EF 500mm f5.6 IS

400mm is often to short and I can't afford a super telephoto.

I just got back from 2 days of shooting waterfowl and I am a little frustrated with 400mm. I find it's just too short for soo many shots and a TC really isn't an option since I shoot allot of flight shots and the bare 400 can barely keep up with those.

You can't tell me this lens wouldn't be a huge seller. Any guesses on how much this lens would weigh and cost ?

Come on Canon, forget updating the 400 5.6 and make us a 500 5.6 IS

Diver-Down wrote in post #9825404
400mm is often to short and I can't afford a super telephoto.

I just got back from 2 days of shooting waterfowl and I am a little frustrated with 400mm. I find it's just too short for soo many shots and a TC really isn't an option since I shoot allot of flight shots and the bare 400 can barely keep up with those.

You can't tell me this lens wouldn't be a huge seller. Any guesses on how much this lens would weigh and cost ?

Come on Canon, forget updating the 400 5.6 and make us a 500 5.6 IS

5.6 and IS on a 500mm lens? going from the price schemes, likely about $2k-$2500. Weight? 1.75-2kg if you're lucky.

You should consider a camera with higher pixel density, like the 7d and stick to the 400

How about using the 300 2.8 with the 1.4 and 2 TC? Gives you 420 4.0 and 600 5.6 with IS.

Mark

I think a 300 2.8 + a 2x is going to be a little slow, and with a 1.4x probably still no faster than a 400 5.6. Plus that's still out of my price range.

$2k-$2500 is exactly what I was thinking, that's do-able.

I would love a 500mm 5.6 IS and think it would be a huge seller for Canon. As for price I think it may be a little closer to $3k, but would be a great option for those who just can't afford to step up to the 500mm F4.

I'd be all over one of these.

LSV wrote in post #9825733
You should consider a camera with higher pixel density, like the 7d and stick to the 400

Agreed. You need fast AF - so get a better body, 7d or IdIII.

Put 500 on for BIF - can you find the bird ?

Stick to 400, improve AF and cropability.

A damn sight cheaper, and your better body will be better across the whole range of your lenses.

Mike.

I don't think that we'll ever see a 500 5.6L IS. Most birders don't shoot wide open except in very low light, and most sports shooters don't use 500mm. The 500 4.0L IS is really a niche lens for birds and wildlife. Putting out a 5.6 IS version that costs $2,500 less would be Canon competing against itself. I can possibly see a non-IS version, since some shooters are very hung-up on IS and would spring for the 500 4.0L regardless.

I'm interested to see if the 600 DO becomes reality. (The patent has been filed already.) I could never afford it, but I would rent it for a trip or two for reach without the weight.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but here it is:
Going from a 400 to a 500 isn't going to give you much better BIF images. If you're not close enough to get great images with the 400, then simply changing to a 500 isn't going to make the images as good as you'd like them to be. The 400 f5.6 on your 50D is actually giving you 640mm of effective focal length, along with a great degree of pixel density.
I would suggest putting more effort into getting closer to your subjects. Perhaps you need to travel to locations where the birds are more abundant and/or more tolerant of humans getting close.
The best images usually come from being close to your subject, not from greatly increased effective focal length.

400 f/5.6 plus 1.4x is 560mm f/8, autofocuses on the 1D. Cheapest way to get that kind of focal length is on a 1D Mark II, very affordable these days, less than a 50D used.

hpulley wrote in post #9868553
400 f/5.6 plus 1.4x is 560mm f/8, autofocuses on the 1D. Cheapest way to get that kind of focal length is on a 1D Mark II, very affordable these days, less than a 50D used.

But it's still very slow at f8. Do you remember what the OP said:

Diver-Down wrote in post #9825404
a TC really isn't an option since I shoot allot of flight shots and the bare 400 can barely keep up with those.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #9869046
But it's still very slow at f8. Do you remember what the OP said:

Well, I wasn't sure which slow they meant, slow to focus or slow f-stop. I know the 50D won't focus AT ALL with the 400 f/5.6 + TC so I wasn't sure if they meant they can't manually focus it. I find f/8 is plenty of f-stop for flight shots unless it is very cloudy or at dusk.

I mainly shoot waterfowl and have been traveling to the NJ coast, from PA to shoot. I have some pretty decent places to get close to the birds down there but it just seems that the ducks know the range of a 400mm lens There are some situations where the 400 is just right but too many times I feel like if I could just be 10 yards closer or have another 100mm it would make the difference in an ok shot to an excellent shot.

I don't consider a TC an option for flight shots due to AF speed: as in taping the pins or using it with a 1D, I'm not even considering MF.

I have been thinking of going to a used Mark III. I think gaining AF with the 1.4X would be very helpful for non flight shots and the more advanced AF system and the bare 400 should be able to keep up better with fast moving birds.

The thing I'm not sure about is loosing 5mp along with the .3 crop factor as I tend to crop my shots quite a bit ??

Diver-Down wrote in post #9870187
The thing I'm not sure about is loosing 5mp along with the .3 crop factor as I tend to crop my shots quite a bit ??

I just bought a 50D for this very reason! I will use it as my primary BIF body (even though I have a 1Dmk2). Why crop away half of the pixels when you can use a body that already crops it for you (in a manner of speaking) and has much better pixel density? I think your current setup can yield some very good waterfowl images.
By the way have you shot the waterfowl from a blind? If they know that you're there they will keep out of 400mm distance. But if they think they're alone they will come surprisingly close.

The attached image is virtually uncropped, with a full frame 5D. The geese didn't know anyone was around because I was in a blind. It does require patience to sit there still - especially when there's nothing around and you're just waiting. But it really pays off if you wait it out.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Generally I do not shoot from a blind, although I know I need to start doing that more. I do have a photography blind that I use sometimes but without setting decoys it's still tough depending on the location. I just used it on a trip last week at a WMA and got a bunch of nice shoveler shots that were all too far away.

Also got some cool shots of oldsquaws in the surf, but next time I will have waders on so I can get that extra 10 yards closer

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'