Yes it is a bit heavier but, to me, it balances better and feels lighter in my hands.
I am really fancying one of these lenses!


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 6, 2014)

I have a question for the 500+ guys - how many of you shoot bare glass (i.e. with no extenders?). I was reviewing Art Morris' blog posts the other day and noticed that he almost always has an extender (usually the 2x!) on his 600mm. I realize he has a style that requires close shots, but it mirrored my experience with the 800mm. It just didn't seem long enough - or should I say it was too long for stuff that was close to mid-distance but not long enough for nesting eagles and such.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 6, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> I have a question for the 500+ guys - how many of you shoot bare glass (i.e. with no extenders?). I was reviewing Art Morris' blog posts the other day and noticed that he almost always has an extender (usually the 2x!) on his 600mm. I realize he has a style that requires close shots, but it mirrored my experience with the 800mm. It just didn't seem long enough - or should I say it was too long for stuff that was close to mid-distance but not long enough for nesting eagles and such.



Bare 600 II - 15%
600 II + 1.4xIII - 55%
600 II + 2xIII - 30%


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 6, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > I have a question for the 500+ guys - how many of you shoot bare glass (i.e. with no extenders?). I was reviewing Art Morris' blog posts the other day and noticed that he almost always has an extender (usually the 2x!) on his 600mm. I realize he has a style that requires close shots, but it mirrored my experience with the 800mm. It just didn't seem long enough - or should I say it was too long for stuff that was close to mid-distance but not long enough for nesting eagles and such.
> ...


Thanks, Neuro - I haven't used my 300 enough to say definitively, but so far I'm:
Bare 300 II - 65%
300 II + 1.4xIII - 10%
300 II + 2xIII - 25%

I'd be curious to hear from others on their use, too.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Mar 7, 2014)

mackguyver, that's easy. I'll take your numbers and switch:

Bare 300 II - 25%
300 II + 1.4xIII - 10%
300 II + 2xIII - 65%

When I can get real close 300 is a no brainer. When I can't I need 600+. In part that's because AF behaves better if you can fill the frame more and exposures tend to be more predictable (of course I'm 6D). I've not done any significant numbers of BIF, if so probably 420 would get a bit more use.

And all this explains why I'm still wondering about a 7D2

Jack


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Mar 7, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> I have a question for the 500+ guys - how many of you shoot bare glass (i.e. with no extenders?). I was reviewing Art Morris' blog posts the other day and noticed that he almost always has an extender (usually the 2x!) on his 600mm. I realize he has a style that requires close shots, but it mirrored my experience with the 800mm. It just didn't seem long enough - or should I say it was too long for stuff that was close to mid-distance but not long enough for nesting eagles and such.



With my 300 F2.8 - 40% bare lens
60% 2 x extender
With my 800 F5.6 - 95% bare lens
1.4 Extender for emergencies only. 
I have not yet found much use for my 1.4 extender on my 300 mm lenses - I seem to need the bare lens or all the reach I can get!


----------



## Jack Douglas (Mar 7, 2014)

"I have not yet found much use for my 1.4 extender on my 300 mm lenses - I seem to need the bare lens or all the reach I can get!"

I guess it depends if you shoot other than birds, say larger mamals. Then it depends how wild they are or how much effort you're willing to put into stalking them. Since I've mainly been shoting birds and often smaller ones, I was always reluctant to head out without 300 X2 and typically felt short changed if I used X1.4. Only when I know I can get close to a bird do I use 300. Now, for bugs or butterflies, 300 or 420 with 36mm extension is very handy! In fact I'm thrilled with that.

Sometimes moose will come so close that even 300 is too much but not too often. Case in point, sitting in brambles squirming around trying to frame this guy with 300 X2. Uncropped 

6D 300 X2 400th F5.6 ISO 2500

Jack


----------



## Greatland (Mar 8, 2014)

I really haven't taken enough pictures under all conditions with my 200-400 to really get a comparable read with my 600 II.....The 600 II is great with the 1.4 extender but softens just ever so slightly with the 2x extender. My 200-400 with the extender switched to 1.4 is pretty damned sharp....I think it compares very favorably with my 600 w/o an extender but like I said I need a little more time with it...I will get that this Summer in Katmai I am sure.


----------



## revup67 (Mar 8, 2014)

> I have a question for the 500+ guys - how many of you shoot bare glass (i.e. with no extenders?). I was reviewing Art Morris' blog posts the other day and noticed that he almost always has an extender (usually the 2x!) on his 600mm. I realize he has a style that requires close shots, but it mirrored my experience with the 800mm. It just didn't seem long enough - or should I say it was too long for stuff that was close to mid-distance but not long enough for nesting eagles and such



500mm F4 IS II without extender 20% of the time
500mm F4 IS II with 1.4 extender 65% of the time
400mm F5.6 without extender 10% of the time
400mm F5.6 with extender 5% of the time

I've been in situations where the 500 with the 1.4 is simply too much. if I've got the time and the bird is less likely to take off such as with the Turkey Vulture head shot I'll disengage the extender and shoot the 500mmm straight away. The 400 is quite sharp about half the weight and great for longer distance hikes (entire day) though when attaching the 1.4 III you only get center AF points (5 to be exact - cross shaped) or single point. On the 500mm all AF selections are available.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Mar 8, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> I have a question for the 500+ guys - how many of you shoot bare glass (i.e. with no extenders?). I was reviewing Art Morris' blog posts the other day and noticed that he almost always has an extender (usually the 2x!) on his 600mm. I realize he has a style that requires close shots, but it mirrored my experience with the 800mm. It just didn't seem long enough - or should I say it was too long for stuff that was close to mid-distance but not long enough for nesting eagles and such.



5diii
600 no extender = 95%
600 with 1.4iii = 5%
600 with 2xiii = 0%

5diii
300 no extender = 50%(sports mostly)
300 with 1.4iii = 40% (Sports mostly)
300 with 2xiii = 10%(birds on walkabout but bright sun only like on a beach)

The bottom line is that I do not find that adding the 2X buys a lot. I often find I can crop the 5diii and get better IQ. If the subject is too far away that you need the 2X then you probably should try something else. I speak for at least what I shoot most, large to medium size birds and sports looking for the highest IQ possible to minimize post efforts.


----------



## Steve (Mar 9, 2014)

johnf3f said:


> I have not yet found much use for my 1.4 extender on my 300 mm lenses - I seem to need the bare lens or all the reach I can get!



I use the 1.4x in hides a lot. Passerines usually need as much magnification as possible and you can only set the hide so close to the attractor. The 300 + 1.4x in a hide set just outside of MFD gives me just enough space to crop for composition while still giving maximum magnification for feather detail.



East Wind Photography said:


> The bottom line is that I do not find that adding the 2X buys a lot. I often find I can crop the 5diii and get better IQ. If the subject is too far away that you need the 2X then you probably should try something else. I speak for at least what I shoot most, large to medium size birds and sports looking for the highest IQ possible to minimize post efforts.



It buys a lot of magnification. I use the 2x on my 300 for shorebirds, even when they come in closer than my MFD. I can completely fill the frame with the 2x. Sometimes I can even get uncropped, full resolution head shots, which is pretty cool.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Mar 9, 2014)

Good points Steve. It kind of depends what subjects you can get your blind really close to. If really close then an extension tube plus extender can be even better.

Pichu 6D 300 36mm ext. 640th F3.2 ISO 4000

Jack


----------



## revup67 (Mar 9, 2014)

Keeping the flow

here's a Vermilion Male and Female Flycatcher taken with the 500mm II and 1.4 III today 3.8.14 - both were seen together and most unlikely visitors for our county

Male



Vermilion Flycatcher (male) (13413) eBird Rarity by Revup67, on Flickr

Female



Vermilion Flycatcher (female) (13401) eBird Rarity by Revup67, on Flickr


----------



## Jack Douglas (Mar 9, 2014)

Very nice revup67, but please tell them to get up here in short order! 

Jack


----------



## 9VIII (Mar 10, 2014)

ETA: ??? The post above me disappeared while I was typing. It basically just complained about IS on the Tamron lens, maybe mods took it down?
Ah, I see users can remove their own posts. Must have been having second thoughts.


It's funny how the more I read about products from other manufacturers the more I realize how good Canon products actually are. From the different IS modes to being able to shoot with a full buffer, sometimes reading about other manufacturers just turns into a list of problems that Canon doesn't have.


----------

