Breitling65 wrote:
Please try one day to shot against of sun light, I am interesting in results. Great ducks BTW, I am impressed how many types you have in your shots collection.
I will try. Usually I like to have the sun beaming into my back. However, quite often I end up having to shoot against a strong backlight, be it skyshine or water reflection, like on these three images below, shot with bare 500 f/4. In fact, I thought I got less subject washout than I expected, which is very good.
amirm wrote:
OP's observations match mine. A few years ago I tested a number of supertelephotos with and without 1.4 and 2.0 TCs. There is no question that you get more CA and other artifacts when you add a TC. As noted, the 300 f2.8 was least affected. And had the best performance with 2.0 TCs.
In my case, I bought the 500 and was frustrated by the slowed down AF on birds in flight. So I bought the 600 and that has been a welcome improvement in being able to shoot with the "naked" lens far more often than with the 500.
When using 2.0 TC, I always try to stop down if the background is clean and I have enough light. One or two stops makes a large difference....Show more →
Right, that is possibly because I been using stunning 300/F2.8L IS with any tc's lot before 500L. Not sure if any other Canon lens impressed me as much with optical performance...
Breitling65 wrote:
Right, that is possibly because I been using stunning 300/F2.8L IS with any tc's lot before 500L. Not sure if any other Canon lens impressed me as much with optical performance...
The 300 f/2.8 IS handles difficult exposure situations very well, while maintaining good contrast, colours and bokeh, without a need for manic postprocessing, assuming camera exposure was done reasonably well. See examples below for some fairly tough exposure conditions I've encountered today.
In fact, because of its f/2.8 nominal aperture, much lower weight/bulk and faster focusing, whenever possible at all I will use 300 f/2.8 as opposed to 500 f/4 or even 500 f/4.5.
PetKal wrote:
The 300 f/2.8 IS handles difficult exposure situations very well, while maintaining good contrast, colours and bokeh, without a need for manic postprocessing, assuming camera exposure was done reasonably well. See examples below for some fairly tough exposure conditions I've encountered today.
In fact, because of its f/2.8 nominal aperture, much lower weight/bulk and faster focusing, whenever possible at all I will use 300 f/2.8 as opposed to 500 f/4 or even 500 f/4.5.
PetKal:
Can you post up a few from your 500 f4.5 as well? (just bought one of those myself and I'm waiting for it to show up.)
Here you go, one of my favourites taken with the 500 f/4.5L.
BTW, I have to look at full exif in order to see which 500mm lens a shot was taken with. Those two lenses have practically indistinguishable IQ, although I'd perhaps give a very small edge to the f./4 version.....and not quite sure about it either.
I've always wanted a 500 f4 L IS so I figured a (much) cheaper 4.5 version would be a nice way to figure out if I'll use it enough to justify dropping the extra $.
p.3 #11 · 500L owners, lens performance with 1.4tc
rd4tile wrote:
Thanks, I love threads like this!
I've always wanted a 500 f4 L IS so I figured a (much) cheaper 4.5 version would be a nice way to figure out if I'll use it enough to justify dropping the extra $.
If the lens is representative of its design, I don't think you will be disappointed. Granted, you might feel the need for IS as handholding it requires good steadiness. If you will have it tripod mounted, then that is not a big deal. Also, depending on what you like to photograph, you might find out that the AF drive speed is very unremarkable.
Here is another one taken with the 500 f/4.5 from the other day: a Hoodlum Vergaser hen.
However, quite often I end up having to shoot against a strong backlight, be it skyshine or water reflection, like on these three images below, shot with bare 500 f/4. In fact, I thought I got less subject washout than I expected, which is very good.
