500 F/4 L IS USM lens anyone have one?

[slow86gn]

Looking for anyone who mite have this lens, want a true telephoto lens. I shoot a lot of wild life. Have a 100/400 now want more range. I would like to hear any pros cons on this lens. Any help is apprecatied. Have 10D and 20D bodys it would be used on. Thank you John

[Adam Hicks]

You do realize that's a $5,500 lens right? If you're going to spend that kind of money due to shooting that much outdoor / wildlife photography, you'll probably want to consider a weather sealed camera as well :confused:

I'd check around your area for an equipment rental shop and rent one for a weekend. It's the perfect way to determine just how bad you need that lens. Let's say they get $50 for the weekend, you might use the lens for 110 weekends... so it would make more sense to just rent it when you need it...

Adam

[RJSorensen]

I want one as well . . . or the 600mm.

[Europa]

I wish I had $5000+ dollars to throw around! I can't even DREAM about spending that kind of cash on a Lens.

[Kabz]

pbase has some awesome samples of the lens.

It truly is stunning

[Persian-Rice]

I dont think I will ever understand using that kind of glass on a 10D/20D or whatever else is in that class.

If you have a 100-400, there are better things to spend $5,500 then on an extra 100mm. Go buy yourself a nice pro body and a 1.4 tc to make up or the crop and use the extra money and take a trip to some tropical island with some nice animals............. A 1D will probably contribute much more to your shots then a 500mm on a consumer body...........

[TammieO]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I don't have that much money right now, but I still want the 500mm. Although the little bird would fill the frame with the 600mm. I can always dream...

[Belmondo]

I would hazard a guess that very few of us have the money for the 500 or 600. I decided to go with the 300 f/2.8. I'm told (but have not yet confirmed) that the 1.4X and 2X TCs work almost seamlessly with that lens, and I figure I can afford to lose 2 full f/stops when I'm starting at f/2.8 and have IS onboard. Even this lens is not cheap, but it's a fair amount cheaper than the 500, and a whole lot less expensive than the 600.

I'm happy.

[KennyG]

I have the 500 as well as the same 300 as Belmondo. Its biggest advantage is weight compared to the 400 2.8IS or 600 4IS. Great optics, well built, but I prefer my 300 with 1.4 and 2.0 TC's for my motorsport work. I can't comment on its use for wildlife as that isn't my 'thing'.

[Buddy Thomason]

I have one - and it is simply awesome. More info here: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=59466

[scottbergerphoto]

You can get a great 500mm lens at $1500-2000 less. I went with the Sigma 500mm f/4.5 EX APO HSM. I get great results with it. It's a half stop less wide but still a great performer.
http://www.pbase.com/scottbergerphoto/image/26490952.jpg
Scott

[rfreschner]

I dont think I will ever understand using that kind of glass on a 10D/20D or whatever else is in that class.

Maybe I'm naive, but I would think that the lens contributes more to the quality of the photo than the body. And if I had that kind of money to blow, which I certainly don't, I would spend it on better lenses for my 20D instead of upgrading the body.

[HKFEVER]

Maybe I'm naive, but I would think that the lens contributes more to the quality of the photo than the body.

For film camera, yes. But for digital, this is not 100% correct. Otherwise, we don't really need great DR and high MP in PRO DSLR.

[ssim]

At the risk of being flamed from the way this conversation seems to be going, yes, I have the lens in question. Pros are that it is sharp, I have used it with both the 1.4 and 2.0 TC as well as stacked. It is a heavy hunk of glass, while you might want to try and handhold most times you will want to have it on either a monopod or tripod. You are going to need a decent tripod to boot.

I got mine in November and being winter in Montreal there hasn't been alot of opportunity to use it but the times I have, I have been very pleased with it.

[rfreschner]

For film camera, yes. But for digital, this is not 100% correct. Otherwise, we don't been great DR and high MP in PRO DSLR.

Gotcha. That's what happens when you've been film for so long and not digital. Still, for my needs (very unprofessional) and limited budget (lest I spend the entire retirement fund), I'll go with the lenses and dream wistfully of the better body. :D I guess my only question would be, is it a waste from an image quality standpoint to put a lens like this on a 20D?

[HKFEVER]

Gotcha. That's what happens when you've been film for so long and not digital. Still, for my needs (very unprofessional) and limited budget (lest I spend the entire retirement fund), I'll go with the lenses and dream wistfully of the better body. :D I guess my only question would be, is it a waste from an image quality standpoint to put a lens like this on a 20D?

My point of view only. It is a little waste, because 20D is only to use the centre part of every lens (not sure the EF-S). And most of the lens' centre (from consumer to pro level) are pretty good quality.

Correct me if I am wrong.

[PacAce]

My point of view only. It is a little waste, because 20D is only to use the centre part of every lens (not sure the EF-S). And most of the lens' centre (from consumer to pro level) are pretty good quality.

Correct me if I am wrong.
I would respectful say that I disagree with you. Whether we're talking FF or less than FF sensors (or film for that matter), you can usually see a difference between a high end pro lens such as the 500 f/4 L and a consumer and prosumer lens in the same focal length range.

[gymell]

I don't have one either, but like you would love to for bird photography. Here's some examples of the lense on a 10D, so based on this I'd say it wouldn't be a waste to put it on a 20D.

http://www.pbase.com/gaocus/500f4_sampler

[rfreschner]

Thanks gymell, those are beautiful shots! Maybe someday when I win the lottery..... I really have to start playing that!! :lol:

And, thanks all for the replies, it certainly helps to hear so many points of view.

[Scottes]

I would respectful say that I disagree with you. Whether we're talking FF or less than FF sensors (or film for that matter), you can usually see a difference between a high end pro lens such as the 500 f/4 L and a consumer and prosumer lens in the same focal length range.
I agree.

If you put a great lens on a very good body you will get better pictures than putting a good lens on a very good body. There will be a difference, and the difference will be noticable.

The 500mm L is much better in many ways that the 100-400 L - even discounting the glass. The IS is better (with tripod mode), the AF is faster, and the aperture is wider. All of this will lead to better pictures and more keepers. Then add in the extra length, and again you get more opporunities and more keepers. Throw on the 1.4 TC and the 20D can still AF - something it won't do with the 1.4 on a 100-400. So again, you get more opportunities and more keepers.

And the glass is undoubtedly better, even if you're only using the center with the 1.6 crop of the 20D. There will be a difference in picture quality - something that I see between the 100-400 and the 400mm L. Better glass will make for a better picture when you do everything else correctly.

Now, are you getting your money's worth with the 500mm L on a 20D? No, not to the fullest extent. The 500mm was designed and is made for a full-frame camera, and you are paying extra for this and you'll never use it. If they made an EF-S version of the 500mm you'd be getting your money's worth completely.

But they don't make an EF-S 500mm.

The high-quality glass will out-resolve your 20D - but would you want to buy a $5500 lens which is the weak link in the chain? You will have this lens for life. When you get your next camera body you will still have this lens, and since that camera body will most likely be better than the 20D you'll be closer to a match between lens and body.


In the end, you'll get better quality pictures from the better glass. You'll get more opportunities with the extra length of the lens and the ability to use the 1.4 TC. The better AF will get you more keepers. And the IS tripod mode will get you more keepers.

If you can afford it, it's a no-brainer.

[rfreschner]

In the end, you'll get better quality pictures from the better glass. You'll get more opportunities with the extra length of the lens and the ability to use the 1.4 TC. The better AF will get you more keepers. And the IS tripod mode will get you more keepers.

That's pretty much what I thought. Thanks for taking the time to explain it so thoroughly.

If you can afford it, it's a no-brainer.

Ah, therein is the issue. Unless I want to take this opportunity to look for another wife, this is certainly out of my price range. And, for my particular needs, this is not really a lens that I would seriously consider unless I somehow became independently wealthy, something I've managed to avoid doing so far in life. :)

[slow86gn]

Thanks for all the responces. Looks like i'll have a new lens soon.

[HKFEVER]

I would respectful say that I disagree with you. Whether we're talking FF or less than FF sensors (or film for that matter), you can usually see a difference between a high end pro lens such as the 500 f/4 L and a consumer and prosumer lens in the same focal length range.

I am just too lazy to type, I should say most of the consumer based lenses are pretty good at the centre. But the image quality can't compare to L. That's why most of my lenses are L.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Slow,

I had my 500mm prime for nearly a year used only a 10D before I "upgraded" my camera as well,.

I do not regret it one bit,. even on a 10D, (or 20D) you will be amazed at what a lens like this can do!

I would definitely say get the lens first!

[timmyquest]

For film camera, yes. But for digital, this is not 100% correct. Otherwise, we don't really need great DR and high MP in PRO DSLR.

Although your right, the gap has gotten narrow enough to where i'd still rather have nice glass then a nice camera, so long as that camera does what i need it to (aside from the sensor...AF, framerate, etc)

I'd much rather have a D60 with a 135 f/2 then a 20D the kit lens ;-)

[Phil Hall]

I have the 100-400 and use it with the 1.4x converter. I looked at the 500 and decided that the range was not much greater than the 100-400. So, I opted for the 600 mm. The results are outstanding. It works great with the 1.4x converter. On the downside..this thing is huge and comes in its own suitcase. You will also need to invest in a heavy duty tripod and a Wimberely head, so you can add another $1000 to the cost. I have not yet taken it on a plane as this would give too much carry on baggage and I would not want to ship it as checked baggage.

I see that Belmondo went the 300 mm 2.8 route with teleconverters. I have tried this out in indoor arenas and it is outstanding. It can also be hand held and is a lot sharper than the 100-400.

Phil Hall

[Belmondo]

Although your right, the gap has gotten narrow enough to where i'd still rather have nice glass then a nice camera, so long as that camera does what i need it to (aside from the sensor...AF, framerate, etc)

I'd much rather have a D60 with a 135 f/2 then a 20D the kit lens ;-)

And I think that is advice that's been given fairly consistently here. Bodies come and go, but good glass is an investment, and it really has more direct influence on the quality of your images than even sensor resolution in many cases.

[Phil Hall]

I looked at the 500 mm and decided it did not have much more than range the 100-400 plus a 1.4x so I bought a 600 mm from B&H site unseen. It is a monster but takes great pictures. It is even better with the 1.4x. Having said that you will probably need to spend another $1000 on a HEAVY duty tripod and a Wimberely head. I have also not tried to transport this through an airline system...too much carry on gear with the other stuff and I would not want to send it as checked baggage.

I think Belmondo's idea of a 300 mm with a TC is good. I have used a friends lense, it is much more portable and can be used withe the 1.4 and 2.0 Tc(with 1D series). It can be handheld and is great for low light situations, such as indoor arenas.

If I had to do it again I would go for the 300mm 2.8 and use a TC. This gives much greater opportunity to use the lense. 600 mm lenses are great but somewhat limited in their use.


Phul Hall



Phil Hall

[timmyquest]

And I think that is advice that's been given fairly consistently here. Bodies come and go, but good glass is an investment, and it really has more direct influence on the quality of your images than even sensor resolution in many cases.

A year ago i would disagree, but after taking, what i considered a gamble, and buying the 1D with its "pathetic" 4mp i have produced some fantastic prints. 90% of my prints are 8x10 or smaller and i see no difference between those and the 6mp prints from my Drebel. There are some prints however that i have made from my 1D that are larger then 8x10, two 20x30's one of which shot at ISO 1600. They look fantastic, in fact my favorite print to date is an 11x14 of my blue eyed cat.

I think the ability to take as many photos we want at no cost, then blow them up and stare at our monitors has created some improper practices in photography. I think it is easy to get sloppy and blame gear, it is something that i catch myself doing almost on a weekly basis but the more i work with film for my B&W photography class, the more i am apreciating the more basic aspects of photography. Those can be summed up in two things in my opinion, the photographer, and good lenses.

Every year a new camera and sensor is released and every year we sit in front of our screens starting at the nose of a model trying to figure out at which point the nose starts to become a collage of pixles rather then a nose. And everytime this happens, last years model becomes "Decent" and any year before that seems to become "crap".

Obviously things will always get better, but it doesnt make the old things bad. That is something i'm quickly learning. For a small while i was having buyers remourse or something after i bought my 1D and saw images from the 20D, but the more i use and work with my old camera, the more i embrace it and apreciate everything that makes it a truely great camera. And the sensor is not anywhere near that list in my opinion nor does it need to be.

</rant>

[Anders Östberg]

I have just started learning to use my 500/4, often at 700mm with the 1.4x. I say "learning to use" because it's not at all easy to get results with a long prime. When it's right it's really right, but the margin for error is small. So far I have really had better results with the 100-400, much easier to aquire a target using the zoom, and less problems associated with camera shake and the frame clipping parts of the target. Having said all that, I'll definitely keep at it, there's enough hints of what's possible to make it worth the effort. Just don't be fooled into thinking your images will magically become better with a super tele, on the contrary you will most likely have to start all over and learn some new techniques before the results start showing. One example; up until now I've always shot handheld, having to use a tripod can in itself be enough to put some people off. The 500/4 is a stunning lens though...

[KennyG]

I'll add another comment or two on the 500. All the big primes, except for the monster 1200, are very usable with a monopod. As with all lenses, what you use them for dictates how you should use them. Tracking a bird or plane in the sky needs a very different technique than following an F1 car running flat out for example. The first could mean the need to hand-hold the lens and the latter the use of a monopod. Static, or semi-static subjects, lend themselves to tripod systems and for 300mm and up, probably a good head system like the Wimberley.

The 300 and 500 are both good lenses for fitting into all the categories due to their power/weight ratio. The 400 and 600 are just plain heavy and hand holding is reserved for the super-fit. You have to think of use as much as reach when it comes to the bigger lenses. Do you really want to haul a really heavy 600, tripod and Wimberley a few miles, or are you even fit enough to do it? I used a 600 at Silverstone for two days and even carrying it on a monopod over my shoulder wasn't an experience I would like to repeat too regularly.

Shooting at 700mm with a shutter speed of 1/320 in a wind takes skill. The big lenses need more physical control when it is windy and you have to use the right monopod technique. I see 'beginners' holding the the monopod by the 'neck', often with a ball head, and they wonder why they can't get it stable. Hand on the camera and the other on top of the lens with a slight downward pressure, and no ball head - please. As Anders says, you have to learn to use a long prime as the margin for error is small.

[Andy_T]

If you have a 100-400, there are better things to spend $5,500 then on an extra 100mm. Go buy yourself a nice pro body and a 1.4 tc ......<snip>.....

It doesn't exactly answer the question posed in this thread, as it's referring to the 400 prime, but take a look at Scottes' excellent comparison of the 100-400 IS with the 400 prime: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=43436

One thing I remembered especially was the part on [emphasis in bold print put by me]:

Autofocus

The AF on the Prime rocks! It simply blows away the Zoom. The Prime on a 10D blows away the Zoom on a MkII. I'm not kidding. I'll take the Prime for birds in flight any day of the week, no questions asked. It rocks.

Best regards,
Andy