p.1 #1 · BIF Photography: 800L vs. (600 II + 1.4xTC III)
My tests were done mostly on pijuns in head-on flight, and some Mallards and Mergansers, but those were of secondary importance because they represented a significantly easier target.
The camera was 1DX. The 600 II + 1.4xTC shots were mostly done in poorer light than 800L shots. That in itself would pose a notable handicap for 600 II based combo.
Based on all that, the conclusion is that for my particular lens copies, on my BIF test targets, and with my style of shooting, 600 II + 1.4xTC III is a better/more effective BIF photography instrument than 800L. It is obviously hard to quantify those things, but perhaps I can say something like 30% better, i.e., I am not talking frivolous differences here.
Not only that the 600 II based combo is a bit easier to handhold and swing, its AF is markedly more responsive even on the full focusing distance limiter setting (where 800L is nothing but trouble), and AF appears more accurate too. Lastly, the combo's IQ is at least as good as that of 800L.
p.1 #2 · BIF Photography: 800L vs. (600 II + 1.4xTC III)
PetKal wrote: Based on all that, the conclusion is that for my particular lens copies, on my BIF test targets, and with my style of shooting, 600 II + 1.4xTC III is a better/more effective BIF photography instrument than 800L. It is obviously hard to quantify those things, but perhaps I can say something like 30% better, i.e., I am not talking frivolous differences here.
Not only that the 600 II based combo is a bit easier to handhold and swing, its AF is markedly more responsive even on the full focusing distance limiter setting (where 800L is nothing but trouble), and AF appears more accurate too. Lastly, the combo's IQ is at least as good as that of 800L. ...Show more →
Peter,
I just want to make sure I understand what you meant. When you referred to the approximately 30% better, did you mean the AF and/or handling since you said that the IQ of the 600mm plus 1.4X combo was at least as good as the 800mm? Is that based on the number of keepers from both setups? Thanks!
p.1 #3 · BIF Photography: 800L vs. (600 II + 1.4xTC III)
Joshua, that is a kinda composite number which includes ease of capture (translates to keeper rate) as well as quality. To put it differently, the combo in my experience is not only more effective, it is also somewhat less strenuous in use.
If/when I manage to find a suitable low profile replacement foot for 600 II, that would also facilitate its handheld use. On 800L I have the 4th Gen Design replacement foot which IMO is the best of the bunch for a heavy long lens.
Secondly, I was tempted to do the comparison on fly-by Mallards because those are more common as a target, and I could have wrapped up my testing much earlier.
However, I decided on a much harder test type which made the lenses, the camera and myself groan.
p.1 #6 · BIF Photography: 800L vs. (600 II + 1.4xTC III)
Aah, Peter, you based that mostly on your handhold ability of both setups then. I can see that the 800mm is more strenuous to use..... especially for "old folks" like us . But if a tripod with gimbal head or at least a monopod is used for both, the situation changes somewhat then.
p.1 #9 · BIF Photography: 800L vs. (600 II + 1.4xTC III)
AGeoJO wrote:
Aah, Peter, you based that mostly on your handhold ability of both setups then. I can see that the 800mm is more strenuous to use..... especially for "old folks" like us . But if a tripod with gimbal head or at least a monopod is used for both, the situation changes somewhat then.
With pods the ease of use would be excellent, but the effectiveness would plummet with both options, i.e., no keepers.
I do not wanna overplay the difference in handholding strain......which is minor and less important in short term.
p.1 #11 · BIF Photography: 800L vs. (600 II + 1.4xTC III)
Scott Stoness wrote:
I am smiling when I read this with my 600 v2 in my closet (next to my forlorn old 500 v1).
Thanks for the test.
Scott
Well, Scott, at least you are hearing it from someone who owns and uses both lenses, and therefore has no single ownership viewpoint, nor an axe to grind since I haven't designed either of those lenses.
p.1 #14 · BIF Photography: 800L vs. (600 II + 1.4xTC III)
PetKal wrote:
If/when I manage to find a suitable low profile replacement foot for 600 II, that would also facilitate its handheld use. On 800L I have the 4th Gen Design replacement foot which IMO is the best of the bunch for a heavy long lens.
I'm also on the lookout for a lightweight low profile replacement foot....I think this model just started shipping a day or two ago...
p.1 #18 · BIF Photography: 800L vs. (600 II + 1.4xTC III)
PetKal wrote:
Sorry, Fred, that info is classified.
Petkal a.k.a. Supertelemaster
I've a deep sea fishing pole I tied/built myself from scratch...can't use it or the Peen Senator 6/O with 80lb braided nylon line...had a 9ft SoCal Blue on it once, they like to spin when hooked, nearly took my kit, but I landed it, why keep it... had some great times feeding the family with yellow tail and cow/ling cod caught around Point Loma and the Coronado Islands...sentimental reasons perhaps
Peter, keep that big white Supertelemaster...just because!
p.1 #20 · BIF Photography: 800L vs. (600 II + 1.4xTC III)
dolina wrote:
A tad OT but how is the balance between the 600v2 and 500v1? I know 50g differentiates the two.
Hand held the 500 still seems quite a bit lighter and easier to handle. I imagine it's because the front element on the 600 is larger and longer. I haven't used a 500 on a gimbal, but I preferred the weight of the 600 MkI IS to the 600MkII. It took some time to get used to the light and flighty feel of the MkII where the balance point is now closer to the camera body meaning the front end moves further with smaller camera movements.
. But if a tripod with gimbal head or at least a monopod is used for both, the situation changes somewhat then.