# f4 needed for birds if only shooting in full sun?



## Isaac Grant (Mar 23, 2016)

This may seem like an odd question, but I recently purchased a 500f4 ii to be used for bird photography. I love the lens. Image quality is fantastic. Auto focus is fast and it is built like a tank. But it is expensive, heavy, big and not so easy to lug around (obvious for such a big lens but just wanted to get it out there).

The real issue is, do I really need an f4 lens if shooting under full sun conditions? Most times would not really be taking advantage of the f4. Is there another option that gives the same image quality that I am not considering? I also own the 100-400 ii and a 1.4x, plus the Sigma 150-600C as well. Plan on using the 1.4x with the 500 as well.

Really looking for advice from people that currently own this lens or others like it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 23, 2016)

I have the 600/4L IS II, used primarily for birds. Having f/4 isn't really a requirement for me in terms of exposure, usually I'm stopped down to the f/6.3 to f/9 range anyway to get sufficient DoF so the whole bird is sharp. I almost always use my 1.4x TC for an 840mm f/5.6, sometimes the 2x for 1200mm f/8. IMO there is no substitute for focal length when it comes to birds, and the f/4 lens means I can have full AF at f/5.6 and still maintain AF at f/8 (in fact, that's really the only compelling update for me in the 1D X II, 61-pts with 27 crosses at 1200mm f/8). 

For me, 560mm f/8 (100-400 II + 1.4x) would not long enough for most of my bird photography.


----------



## Mikehit (Mar 23, 2016)

Focusing is done with the aperture wide open so with f4 you have more light for the AF system to work with. However you may well find that the DOF is thin enough to have to stop down anyway unless the subject is stationary, and this bring you to the adage that most lenses are best stopped down one from maximum. Plus you have an optoin for AF with a tc attached 

So no, the f4 will not be wasted. 

I have recently bought the 100-400 MkII and it is a superb lens and while I do not have the joy of owning the 500mm f4, I have read quite a few experienced birders saying they have hardly used their 500mm f4 since buying it (though I believe they were comparing to the MkI 500mm). 
Pverall, I think you have probably got probably the best 2 alternatives in the Canon and Sigma zooms so stop worrying, shoot loads and you have the jealousy-inducing option of selecting the best tool for the job. 

If you are looking for ways to spend spare money, when the 500mm mkii came out, one respected wildlife photographer (may have been Andy Rouse but can't be sure) did an article asking what benefits there are to matching the latest generation of lens and camera. At the time he had a couple of models of 1D and said that yes, there is a benefit greater than the sum of their apparent parts. 
So you could always go for the 1DxMkii.

Or go on 2 or 3 fantastic wildlife tours to use the lens to maximum benefit...

And if all those options are exhausted then send a few grand my way and you can bask in the warm glow that upi are helping someone else is reaching the pleasurable heights you are.


----------



## Isaac Grant (Mar 23, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> I have the 600/4L IS II, used primarily for birds. Having f/4 isn't really a requirement for me in terms of exposure, usually I'm stopped down to the f/6.3 to f/9 range anyway to get sufficient DoF so the whole bird is sharp. I almost always use my 1.4x TC for an 840mm f/5.6, sometimes the 2x for 1200mm f/8. IMO there is no substitute for focal length when it comes to birds, and the f/4 lens means I can have full AF at f/5.6 and still maintain AF at f/8 (in fact, that's really the only compelling update for me in the 1D X II, 61-pts with 27 crosses at 1200mm f/8).
> 
> For me, 560mm f/8 (100-400 II + 1.4x) would not long enough for most of my bird photography.



Very helpful information. Thanks. That is what I kind of expected to hear but nice to get confirmation. Which actually brings up my other problem with the 500. With high shutter speeds I have been able to hand hold the lens and get very sharp results. Was not able to do that with the 1.4x. So if I am going to use the lens on a tripod, am I better off getting the 600? Really can only afford one of these lenses. The 500 seems the best compromise of weight and image quality. 

Should have mentioned that I use the 7d2. Agree about the 1dxii. Does make a compelling case for all focus points...


----------



## Isaac Grant (Mar 23, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> Focusing is done with the aperture wide open so with f4 you have more light for the AF system to work with. However you may well find that the DOF is thin enough to have to stop down anyway unless the subject is stationary, and this bring you to the adage that most lenses are best stopped down one from maximum. Plus you have an optoin for AF with a tc attached
> 
> So no, the f4 will not be wasted.
> 
> ...



Funny response. I have saved quite a while for this lens. This is an expensive hobby 8) Want to be sure I will put it to the best use. I agree that the 100-400 ii is a great lens. It is very sharp. Sharper than the Sigma for sure but not as sharp as the 500. With the converter attached to get to 560 it is quite a bit less sharp than the 500. Still very nice when taken on its own, but when compared to the 500 it is not even close.


----------



## axtstern (Mar 23, 2016)

I have answered this for myself even more extreme. I do BIF pnly on rare occasioms. So I' m aiming at easy targets for which 400 mm is enough but I need the AF to get all the light it can get to help him covering my mistakes and lack of experience.

With the yearly buget reserved fir an 80D and the Sigma 50-100 my BIF budget is down to 1500 Euro.
I hade the choice between a used 400 DO and an much older 400 2.8 L non IS

Went for the non IS non Fluorid very heavy Dinosour.
Will unpack tonight and hope I made the right choice


----------



## Isaac Grant (Mar 23, 2016)

axtstern said:


> I have answered this for myself even more extreme. I do BIF pnly on rare occasioms. So I' m aiming at easy targets for which 400 mm is enough but I need the AF to get all the light it can get to help him covering my mistakes and lack of experience.
> 
> With the yearly buget reserved fir an 80D and the Sigma 50-100 my BIF budget is down to 1500 Euro.
> I hade the choice between a used 400 DO and an much older 400 2.8 L non IS
> ...


I live in New York City. We have a diverse number of subjects. Some you are able to approach quite closely while others are never in close. Reach is hardly ever something I have too much of. There are occasions where shorebirds will be feeding practically at your feet or when ponds are frozen in winter that waterfowl can be approached in the only open water, but most times I need reach. The 100-400 ii is so versatile and sharp. But it is not the 500. That lens is just sharper. It is longer as well. But not so sure it is so many thousands of dollars sharper.


----------



## 9VIII (Mar 23, 2016)

If I were to go completely nuts and buy a 500f4 I would probably use it with a 7D2. But outside of that a 1DX2 might be nice, the wider viewfinder is nice when tracking subjects.
(I could have bought a 500f4 but I decided to see the orthodontist instead. I'm still debating which was the right choice. And yes even the best professionals screw up, double check their work and throw red flags all over the place if something looks or feels funny).


----------



## nc0b (Mar 23, 2016)

One does not need f/4 to shoot birds, as proven by all the birders using the 400mm f/5.6, me included. I normally shoot at f/8 for more DOF anyway. I have been shooting raptors for about 5 years, as the hawks, osprey and eagles land on my radio towers, and are visible from the house. My camera is usually already setup, so I rush outside and wait for the raptor to take off. My 6D / 400mm combo have worked much better for me than my 60D as far as getting sharp focus, whether using center point only or AI Servo. I recently purchased a 100-400mm II for other purposes other than birding, but have tried the new zoom a couple of times for BIF. The problem I have had with the zoom is even with the focus limiter set to 3 meters, it can get lost in the sky, focus down to 3 meters and never reacquire focus on the bird. With the 400mm f/5.6 prime, focus limited to 8.5m, I am rarely unable to reacquire focus without having to manually put focus back on infinity. Have others observed this problem?


----------



## AlanF (Mar 23, 2016)

Others like neuro can answer this better e.g.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Photography-Tips/canon-eos-dslr-autofocus-explained.aspx

The big jump in AF is between f/2.8 and f/4. The 6D's weak point is AF. I find no problems with the 100-400mm II on the 5DIII and 7DII, and my new 5DS R has proven in the last two days for me to be spectacular.


----------



## TheJock (Mar 24, 2016)

I’ve borrowed a 200-400L for this weekend and I’ll be heading out for a spot of Birding, I’m also planning on using a further 1.4XIII, so 1120mm on my 5DIII and 1760mm on my 70D. I’m quite looking forward to the results!! I’ll let you know how I get on!


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 24, 2016)

Stewart K said:


> I’ve borrowed a 200-400L for this weekend and I’ll be heading out for a spot of Birding, I’m also planning on using a further 1.4XIII, so 1120mm on my 5DIII and 1760mm on my 70D. I’m quite looking forward to the results!! I’ll let you know how I get on!



Apart from the fact that a 400 x 1.4 x 1.4 is 784, on a 5D MkIII, and a 70D?


----------



## axtstern (Mar 24, 2016)

I have unpacked my 400mm 2.8 L Dinosaur from the nineties yesterday night. 
Must say handling is a littlebit different than the 400 DO of a friend I used so far.
In fact it weights 3 times as much and feels on my 5DIII like I mounted an anchor of the Titanic to a Down Easter. I hope my Chinese gimbal clone will master it.

Talking about the AF the 2.8 vs 4.0 vs 5.6 difference is really there. The heavy and old 400mm is much slower than the 100-400 L in comparrison but the accuracy of the AF is much improved. Even when AF has once been reached and the focus has to follow there is a gain as the AF never lets loose despite the mass in glass it has to move.


----------



## bwud (Mar 24, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> Stewart K said:
> 
> 
> > I’ve borrowed a 200-400L for this weekend and I’ll be heading out for a spot of Birding, I’m also planning on using a further 1.4XIII, so 1120mm on my 5DIII and 1760mm on my 70D. I’m quite looking forward to the results!! I’ll let you know how I get on!
> ...



I think he meant a third 1.4 (one built in, one he owns, and one further).


----------



## candc (Mar 24, 2016)

i think that having the f/4 aperture is important when using the 7dii. you want to keep your iso lower than 2000 and your shutter speed 1/1600 or faster for bif. with a ff camera it wouldn't be as important because you can use higher iso and get good results.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Mar 24, 2016)

candc said:


> i think that having the f/4 aperture is important when using the 7dii. you want to keep your iso lower than 2000 and your shutter speed 1/1600 or faster for bif. *with a ff camera it wouldn't be as important because you can use higher iso and get good results.*



Only if he uses correspondingly longer lenses, though. If you don't put more sensor area on the subject, the size advantage of the sensor is lost.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 24, 2016)

bwud said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Stewart K said:
> ...



He meant a 2x behind the lens with the built-in 1.4x engaged. 400 x 1.4 x 2 = 1120.


----------



## applecider (Mar 24, 2016)

Do you really mean full noon day sun or are you also thinking of full sunset sun?

Because if the latter then F 4 itself may indeed be needed or at least desired to get an extra half hour of shooting at decent shutter speed when birds are more active interesting and more warmly evenly lit.

As neuro has already said I also usually find my F to be larger than minimum to get enough depth of field, but still nice to be able to shoot earlier and later.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 24, 2016)

Isaac Grant said:


> This may seem like an odd question, but I recently purchased a 500f4 ii to be used for bird photography. I love the lens. Image quality is fantastic. Auto focus is fast and it is built like a tank. But it is expensive, heavy, big and not so easy to lug around (obvious for such a big lens but just wanted to get it out there).
> 
> The real issue is, do I really need an f4 lens if shooting under full sun conditions? Most times would not really be taking advantage of the f4. Is there another option that gives the same image quality that I am not considering? I also own the 100-400 ii and a 1.4x, plus the Sigma 150-600C as well. Plan on using the 1.4x with the 500 as well.
> 
> Really looking for advice from people that currently own this lens or others like it.



Out in the country where I live, I bought a big monster 600mm f/4 non IS. It was not long enough, and I even tried two TC's (1.4 +2X) on it. F/4 had become f/11 by then, and at noon on a winter day, I could not get as fast a shutter speed as needed. The 500mm MK II is a little toy compared to that old 600.


----------



## nc0b (Mar 24, 2016)

On a walk in the country with a 6D & 100-400mm II, there wasn't much to shoot except a meadowlark on a barbed wire fence. The perched bird isn't tack sharp, but when it took off, I was stunned that the wings were a complete blur at 1/800th shutter speed. (f/8, ISO 200 & zoom at 400mm) When shooting raptors in flight with a 400mm f/5.6, I try to keep my shutter speed at 1/1600 or above, but it appears for smaller birds, reducing wing blur requires a much faster shutter speed than I would have expected. I no longer live in the mountains with humming birds around, but if I get a chance to shoot them, will a strobe be needed if a shot with sharp wings is desired?


----------



## nhz (Mar 24, 2016)

nc0b said:


> On a walk in the country with a 6D & 100-400mm II, there wasn't much to shoot except a meadowlark on a barbed wire fence. The perched bird isn't tack sharp, but when it took off, I was stunned that the wings were a complete blur at 1/800th shutter speed. (f/8, ISO 200 & zoom at 400mm) When shooting raptors in flight with a 400mm f/5.6, I try to keep my shutter speed at 1/1600 or above, but it appears for smaller birds, reducing wing blur requires a much faster shutter speed than I would have expected. I no longer live in the mountains with humming birds around, but if I get a chance to shoot them, will a strobe be needed if a shot with sharp wings is desired?


I don't have much experience with birds, but do you really need to have zero wing blur? 

I shoot dragonflies and if you want really sharp wings with the faster species you need 1/4000s shutter speed or so, if they are doing strange acrobatics probably even faster. With my 450D camera even 1/2000 is hardly an option in good light (I need f/5.6 or so for decent DOF). But shots at 1/400-1/800s look great if I am able to 'track' the subject well enough and make sure that at least the head/body is sharp. 

It looks to me like focus is off in both of your pictures (especially the second one) but difficult to judge at this small size. Using a 6D for a fast moving subject doesn't seem a good idea to me (on my 450D which is probably even slightly worse for AF speed I always use MF for this type of subject).

P.S. regarding subject of thread: one thing I didn't see mentioned after a quick read is that size/weight of the lens can be a problem, this could work against very bright long tele lenses when you are dealing with BIF instead of stationary birds. Obviously it depends on the subject, most large birds move relatively slower (in angular velocity, relative to the camera) and more predictable than the small ones. For my dragonfly photography - a bit similar to BIF for very small birds - even with a 4/300mm lens it is tough to quickly point the camera to the subject and track it, with 2x higher weight fast movement becomes 4x more difficult (because of the required acceleration). So despite all the goodies of the large and bright lens (which I don't doubt, and even though the bright aperture improves AF speed) at some point it becomes impossible to get the shot.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 24, 2016)

nc0b said:


> I no longer live in the mountains with humming birds around, but if I get a chance to shoot them, will a strobe be needed if a shot with sharp wings is desired?



Not _a_ strobe, but rather strobe*s*. If you want to freeze hummingbird wings, you need exposures in the 1/15000 - 1/30000 second range, much faster than your max shutter speed. A Speedlite varies flash power by duration not intensity, thus a max power flash exposure is actually a 'slow' 1/800 - 1/1000 s flash duration. Therefore, you need to use a flash on low power (1/128 or 1/64 power) to get a short enough exposure, and since you need to eliminate ambient you must also be stopped down quite a bit. That means you'll need to gang 4-6 Speedlites on low power to get sufficient light.


----------



## scottkinfw (Mar 24, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> Focusing is done with the aperture wide open so with f4 you have more light for the AF system to work with. However you may well find that the DOF is thin enough to have to stop down anyway unless the subject is stationary, and this bring you to the adage that most lenses are best stopped down one from maximum. Plus you have an optoin for AF with a tc attached
> 
> So no, the f4 will not be wasted.
> 
> ...



You are quite magnanimous.


----------



## Isaac Grant (Mar 24, 2016)

applecider said:


> Do you really mean full noon day sun or are you also thinking of full sunset sun?
> 
> Because if the latter then F 4 itself may indeed be needed or at least desired to get an extra half hour of shooting at decent shutter speed when birds are more active interesting and more warmly evenly lit.
> 
> As neuro has already said I also usually find my F to be larger than minimum to get enough depth of field, but still nice to be able to shoot earlier and later.



Don't ever shoot at noon. I mean in the early morning/late afternoon/evening hours (depending on the time of year) when there are no clouds in the sky. So the king of light when the sun is low in the sky, birds have nice light on them with no harsh shadows and nothing causing me to have to raise the ISO much about 640. Shutter speeds at that time with this lens at f4 are in the 1/6400 range. Hope that helps.


----------



## NancyP (Mar 24, 2016)

nc0b, I like to see some blurring of the wings in some photos, as long as the head is sharp.


----------



## nc0b (Mar 24, 2016)

Hi nhz. Yes the meadowlark in flight isn't in good focus. Once it took off it takes me at least 50 - 100 ms to react and push the shutter. Thus the bird has moved away from the wire on which it was perched. DOF totally insufficient to handle any horizontal movement. There is also what appears to me some motion blur. The reason for the post was my surprise how much wing movement occurred within 1/800 second.

No I don't think it is necessary to have no wing blur, particularly wing tips. I usually shoot BIF of raptors, or perched small birds since I have not had success with small BIF. I am not sure why the perched meadowlark is not quite sharp. I have only had the 100-400mm II lens for a short time, and while I have seen very sharp shots at 100 to 200 feet, some shots of our neighbor's horses at 10 - 20 feet seem soft. 

I will have a 5DS R within a week or two, it will be interesting to see how well I can make it perform vs. the 6D. For BIF the 6D vastly put performs my 60D. Overall I am very happy with the 6D and 400m f/5.6.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 24, 2016)

and here comes the math.....

Let's use the example of a chickadee. Let's say that we are able to perfectly track the bird in flight and that from top of wingbeat to bottom of wingbeat takes up a little under half of the frame, say about 2000 pixels..

The chickadee flaps it's wings at 27 times per second. That's up and down, 27 times per second... the wing covers 2000 pixels up and 2000 pixels down 27 times per second..... that's 4000 pixels 27 times per second. Of course it is moving faster at the middle than at the ends, but let's use the average speed. 4000 pixels 27 times per second means 108,000 pixels per second.... shoot at a thousandth of a second and you will get 108 pixels of blur for every significant detail.... so we crank up our shutter speed to as fast as we can go and shoot at 1/8000 of a second and end up with 14 pixels of blur..... it sucks, but that's as fast as we can go!

Now let's say it is really bright out.... our exposure meter reads 15EV. If we want to shoot that speed with an F4 lens, we end up at ISO400. At that speed we still have very good image quality, but the wings are blurred a bit. Remember that this is with perfect conditions... earlier or later in the day we drop to 13EV and our ISO jumps to 1600 to keep that shutter speed.... and image quality begins to fall off.

Go slower than F4 and your ISO goes up..... some clouds blow in and your ISO goes up....

Shooting birds, particularly tiny ones, and you need the fastest lenses you can get. If you are shooting through a long lens, you need to shoot faster speeds to avoid blurring, so once again, you need fast lenses....


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Mar 24, 2016)

Isaac Grant said:


> This may seem like an odd question, but I recently purchased a 500f4 ii to be used for bird photography. I love the lens. Image quality is fantastic. Auto focus is fast and it is built like a tank. But it is expensive, heavy, big and not so easy to lug around (obvious for such a big lens but just wanted to get it out there).
> 
> The real issue is, do I really need an f4 lens if shooting under full sun conditions? Most times would not really be taking advantage of the f4. Is there another option that gives the same image quality that I am not considering? I also own the 100-400 ii and a 1.4x, plus the Sigma 150-600C as well. Plan on using the 1.4x with the 500 as well.
> 
> Really looking for advice from people that currently own this lens or others like it.



It really depends on the photo and how close you are to your subject:






5DIII, 400mm f2.8 LIS and a 1.4x TC, shot wide open.


----------



## Isaac Grant (Mar 25, 2016)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Isaac Grant said:
> 
> 
> > This may seem like an odd question, but I recently purchased a 500f4 ii to be used for bird photography. I love the lens. Image quality is fantastic. Auto focus is fast and it is built like a tank. But it is expensive, heavy, big and not so easy to lug around (obvious for such a big lens but just wanted to get it out there).
> ...


----------



## takesome1 (Mar 25, 2016)

Isaac Grant said:


> This may seem like an odd question, but I recently purchased a 500f4 ii to be used for bird photography. I love the lens. Image quality is fantastic. Auto focus is fast and it is built like a tank. But it is expensive, heavy, big and not so easy to lug around (obvious for such a big lens but just wanted to get it out there).
> 
> The real issue is, do I really need an f4 lens if shooting under full sun conditions? Most times would not really be taking advantage of the f4. Is there another option that gives the same image quality that I am not considering? I also own the 100-400 ii and a 1.4x, plus the Sigma 150-600C as well. Plan on using the 1.4x with the 500 as well.
> 
> Really looking for advice from people that currently own this lens or others like it.



It is more about IQ than F/4. If you can get IQ to equal the 500mm II out of any the lenses you listed I wouldn't take mine to the field at all. 

There are other lenses that get close, but those combinations would be just as heavy. 

Really it comes down to what you think is acceptable IQ. But since you are talking birds, I want my pictures extremely sharp and I want to make out the fine detail of feathers and eye. For that I take every advantage I can get whether it is the best IQ lens or best camera for the job. I wouldn't find the results from the two lenses you listed acceptable, especially with an extender. 

But I would have hoped you knew this before you dropped a but load of money on the 500mm. Maybe you thought if you paid the extra you would get the best 500mm made by Canon. If that is the case you thought right.


----------



## AlanF (Mar 25, 2016)

NancyP said:


> nc0b, I like to see some blurring of the wings in some photos, as long as the head is sharp.



The only time I caught a kingfisher hovering, in the days before I used RAW.


----------



## AlanF (Mar 25, 2016)

takesome1 said:


> Isaac Grant said:
> 
> 
> > This may seem like an odd question, but I recently purchased a 500f4 ii to be used for bird photography. I love the lens. Image quality is fantastic. Auto focus is fast and it is built like a tank. But it is expensive, heavy, big and not so easy to lug around (obvious for such a big lens but just wanted to get it out there).
> ...



If you would not find the results from a 100-400mm II to be acceptable for bird photography, then either most of the rest of us must have unacceptably low standards or you do not know how to take bird photographs.


----------



## Isaac Grant (Mar 25, 2016)

takesome1 said:


> Isaac Grant said:
> 
> 
> > This may seem like an odd question, but I recently purchased a 500f4 ii to be used for bird photography. I love the lens. Image quality is fantastic. Auto focus is fast and it is built like a tank. But it is expensive, heavy, big and not so easy to lug around (obvious for such a big lens but just wanted to get it out there).
> ...


Yes I did know this. I guess that really is the ultimate point. No other lens gives the same image quality. F4 is there if you need it on this one but if not it is still the image quality king (along with a few others like the 300 2.8 and 600 f4). I also got lucky and got this for a little less than but load. Canon refubished and on sale at that. Still not cheap at all.


----------



## Isaac Grant (Mar 25, 2016)

AlanF said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > Isaac Grant said:
> ...


While I do not fully agree with his statement, that does not make him wrong. Fact is that I now have both lenses. The 100-400 ii is really nice. Pictures taken with it are quite sharp with beautiful colors and contrst. If you take the same picture with the 500 and compare them side by side it is clear which is the sharper lens. So if that is the main objective there is no real argument. I got the 100-400 ii to use in times that I can not use the 500 ii. To me it is an acceptable alternative, but I am fully aware that it is not as sharp as the 500. It is the lens I will take on long hikes, to be used generally while birding, and for capturing fast flying birds as well.


----------



## AlanF (Mar 25, 2016)

Isaac Grant said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > takesome1 said:
> ...


The point at issue is the statement that the 100-400mm II does not give images that are acceptably sharp. No one is disputing that a 500 prime is sharper, it is the cavalier writing off of images taken with the 100-400mm II and similar lenses that grates. I wonder if the author has even tried such lenses - there are no postings from him in the Bird Portrait thread.


----------



## BeenThere (Mar 25, 2016)

Most of my BIF shots taken over several years were from the low cost EF 400mm f/5.6 (no extender). Most of my bird portraits or relatively static shots were taken with an older EF 500mm f/4.5. I'm pleased with both and have printed and framed a bunch of them. Sold a few also. Use what works for you in the situation; if pleased, then keep on shooting.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 25, 2016)

AlanF said:


> The point at issue is the statement that the 100-400mm II does not give images that are acceptably sharp. No one is disputing that a 500 prime is sharper, it is the cavalier writing off of images taken with the 100-400mm II and similar lenses that grates. I wonder if the author has even tried such lenses - there are no postings from him in the Bird Portrait thread.



Also, things seem to imply that you can't go take bird pictures without the newest and fastest lens.... For the vast bulk of photographers, the big whites are never going to be an affordable option and even the 100-400 is more $s than most people will spend.... yet they still go out and take great pictures because they have worked on their field craft to the point where they can get close enough to get away with "cheaper and slower" lenses like the 70-200F4.... and yes, sometimes you can get close enough to the bird to not need that 600F4 and 2X teleconverter...


----------



## Isaac Grant (Mar 25, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > The point at issue is the statement that the 100-400mm II does not give images that are acceptably sharp. No one is disputing that a 500 prime is sharper, it is the cavalier writing off of images taken with the 100-400mm II and similar lenses that grates. I wonder if the author has even tried such lenses - there are no postings from him in the Bird Portrait thread.
> ...


Don, we are all entitled to think different things and that is fine. Reality is that if budget and weight were no object, just looking at the pics, that the 500 is a sharper lens. We all know that using the sharper lens does not make you a better photographer. We also all know that you can take beautiful pics with "cheaper" gear. But those pics would be sharper when using the best. Not really debatable. This assumes identical lighting, ability, etc. 

Either way, this bickering really does nothing to answer my question which is using an f4 lens in cloudless skies with early morning and evening light.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Mar 25, 2016)

I agree with most of the points here. F4 is not always about light but about IQ. An f4 stopped down to f5.6 may have better IQ than an F5.6 wide open. Depends on the lenses you are comparing. Generally speaking any measure of aperture can help with lens faults.

Sometimes however you need the f4 and in some case F2.8 particlarly if you find yourself shooting really early, really late, or shooting during rain and snow storms.


----------



## Isaac Grant (Mar 25, 2016)

East Wind Photography said:


> I agree with most of the points here. F4 is not always about light but about IQ. An f4 stopped down to f5.6 may have better IQ than an F5.6 wide open. Depends on the lenses you are comparing. Generally speaking any measure of aperture can help with lens faults.
> 
> Sometimes however you need the f4 and in some case F2.8 particlarly if you find yourself shooting really early, really late, or shooting during rain and snow storms.



I think if I am being honest I was just scared to keep this lens. Tried to justify returning it by saying that I do not need the f4 if shooting in "ideal" lighting conditions. But the reality is that the image quality is what made me keep it. Just amazing and worth every penny if you are looking for the best. While I may rarely use f4, I will always use and appreciate the image quality this lens affords.


----------



## AlanF (Mar 25, 2016)

Isaac Grant said:


> East Wind Photography said:
> 
> 
> > I agree with most of the points here. F4 is not always about light but about IQ. An f4 stopped down to f5.6 may have better IQ than an F5.6 wide open. Depends on the lenses you are comparing. Generally speaking any measure of aperture can help with lens faults.
> ...



If you really want the best, trade in the 500 for a 600mm II. The extra length and quality will be worth it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 25, 2016)

AlanF said:


> If you really want the best, trade in the 500 for a 600mm II. The extra length and quality will be worth it.



+1


----------



## BeenThere (Mar 25, 2016)

AlanF said:


> Isaac Grant said:
> 
> 
> > East Wind Photography said:
> ...


Why not wait for the 800mm ii?


----------



## Isaac Grant (Mar 25, 2016)

BeenThere said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > Isaac Grant said:
> ...



I deeply considered getting the 600 ii. Thing is that I do not think I will use it often enough. It is just too big and heavy. The 500 I am able to hand hold fairly easily and will put on a tripod the rest of the time. The 600 would only be used with the tripod for me and that would mean that I would use it less.

Plus I will wait for the 600 DO to come out


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 25, 2016)

Isaac Grant said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...


If money were no object, I would be ordering a 600F4 as we speak. That is one fine lens, probably the best lens that Canon makes.... at least until the 800F5.6 II BR comes out.

Personally, I have found that an F5.6 lens, particularly when stopped down to 7.1 or 8.0 to get some more sharpness out of it, just isn't fast enough to shoot moving subjects when the sun is low in the sky or there are heavy clouds. An F4 lens, shot either wide open or at F5.6 really helps to freeze the detail. 

Even if you have wonderful fieldcraft and manage to get in real close so that a shorter (more affordable) lens can do the job, shooting F5.6 gives me so little depth of field that some of the bird is in focus and the rest is blurred. The picture below is a perfect example of insufficient depth of field  I find too close can be as bad as too far away, the sweet spot is somewhere in the middle and unfortunately for our wallets you need expensive lenses at that distance.

I guess what I am saying is get the fastest lens you can afford and then go have some fun.... and if you shoot your F4 lens stopped down, it is even sharper...... but at dusk and dawn you will really appreciate the F4.


----------



## AlanF (Mar 25, 2016)

At dawn and dusk, if not in between as well, you will appreciate the 400mm f/2.8 II even more.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Mar 25, 2016)

F4 is nice for BIF, but not essential. My 3 "birding" lenses are the Canon 300 F2.8, 100-400 Mk2 and 800 F5.6. The 300 has an extender attached nearly all the time and the other two are F5.6 at best.
Having used the Canon 500 Mk1 and Mk2, owned the 600 Mk1 and used to Mk2 I bought the 800!
I must admit though that as I get older the 500 F4 Mk2 looks tempting due to it's lighter weight - but the 1.4 extender would be almost a permanent fixture - negating the advantages of this lens over my current 800mm.


----------



## takesome1 (Mar 25, 2016)

AlanF said:


> Isaac Grant said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...



That is cherry picking and I think you are reading in to what was posted, I was talking what I find acceptably sharp for one particular purpose. For many purposes I would find the 100-400mm to be a great lens. If someone drops almost 10K on a telephoto lens to shoot birds with, wouldn't the idea be that they are paying the extra money for that extra sharpness?

I do not own the 100-400mm II, and I do not need to for wildlife. Years ago I started out with the original 100-400mm and upgraded to the 500mm version I. I decided then that for wildilfe and birds that I wanted the sharpest lens I could afford, a lens that gives you the maximum chance of getting enough detail to work with. So the 100-400mm was shelved. Does that mean that great sharp pictures can not be taken with the 100-400mm or the 100-400mm II? No, it does not. Are those two lenses in the same class as the 500mm II, no the are not but they are great lenses in their own right.


----------



## takesome1 (Mar 26, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > The point at issue is the statement that the 100-400mm II does not give images that are acceptably sharp. No one is disputing that a 500 prime is sharper, it is the cavalier writing off of images taken with the 100-400mm II and similar lenses that grates. I wonder if the author has even tried such lenses - there are no postings from him in the Bird Portrait thread.
> ...



The truth is the best lens for someone go birding or wildlife with is the lens they can afford. IMO it wouldn't matter if the longest lens I had was 35mm I would be trying to get close enough for shots.

But the OP in this thread already owns the 500mm. So for the purpose of this thread the high cost of a supertele appears to not be an issue.


----------



## Isaac Grant (Mar 26, 2016)

takesome1 said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...


You want the best you have to pay for it. Trust me the cost is an issue. Picked up the lens direct from Canon. Refurbished with an extra 10% off. Keep in mind that you then need a bunch of extra stuff like a good tripod, head, bag to carry it, lenscoat, replacement foot, etc. The kind of stuff you don't think much about until you need to drop anouther $2,000!!!


----------



## takesome1 (Mar 26, 2016)

Isaac Grant said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



Sounds like Buyers Remorse.
After you get the other gear you will be set for several years.
For me the remorse would be "Should I have gotten the 600mm?"

They had the 400mm DO II and the 200-400mm F/4 on sale not long ago. I didn't see a 600mm pop up though, maybe it did.


----------



## Isaac Grant (Mar 26, 2016)

takesome1 said:


> Isaac Grant said:
> 
> 
> > takesome1 said:
> ...


----------



## Isaac Grant (Mar 26, 2016)

Isaac Grant said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > Isaac Grant said:
> ...


No remorse at all. Just was something I foolishly did not consider when setting my budget for the lens. All the add ons really add up. The 600 ii is not something I think I would use too often. Just much bigger and does not fit my style in the field as much. The 400 DO was another consideration but I think the 500 is a good mix of image quality, ease of use and reach. Plus I can use it as a 700 and 1000 as well.


----------



## AlanF (Mar 26, 2016)

takesome1 said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > Isaac Grant said:
> ...



To cherry pick is “to select with great care”, and I don't mind being accused of cherry picking.

To nitpick is “to criticize by focusing on inconsequential details”, which is precisely what I find irksome about many of the comments made about lenses and cameras, both here and by trolls or critics on other sites - the 5DIII is a failure because of its DR at low iso, the Tamron 150-600mm is useless because it is soft in the corners, the 5DS R should be avoided because it might show some Moire, lens X is 5% sharper than Y and camera Z doesn't have a built-in viewfinder so is worthless etc.


----------



## nc0b (Apr 3, 2016)

The osprey that has been perching on one of my ham radio towers was back today twice. I had a chance to shoot with the 400mm f/5.6 and the 100-400mm II using a 6D. The raptor takes off, and is flying around the acreage within a range of about 200 to 500 feet. The focus limiter is set to 8.5m on the prime and 3 meters on the zoom. The 8.5m minimum focus distance is an amazing advantage if I lose focus. With the prime I can still see the raptor, even if blurry, but with the zoom, if it hunts towards 3 meters, I cannot see my target. I got only three shots with the zoom today and 31 with the prime in under 2 minutes. Some with the prime were too far away to be useful, and the lighting angle was poor on other shots, but being able to lock focus was easy with the prime. I had the same problem some years ago with the 70-200mm f/2.8 II and a 2X TC III. Focus limiter is 2.5m, and once the focus got lost in the sky, I was done for. When the osprey was just taking off from its perch, the zoom had the focus nailed.


----------

