Lars Johnsson wrote:
I'm sure there is a handful of photographers that don't think so also.........
With respect to AF speed, a lot will depend on the camera used, the shooting conditions, and the preferred user custom settings.
With respect to image quality, I want to see what they see. I want to see a comparison where the 800 shows better image quality than the 600 II + 1.4 TC III.
Having done some "looking" prior to buying my 600II, I did see plenty of information that the 600II and 1/4 III was certainly up to the 800 in every way with a modern camera such as the 7D, 5DIII or 1DX.
I went for the 600 because it was a lighter, smaller package and every bit as usable.
Will it replace the 800? Don't know. But I think the 600 II and 800 will be about neck and neck in the market place for some time to come.
The 800 is an incredibly good lens as is the 600 so only time will tell what will be net. In my "looking" I saw as many loving the 800 as the 600.
Everyones mileage will vary. It will be interesting to see what comes out of it.
Best wishes.
3iron wrote:
I went for the 600 because it was a lighter, smaller package and every bit as usable.
Lighter it definitely is. Smaller (e.g. volume, girth) it ain't, especially with the hood on. Even when the hood is not on the lens for shooting, it is reverse mounted for transport, so its size impacts you at all times. (The bare 800 is only 13mm longer than the bare 600 II. However, once you mount 1.4xTC on the 600, the resulting bare combo becomes a bit longer than the 800. )
BTW, have you used your 600 with the hood on in windy conditions yet ?
Matt Howell wrote:
Arthur Morris proves the real money to be made in photography is not in photography itself, but in selling the idea of photography to a bunch of amateurs.
I should borrow one of those from Canon, really. I'm sure some pano landscapes would be amazing, if there air were clear enough for the uses I have in mind.
I should borrow one of those from Canon, really. I'm sure some pano landscapes would be amazing, if there air were clear enough for the uses I have in mind.
I think you'd do better with shorter lenses for that purpose, such as 200 f/1.8, 300 f/2.8 IS or 400 f/2.8 IS. Even 70-200 f/2.8 IS MkII.
PetKal wrote:
A new top-of-the-line bird photography setup, e.g. 800L + 1DX, will set you back by close to $20,000.
However, it is also possible to do fine bird photography using a setup which costs 10% of that, such as 1DMkIII + 400 f/5.6.
I shouldn't say I have no interest -- I actually enjoy looking at all the great images that gear like that can produce. You are definitely right that you can get pretty darn good shots with a less expensive set up. I'd probably have to have 2 bodies with the cheaper set up, since I wouldn't want to lug a 1 series backpacking. I suppose a the best solution would be a 5D III in that case, but then the $$ start creeping up again. I was happy for a long time shooting with relatively cheap gear, which seems to be easier if wildlife isn't one of your things.
Paul
PetKal wrote:
Someone sent me this link to an article by A. Morris where he compares his 800L lens to the new 600 f/4 IS MkII which he seems to have ordered..
Where is the article you speak of? I clicked on that link, and it took me to what appeared to be a large B&H advertisement that repeated over and over...
molson wrote:
Where is the article you speak of? I clicked on that link, and it took me to what appeared to be a large B&H advertisement that repeated over and over...
Tim Kuhn wrote:
I read AM's article with great interest when it came out. He does indeed have a reputation for pumping the latest from Canon but I also don't think he is alone in doing this
The article is interesting and I believe for the most quite part factual. The 800 for some is a highly specialized lens and quite difficult for the unskilled to handle. Just look at the results from different photographers using the 800. I do think the article has some glaring oversights and even some contradictory statements. In the all exalted sharpness test, once again a FLAT, 2 dimensional, practically speaking, subject is used. This is great if one is photograph posters. What that doesn't tell you is how long sharp focus took to lock on or anything else mildly practical. My favorite section of the review is the ole "600 + 2x" section. Now we are entering the point of uber long lenses. The 600 = 2x gives the overpowering extra 80mm when talking within the 1100-1200mm range, a pretty insignificant amount, 6.66% of 1200. Followed by, " I am pretty sure that Arash, with his great concern for extremely sharp fine detail, would rarely if ever use the 2X III TC with his 600II" pretty much giving the long reach advantage to the 800 and that is the point of the 800, reach. Also with all the talk of using TC's on the 600 is there ever any empirical evidence offered for focus speed. Is AF speed all that important? For some no, but for others it is vital.
I'm not knocking the 600 in anyway, it is a tremendous lens. I'm just pointing out what to me are some interesting omissions to the article.
The most glaring mistake in AM's article is the table showing magnification at MFD in which it shows the 800mm at .12. That is incorrect and was the mag of the old 600mm. The 800mm is .14 as compared to the new 600mm wihich is .15 which narrows down that defeciency of the 800mm considerabley.
I've had or used nearly every supertele Canon has made in the EF mount and can tell you the 800mm is a great lens. When I traded my old 600mm IS in for the new 800 I saved considerable weight and the 800mm outperformed my old 600mm in every way. Now will I dump the 800mm for the new 600mm? Not likely, Im sure new 600 is a great lens but with my setup I may trade my 500mm F4 for the new version which I would think would go very well with my 800mm.
He may have a glowing review but I will take his advice from the book
The Art of Bird Photography The Complete Guide to Professional Field Techniques - Arthur Morris copyright 1998,2003 Chapter 1 Choosing the right equipment pg 21
"Choosing and purchasing a camera system and a telephoto lens today is a daunting and expensive proposition.....Surely you will want to research and test various brands before purchasing a telephoto lens.
Read but also be wary of,the products reviews in various photography magazines. (My favorite lens the Canon EF 400mm F5.6L, was trashed in a review by one of the top photography magazines.) On the otherhand , be wary of glowing reports."
----------
Yes maybe the 600II + 1.4X is the new darling over the 800, but like any fad, times change, new gear is released. At one time his fav was the old 800L FD, from the book it became the 400 5.6, eventually the 800L now it appears it is the 600 II+ 1.4X. That may change again if the rumored 800 II is true or if Nikon's rumored 800 is a hit.
At the end of the day flagships will change as new ships are built. This is great for those who don't mind 2nd hand gear as there will always be the rush to get the latest flagships which will benefit those in the 2nd hand market.
Now Peter why didn't you tell me this before
"A new top-of-the-line bird photography setup, e.g. 800L + 1DX, will set you back by close to $20,000."
If I knew all I needed was a 1DX............Here I thought all along it was all about the MP war.
BTW, your Romanian language is pretty good, ole bean. 
