500 f4l ii

[Shelley]

I have decided that I am going to buy the 500, I have to save some more money - but the tax cheque I am getting will be safely put away for this lens.
I reckon it will be sooner than later.

I am just love my birding and know that I will put it to great use. I know it will be a lotta of money, but my kids are grown and I am not getting younger.

I thought about the old 500, but think I will see what the new one is like, I have not seen it out yet - I know its going cost heaps, but I rather have this lens than a new car. I am tempted to get the old 500 at times.

The other thing that I like about the new lens, is that it is lighter than the old 500.

edit: jeez, my english is terrible tonight sorry

[Tannin]

The new one will cost a hellovalot more if I am any guess, Shelly.

But at 3.2kg it is quite a lot lighter than the old one at almost 3.9kg, and even better, the new one has a more usable MFD of 3.7 metres (4.5 metres on the old one). I should think the priice difference would be two to three thousand dollars, dropping to one to two thousand more in a couple of years. (Pure top-of-the-head guesswork I hasten to add.) Personally, I reckon I'd pay the extra.

[Shelley]

Yeah, your right Tony and that weight makes a difference to me and my puny size (wish I had more strength sometimes).

I am thinking I will wait and save for it, I have the 400 in the meantime.

[Art Vandelay]

Is this a bit of a half guilty inside but looking for a little reassurance thread,, ? I'd say go for it Shelley. (which is very easy to say as it aint my money )

You'll make good use of it.

[Shelley]

Thanks Art, I feel better now I only have to convince myself re: money, once the daughter's wedding is over, I can really save in earnest. I was torn between some other gear, but decided to go in the direction of my birding as it is something that I really enjoy.

[Tricky]

Thanks Art, I feel better now I only have to convince myself re: money, once the daughter's wedding is over, I can really save in earnest. I was torn between some other gear, but decided to go in the direction of my birding as it is something that I really enjoy.

I think your logic makes a lot of sense.... focus in one the type of photography you like best and get the equipment that allows you to enjoy it to the max. Too easy to try to cover all bases and you just end up with an assortment of 'not that great' lenses that you rarely use...

[Wobbles]

Go for it! Now you just have to justify a set of MKIII TC's... after all they are specifically optimised for these new MKII Super Tele's!

[Shelley]

Thanks Tricky and Wobbles. I also have to justify the Wimberley now too...

[Tannin]

There is no point in buying a 2X TC for an f/4 lens. Just a waste of money. A 1.4 is certainly handy though. Is the difference between the Mark II and the Mark III likely to be significant? Good question!

As for justifing the Wimberley, there is no need. If you are eying off a Wimberley because you think it will be the best head around, or perhaps just because you think that there are several good ones and this is one amongst them, don't bother. Honestly. Nope, I recommend that you buy the cheapest head you can lay your hands on - but be sure that you do the calculations correctly, including all the costs. A Wimberly sets you back about $600 plus freight. But there are a number of heads that you can buy for as liittle as $100, plus some better ones around the $350 mark. So you can buy a Wimberley for $600, or you can buy a $100 head, stuff around with it, throw it away and get the better quality $350 one, use that for a while until you realise that it is wrecking too many shots and throw that one away too and get a Wimberley. $600 is less than $100 + $350 + $600 = $1050. Save money, just buy the Wimberley.

[Shelley]

There is no point in buying a 2X TC for an f/4 lens. Just a waste of money. A 1.4 is certainly handy though. Is the difference between the Mark II and the Mark III likely to be significant? Good question!

As for justifing the Wimberley, there is no need. If you are eying off a Wimberley because you think it will be the best head around, or perhaps just because you think that there are several good ones and this is one amongst them, don't bother. Honestly. Nope, I recommend that you buy the cheapest head you can lay your hands on - but be sure that you do the calculations correctly, including all the costs. A Wimberly sets you back about $600 plus freight. But there are a number of heads that you can buy for as liittle as $100, plus some better ones around the $350 mark. So you can buy a Wimberley for $600, or you can buy a $100 head, stuff around with it, throw it away and get the better quality $350 one, use that for a while until you realise that it is wrecking too many shots and throw that one away too and get a Wimberley. $600 is less than $100 + $350 + $600 = $1050. Save money, just buy the Wimberley.

No your right Tony, as per usual. I have seen the wimberley in use with the 500 and well agree with all that you said. I also held Alan's 600, big lens that is too. To be honest, I don't want to stuff around until I get it right - I want to get it right to start with and worry about my next bird and what its doing to cause me grief.

Not sure sure about 2x TC etc. haven't really messed with them much, so again won't be rushing into it. The great thing about this forum and the Internet you get lots of information and usually I can work it out.. Thanks Tony

[Tannin]

My pleasure, Shelly.

A bit about teleconverters might be useful.

You'll find that the 500/4 focuses incredibly fast. Mine (the old one) is nothing short of amazing with a 1 Series body, and not all that far away from that with a 7D. Even with a 20D/40D/50D it is very, very quick. But put a 1.4 teleconverter on it and the AF performance drops a long way - it goes from obviously faster than a 400/5.6 to noticeably slower- not a lot, but quite noticeable. Say about the same as a 100-400 (which is still good, but not the greased lightning response you get bare lens on a 500/4.)

Now put on a 2X. You get no AF at all with non-pro bodies, and even with a 1 Series it is glacially slow. This is all coded into the camera firmware - the AF system knows it is working through a 2X converter and has practically no "optical leverage" to focus with, so like a driver in a thick fog, it goes very slowly to be sure it gets it right. Think the sort of focus times you experience with a typical macro lens.It is still very accurate - amazingly so - but you won't be zipping off brilliant flight shots!

So much for AF. Now for IQ. Sharpness drops off remarkably little, even with a 2X, but you get poorer quality OOF highlights, and quite a drop in contrast and colour. (Particularly so at 2X more than 1.4X.) Combine that with the shots you miss because of slow focus and there really isn't a lot of point. Throw in the very low shutter speeds and/or higher ISOs you are using because you have thrown away one (1.4x) or two (2x) whole stops, and you will nearly always get a better image by shooting bare lens or with a 1.4 and cropping a bit more. (This becomes more and more true with the passing of the years and the release of ever-higher pixel density sensors.)

I can't remember when I used my 2X converter last. Certainly not this year, probably not last year either. It's useless unless you own a 300/2.8 or a 400/2.8 or (maybe) a 70-200/2.8.

[Shelley]

Now, that first paragraph Tony, I am really wanting this lens (I will wait for the 2nd version, I will wait, I will wait). Faster focus than what I have with the 400, that I would indeed get quite excited about. This lens sounds superb.

Thanks for the information on the 2x, food for thought and really don't want a drop in contrast and colour and the slow focus.

[Tannin]

I have never owned a 400/5.6 Shelly, but I bought one on behalf of a friend a couple of years ago and had the opportunity to have a pretty good play with it one afternoon, including taking this charming little creature -



I made a point of comparing focus speeds between the three lenses (500/4, 400/5.6 & 100-400) and a couple of bodies (1D III and 40D, probably). Alas, I did not make notes and I'm depending on memory now. I do recall being a little surprised to discover that the famous 400/5.6 fast focus wasn't actually all that different to the 100-400 - not quite the massive advantage some people report - and unsurprised to confirm that the 500/4 was faster. (I have heard somewhere that the fastest focus lens of all is the 300/2.8. I suppose it's true.) As for my other observations with the three lenses .... I've forgotten! I did write them up here somewhere in a great long thread with lots of bird pictures, I think.

[Cage]

Go on Shelley, go on, you want's the pretty...........

Tricky summed it up. The 500 is mandatory for your passion.

You go get it girl!

[Shelley]

I have never used the 100-400 Tony, so I have no doubt you know your lens very well and would not dispute your conclusions. When I went birding with my brother, he sometimes let me use his 400 and I just loved it from the moment I first used it - so had my heart set on it, until my husband surprised me with the Bigma.

I think I will always have the 400 in my kit, its my training lens and it has just served me so well - I know it very well. I hope I feel the same when I get the 500.

[Shelley]

Go on Shelley, go on, you want's the pretty...........

Tricky summed it up. The 500 is mandatory for your passion.

You go get it girl!

Thanks Kevin - have to wait till it comes on the market that is, the new version...

[Tannin]

I think I will always have the 400 in my kit

Oh you will. Would you throw away your best wooden spoon just because you bought a soup ladle?

[Xenedis]

I have heard somewhere that the fastest focus lens of all is the 300/2.8. I suppose it's true.)

I own a 300/2.8L IS, and it is quick to focus.

However, I think my 135/2L is actually faster.

I should drag them both out, point them at the same subject in the same light and see which is seemingly faster.

What I do know is that the 135/2 is incredibly fast to focus. It is ready before I am.

[Xenedis]

I am thinking I will wait and save for it, I have the 400 in the meantime.

You couldn't go wrong with the current 500/4L IS.

While the 500/4L IS II will be lighter than the current 500/4L IS, remember that they are both lighter than your current 400/2.8L IS.

I'd expect the 500/4L IS II to be considerably more expensive than the current version. My estimate is $12-13K.

One other consideration is the 800/5.6L IS, but this is seriously expensive, at $14,630 from Quality Camera Sales Australia.

However, it weighs 4.5kg, so while it's heavier than a 500/4, it's still lighter than your 400/2.8.

I checked out the new 400/2.8L IS II recently. At 3.85kg, it is seriously light, and that alone was quite impressive.

[Tannin]

I've seen nuclear powered aircraft carriers which are lighter than the old 400/2.8. But Shelly's 400 is the 5.6, Xenedis. My guess re price is that the 500/4 II will start a bee's whatsis less than the Nikon one, but drop a thousand or two after a year or so.