500mm f4 mk1 - any alternatives?

413x

413x

413x

Caporegime
Joined
13 Jan 2010
Posts
33,192
Location
Llaneirwg
Right. I'm gonna go for one of the long primes

More and more I'm finding I'm at the long end of my sigma 120-300mm
Also don't seem to be getting to any sporting events
Thus I'm thinking maybe I should get 70-200mm and a super tele and sell the sigma

The only one I can justify seems to be used canon 500mm f4 any thing more is far too heavy and expensive
I can't really justify mkii

The 200-400mm 1.4tc again is bit much

Plan is that I would hope such a lens would take 1.4x easy (potentially a 2x) and with my 70d be looking at effective length of over 1000mm (taking canon 1.6x into the equation)


Any views on this idea and particularly real world experience with such a lens?

I understand it's 3.9kg which is my main concern for those hand hold pics, I can manage that with 2.9 sigma ok)

Bottom line is.. Its this lens hand holdable?
I'm not sure if it's workable if not
 
The lens is not hand holdable, tripod mount with gimball head.Even ignoring the weight at those focal lengths have holding just becomes impossible. You wont get the shutter speeds needed. Big hefty men occasionally use the 500mm hand hold for brief periods of time for Birds in flight but in general not. I don't really understand your aversion to using a tripod - the size and weight of this lens is such that you don't want to be hand holding it.


Saying that it is by far the most manageable of the big super teles (although the latest 400mm from Canon and Nikon have saved a load of weight).



I'm in much the same situation and the the 500mm f/4.0 is at the top of the list. The others are heavier, bigger, and more expensive. The 600mm is preferable for a reach point of view but it is so big it is hard to fly with (wont fit in regional planes over head lockers).


These lenses take the 1.4xTC OK. The most most critical pros give some critique and will take the longer lenses but that just isn't practical or affordable for mortals. The 2.0x tends not to be so good, functional but you loose critical sharpness and focus degrades too much. It would be a very unwieldy setup on a crop camera.





The other options to look at are a 150-600mm Tamron or Sigma. The Sigma C and Tamron version are hand holdable but again, at that focal length a tripod really helps.


You save a lot of money, a lot of weight and get an extra 100mm. If you were planning to use the TC on the 500mm then there is only 1/3rd of a stop difference which is mostly irrelevant.




the main reasons not to get the 500mm f/4.0 are:
it is 'only' f/4.0, so you are a full stop slower than the 400mm
It is 'only' 500mm, for bird you probably want 600 or the 800mm.
Despite those compromises it is still big and heavy and needs a tripod.
 
Fair enough and good point regarding hand holding and keeping still as I do find that tricky with 120-300mm + extender and thus this may well be impossible

Sounds like I need to get used to a tripod

One good thing is that weight isn't really an issue in that case.
Anything over is just not going to happen. The logistics and cost make it prohibitive for hobby
Anything over f4 again falls under same

Yep I also forgot about the minimum aperture with 2x tc. I suspect 1.4 is max in all regards. Still that more than doubles the focal length of my 120-300mm f2.8 + 1.4tc (which is debatable as to if I was even tolerate a tc on mine)
 
Personally I'd always recommend the 200-400. I know it's one, if not the most expensive great white out there currently but there's a reason for that.

If I knew I was going to do 90% birds then a 500/600F4 or even an 800mm would be fine but I like to do everything. There are so many scenarios where those lenses are useless that it seems silly to spend thousands on a lens like that if you don't have the money to also have a good lenses in the 100-300mm range. I'd love a 70-200mm F2.8 mk2 but it's not a necessity for me. I have a 200mm lens, it's a damn heavy 200mm lens but at least it's there. 200-400 is a nice range and the quality is fantastic and then you can flip a switch to get 320-560 and the quality is still very good. If you really want to then you can use another 1.4tc and still get good results at 784mm.

With regards to the weight, I thought the mk1 lenses were heavier but I just checked the mk1 500mm weight and it's only 200g heavier than my 200-400 (3800ish grams instead of 3600ish). It's definitely not a simple job to handhold something like that but with the right technique it's definitely doable. A monopod or tripod will always be more stable but there is no best solution here. I had my 200-400 almost exclusively on a tripod or monopod for around 8 months before I got bored of dragging the extra weight/bulk around.

More recently I've made an effort to keep working on handholding it and I like the results. A tripod or monopod is nowhere as reactive to anything that happens quickly and spontaneously such as wildlife. If you're in a hide then the answer is obvious but I like walking around and then it's jus a pain in the ass to have to setup quick on birds that suddenly appear.

As for weight on monopods/tripods, I don't need those to be rock solid, I just need it to be able to hold the weight. I'm not going to long exposures so some flex is fine. I just need it to support the weight while I keep the lens stable.
 
Oh yeah. If I could justify the cost I would. But it 7k (and that's import too) and the 500mm is 4k used
That's nearly 2x the cost.
Cheaper for me to keep both 120-300mm and get 500mm
It means I can't even sell the 120-300mm and get the 200-400mm as I'd still be down 2k
I'd say if it performs as well as it does (and ability to just flip the TC) then I can see why you got it and it is indeed worth it.

Alas it is just too much.

I still don't know how much use I'd get out of 500mm if I'm honest as it's very much niche
 
You can indeed keep the two lenses and save money but would you ever take both out? Then you factor in the time it takes to switch lenses should you ever need to. Also factor in the bigger performance hit that regular lenses take with the TC in place. It's not simple to quantify the cost benefit of the 200-400 vs regular primes.

The 200-400mm also seems to have a much better minimum focus distance compared to the big primes. With a 25mm tube fitted I can get 0.52 magnification compared to 0.22 maximum with a 500mk2 (the mk1 is lower still). That means I can use this for Butterfly/Dragonfly macro too or anything else I can get close enough to.

500mm isn't that niche I don't think? I think you could definitely get a lot of use out of 500mm for wildlife. Mine is at 560mm about 75% of the time for wildlife. I guess if I was going to use a 500mm prime, I'd probably want a separate body with a 200mm prime too or a 70-200 but that's just more and more weight.

Looks like the new 400mm DO mk2 won't be much cheaper either which is a shame! Also a shame that the mk1 version is still so damn expensive considering the performance.

At the end of the day, whatever telephoto you end up buying, it's a big investment :\ my logic (if I can call it that lol) is that if I'm spending 4-5k on a lens then what's another 1-2k? lol. Obviously if you're trying to buy it outright then it's a lot of money to wait for and save up. If you're getting some kind of loan though... It's a bit more every month and another year on the loan or something? That's just another year that you'll be using the lens in my head.
 
The 500 can be handheld and if you want to track birds and not just sit in the same spot I'd say get a monopod and a suitable head. At 1000mm the atmospheric distortion or lack of technique or simply framing your target is going to kill your pics probably long before anything else. Really practice that long lens technique or get a 100-400mm.
 
Last edited:
There are advantages of having everything covered in one lens (200-400) but the disadvtanges outweigh them in my opinion.
If you're taking portraits do you really want to be hauling a 3.6kg 200mm F4 lens around when you could go for a £600 135 F2 or 200 F2.8 prime which only weigh around 800g and have a much faster aperture. Likewise for Macro subjects.

Wildlife always demands more reach so my choice would be the 500mm F4 and get some fast primes for 80mm to 300mm if you need that covered.
 
SDK^ said:
There are advantages of having everything covered in one lens (200-400) but the disadvtanges outweigh them in my opinion.
If you're taking portraits do you really want to be hauling a 3.6kg 200mm F4 lens around when you could go for a £600 135 F2 or 200 F2.8 prime which only weigh around 800g and have a much faster aperture. Likewise for Macro subjects.

Wildlife always demands more reach so my choice would be the 500mm F4 and get some fast primes for 80mm to 300mm if you need that covered.
Click to expand...

I would never try to sell the 200-400mm as a portrait lens but then again handholding at 200mm is very easy. This is also the reason that I keep my 100mm F2.8L with me :) Don't get me wrong, I'd love to have a 70-200mm too but it really wouldn't get much use in comparison with my type of shooting.

The 200-400mm doesn't replace my 100mm altogether but it does where Butterflies and Dragonflies are concerned so far! Shooting from something like 1.5 meters away instead of 30-40cm away is such a blessing. The magnification for smaller insects isn't there but those are easier to approach with the 100mm anyway.

The disadvantages of the 200-400 aren't numerous when compared to any other big white lens. Weight, cost and size are always a factor. Image quality is also similar.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom