Lens for wildlife question

I am considering canon 600mm F4 non IS for my wildlife adventures. I currently own Sigma 150-600 which BTW I absolutely love. I want to ask here because that would be my main use and need the honest opinion. I think I have a few days to actually pick up the canon hopefully. I anyone has images or actually owns or owned both and can give me honest and constructive help I would really really appreciate the help.

You say that you love the 150-600, but where are the wildlife images that you've taken with it? Why do you think you need the 600?

I've been shooting and haven't really posted any on the site but I have uploaded a few to my flickr account. Between work and running around I haven't had a lot of time to post. I'll try and throw a few up tonight.

If I lay it all on the entire want list is or was the canon 600 non is or the sigma 300-800.... I want the reach but also want the crisp images. I dont edit so I have to get things right int he camera and I have noticed that since buying and using Sigma long telephotos that my pics wee getting better, I was thinking what a canon 600 L no less would do, even though it is a fixed lens I would of course in time learn to get some great images.

If you take a look at my flikr page I would really appreciate it. I will upload here when I get a chance

.

kcrunchone wrote in post #18078714
If I lay it all on the entire want list is or was the canon 600 non is or the sigma 300-800.... I want the reach but also want the crisp images.

You are mentioning two very long lenses that do not have any image stabilization. And you say that you want the crisp images. In order to achieve that with non-IS lenses, you really have to make support a top priority. I consider it an absolute "must" to have a very stable tripod and a top-of-the-line head such as the Wimberley. In my opinion, for someone to shoot wildlife with either of the two long lenses you mentioned without a really, really good tripod/head combo is pretty much a waste of time. And then just having the tripod and head is only a part of the equation - you then have to develop your long lens technique so that you can get the most out of your expensive tripod and head.

Using a truly big, long lens is really a whole different ballgame than using the Sigma or Tamron "superzoom" 150-600mm lenses. Especially so if there is no Image Stabilization. But do not be discouraged; the results that are possible with either of the two lenses you mention will allow you to capture great images in some situations where the 150-600 lenses would simply not work for what you are trying to do. It's hard to shoot an image with f4 depth of field when your lens only goes down to f6.3. And it's hard to get a good image at 800mm and at f5.6 when your lens only goes up to 600mm.

Add a 1.4 tele-converter to that 600 f4 and you have 840mm f5.6. That's going to produce an entirely different looking image than you would get if you shot the animal at 600mm f6.3 and then cropped to get the same framing. It will give you a look that you just won't be able to get with any of the 150-600mm f6.3 lenses, especially if you have background elements that you want to blur or if you are intending to make large prints.

.

I really don't print I mostly either post to flikr or IG but I have sold a few images that were actually printed. Not sure how large but I know it was used for medium size poster ad. Thanks for the advice, especially about the different aspect of the lenses. I know that I will have to develop technique and style through practice but I am up to and for the challenge. That's exactly why I posted because I know that on this forum I can always count on some great advice before impulse buying.

do you have a tripod set up for the lens? that lens would be significantly heavier than the 150-600C...you're going from 4lbs to 12lbs...also you mention not doing any post processing to your images, but on your flickr they all look heavily processed

Have you tried a 600 F4 before?

I have a 600 f4 IS and I can tell you its nothing like the 150-600's in size and weight or flexibility.
Its also a big investment, I'd recommend atleast having a play with one before buying one, even renting for a day, to see if it really suits your needs.

My honest opinion is that you don't need, and you're probably not ready for, an expensive lens like that. Your replies reveal that you don't know what questions to ask. Work with the lens that you love. Get closer to your subject to get sharper images. Expensive equipment doesn't make the photographer.

I won't be so presumptive as to tell you that you don't need the 600mm prime, but I will tell you that it's an entirely different experience from the Sigma zoom you've been using. It will take some serious support equipment and a lot of practice to get good with it, particularly since it doesn't have IS. Don't get discouraged if it takes a while.

The 600mm is over 13 pounds.
It is nearly DOUBLE the weight of the latest 500mm f/4L IS MkII !!!

Just for reflection, i will tell you I went through a similar step by step progress for my bird photography. At one point I went from a SIGMA 50-500mm "Bigma" up to a 500mm prime with no IS. There is no question that a big fast prime will help you make images that stand out from the slower zooms!

The differences here though are note worthy.

- That old 50-500mm though a good way to get your feet wet, was the original Non OS with middling sharpness and image quality as compared to other lenses available. Your SIGMA 150-600mm is a VERY different beast, with IQ and sharpness that would have been called "Prime like" back in the early to mid 2000's. You really aren't missing a lot with that lens. (exceptions, light gathering and subject isolation)

- The 500 Prime I went to was the SIGMA 500mm f/4.5 EX, which among fast long telephotos, is one of the lighter weight options. It was a great lens, and I used it for some time and truly loved the image quality and look iof a fast telephoto prime. But what it really taught me was that I wanted longer, and I wanted IS. The SIGMA was pants with a 1.4x Teleconverter. A Canon f/4 with IS would solve that. And it did. that was my next step, and I stuck with that lens for well over a decade.

IMHO, having shot with long lenses with and without IS/OS, both slow zooms, fast zooms and fast primes, my opinion is that 500mm is at the far reaches of what I'd consider to shoot without IS.

My feeling then, based on my own experiences is that one of the Mark 1 IS models would be a better option for many reasons. And given the weight of the 600's, I personally have stayed at 500mm. An f/4 will still offer a superb 700mm f/5.6 with a 1.4x t-con. And 700mm with IS is sweet!

I'd strongly suggest skipping the non is step, and use what you have and go straight to an IS model when you can afford that.

Now of course there are some that do not use IS, turn it off in fact. Maybe you'll end up one of them?


The mention of tripods is important. 16 pounds of gear needs a beefy tripod to shoot (for most of us anyway) Your looking at an additional $1K for a good set up for a 600mm.

kcrunchone wrote in post #18078623
I am considering canon 600mm F4 non IS for my wildlife adventures. I currently own Sigma 150-600 which BTW I absolutely love. I want to ask here because that would be my main use and need the honest opinion. I think I have a few days to actually pick up the canon hopefully. I anyone has images or actually owns or owned both and can give me honest and constructive help I would really really appreciate the help.

Just remember that Canon doesn't service the non is version of this lens anymore, and parts can be hard to find. The 600 is a great lens, but your investment will be much greater. Because the lens is so big you will need a larger bag, and rock solid support. Since you already have the 600mm reach you might benefit more by choosing to edit your images. If you do purchase the lens congrats, and we look forward to seeing some of your images.

Cyberdynesystems

Thanks I actually understand and see that you see my plight. I might rent one and have decided to wait. I'll go to the expo coming up and see what toys and gadgets I would like. I am going to definitely get a better tripod in the next few weeks the one I have kind of slide a bit but only under direct pressure. I really appreciate the time taken for the response and taking all advice very seriously. My main issue is always when I see someones images they look so tack sharp, and as I said I really dont do post work other that possibly crop and exposure that's about it. I have never gotten into a program that I have the time or patience for. That was my main reason for wanting to upgrade in glass.

aus morgos

thanks that idea has crossed my mind and I will rent one first to give it a spin before making any purchase. I have made other buys on impulse but this si much more substantial amount of money. Thank you.

Dredaze

I dont think my tripod can handle the load but will look into getting a better one in the coming weeks or wait for the expo and get one there. I dont post process and I thought that would be obvious from my shots LOL... Seriously I'll crop and do a bit of exposure here and there with what ever that windows editor has to offer but I dont have the patience as of yet. I enjoy shooting not so much the editing.