EF 500mm f5.6 IS

I really like that 2nd Oldsquaw image, Steve. At times it's nice to capture the whole scene and not just zoom in on one bird.

Yes I agree, that is what I look for when I know they are too far and I often end up with a nice shot.

Hi

I have had the 500mm f/4 IS before with wimberley head. Now I only use the 400mm 5.6 because I can easely handhold it.

I also wish that Canon produces lighter tele lenses, like a 500mm 5.6 IS and 400mm 5.6 IS.

Please sign a petition here for a Canon 500mm 5.6 IS.

http://www.gopetition.​com/online/35107.html

I have some 400mm 5.6 pics here

http://www.pbase.com …ark3_test_shoot​s&page=all

http://www.pbase.com …_f56_testgaller​y&page=all

http://www.pbase.com …k_iv_test_shoot​s&page=all

Best regards from Sweden

Omar Brännström

You can try a cheaper 500mm with IS right now - just rent a Sigma 150-500 OS and see what you think. I am betting you won't think that extra 20% of reach is worth all the fuss.

Lets go, we need lots more signatures !!

Hi

According to this test the 400mm 5.6 is sharper than the Nikon 200-400mm f/4 VR, and Canon 300mm 2.8 IS + 1.4xtc and 400mm f/4 DO IS and the Canon 100-400mm

http://www.naturescape​s.net …iewtopic.php?f=​1&t=127089

http://www.naturescape​s.net …92b2cc2ed333432​604aec293b

I think that my former 500mm gave me sharper photos than the 400mm 5.6 and even with tc on.

I would really like pro mini superteles

Best regards

Omar Brännström

Omar,

Your gallery is very impressive.

JPBones73 wrote in post #9876891
Omar,

Your gallery is very impressive.

Thanks!

Diver-Down wrote in post #9825404
since I shoot allot of flight shots and the bare 400 can barely keep up with those.

I really don't understand what else you want/need besides the extra 100mm (which is not a huge difference by the way) and how your 400 can barely keep up with BIF.
You are asking for faster AF? The 400mm is really, really fast. If you want faster AF you need shove out five or six times the price of the 400 for a small improvement. You might want to look into a faster focusing body like the 7D or a 1 series instead.
The IS is not a mayor factor in getting good BIF since you are already at very fast shutter speeds (above 1/1250 at least).
You want the same 5.6 aperture.
The 500 5.6IS would be a nice lens, but it is not clear to me why this would improve your pictures.

I'm just looking for a little bit more reach. I know that 100mm isn't a big difference but the distances I commonly shoot waterfowl at, 30 to 50 yards, that extra 100mm would make a difference. A big difference, no, but an improvement for sure. IS, yes it would be great to have on a 500 for still shots but I would still be happy with a non IS.

As far as AF speed, the 50D and 400 5.6 is already borderline for what I often shoot. A crossing shot at a hawk or a seagull, no problem. Incoming duck shots, just too many OOF shots. That's why I can't go to anything that will degrade AF speed.

I agree that a 7D or a 1D is my next logical upgrade, a 500mm 5.6 would be nice too.

500mm f5.6 IS.

If the price was $3,000 or less I would be all over it.

I'd buy one...

Omar Brännström wrote in post #9875333
Please sign a petition here for a Canon 500mm 5.6 IS.

http://www.gopetition.​com/online/35107.html

Please, say that it´s only a joke

MMX wrote in post #10403897
Please, say that it´s only a joke

19 have signed up by looks of it I don't think canon would build one with 19 sigs

I'd still buy one...