bman212121 wrote:
The focal length has a bigger difference on depth of field than aperture does, so you can easily make up for it provided you can still frame the subject at a narrow FoV.
A lot of people forget this. If the longer focal length lets you fill the frame better, the slower aperture is a wash. I once posted a side-by-side comparison of a 200mm f/2.8 shot cropped to the same FOV as a 560mm f/8 shot. The background blur was virtually identical.
Flowernut wrote:
I just added an arca base to the 150-600 f5.6L lens. worked great. Used it on tripod. It was a fantastic lens designed over 40 years ago. Imagine what they could do now with modern designs and materials. Many had Century Optics modifications which included a change to a "C" mount. Saw them used in places like lamar valley in Yellowstone for wildlife filming. One had David attenborough's name on it although I have no idea if he ever owned it. It was lenses like this that convinced people professional work could be done with a zoom lens.
I'd rather have a lens like this and add a 1.4x if I needed 800. ...Show more →
If Canon makes a xxx - 600 mm f/5.6 zoom lens, the chances are that it will be the 100-300 f/2.8 with a 2x teleconverter built into it. Out of curiosity, would you consider buying such a lens, at a price higher than what the 100-300 goes for?
bman212121 wrote:
Then you'd be happy to know that if you can get the subject in the frame, 800 F9 is more shallow than 500 F4.
I put the numbers in for full frame, 800 f9 @ 50'. Depth of Field (DoF) is around 7" on that combination. It's 8.21" on 500 F4 @ 50'. The focal length has a bigger difference on depth of field than aperture does, so you can easily make up for it provided you can still frame the subject at a narrow FoV. (The Field of View is only 2' 3" at 800, where it's 3' 7" at 500)
If you framed in at 635mm F8 you'd get 10" DoF on a 2' 10" wide frame with the subject 50' away. That is probably big enough for a lot of smaller critters, but things like swans you might need to back up or zoom out to frame....Show more →
You are right about this. I often use the 500 f4 with 2x converter. The 1000 F8 gives a very shallow depth of field. I also have to be careful with backgroud then because bokeh is very busy with the 2x. So I will have to buy, borrow or rent one to know for sure what would be the real world result for what I shoot.
Saw on CR today that Canon Japan has already issued the low stock notice for this and the 24-105 F/2.8 lens. Not surprising. We'll see how much this affects the US. This is my first preorder. I think I got in about 5 minutes after launch at Adorama. I'm actually not too stressed about it. I'm just hoping to have it before the Soccer season starts back up in March.
I guess that indicates its pretty popular at least in terms of the number of folks pre-ordering.
The weight of the 100-500 also includes the collar, and then the weight difference is barely more than 1 lbs. Without the collar, the difference is more like 1.5 lbs than 2 anyway.
alundeb wrote:
The weight of the 100-500 also includes the collar, and then the weight difference is barely more than 1 lbs. Without the collar, the difference is more like 1.5 lbs than 2 anyway.
Add the ½ lb TC the 100-500 and even less difference.
Imagemaster wrote:
I have a second 100-500 and it has no AF problems with either TC on my R6 II, just as I had no AF problems with my first 100-500 on my R7.
As an owner of the 100-500, I certainly would not get the 200-800 to replace it. JMO
I have never seen a video accurately showing the AF speed of a lens compared to other lenses.
Shooting with an R6 and when using the 1.4x/100-500mm combo it will hunt for proper focus at times when a bird is in the distance (large enough to know the type bird but not close enough yet to get a good shot) or while panning a bird flying by.
The issue while panning could be me getting too far in front or behind the bird and I've also thought it could be using too many focus points but even narrowing it down to the center focus point it happens. The R6 is the most setting rich camera I've owned (still learning what all is under the hood) and may be missing a setting that might cure things. Surely Canon no longer has the "good copy/bad copy" issues of years gone by.
I like the 100-500mm but with the AF instability, the 200-800mm does have appeal.
coppertop wrote:
Shooting with an R6 and when using the 1.4x/100-500mm combo it will hunt for proper focus at times when a bird is in the distance (large enough to know the type bird but not close enough yet to get a good shot) or while panning a bird flying by.
The issue while panning could be me getting too far in front or behind the bird and I've also thought it could be using too many focus points but even narrowing it down to the center focus point it happens. The R6 is the most setting rich camera I've owned (still learning what all is under the hood) and may be missing a setting that might cure things. Surely Canon no longer has the "good copy/bad copy" issues of years gone by.
I like the 100-500mm but with the AF instability, the 200-800mm does have appeal.
Sounds to me like you are assuming the AF instability is the fault of the 100-500, and not the R6 or the user. If that is correct, you would probably have the same AF instability with the 200-800. It still impresses me that the R6 II/100-500 combo with a 2x TC, will lock on birds at a very great distance.
800/9 should really be able to obliterate a bg. Might not sound like it at f/9 but cutting those numbers in half you get 400/4.5 so it should be able to get rid of a bg like 400/4 and 300/2.8, maybe even a bit better. Longer FL.
coppertop wrote:
Shooting with an R6 and when using the 1.4x/100-500mm combo it will hunt for proper focus at times when a bird is in the distance (large enough to know the type bird but not close enough yet to get a good shot) or while panning a bird flying by.
The issue while panning could be me getting too far in front or behind the bird and I've also thought it could be using too many focus points but even narrowing it down to the center focus point it happens. The R6 is the most setting rich camera I've owned (still learning what all is under the hood) and may be missing a setting that might cure things. Surely Canon no longer has the "good copy/bad copy" issues of years gone by.
I like the 100-500mm but with the AF instability, the 200-800mm does have appeal.
I have used the 100-500 extensively on the R5 and R7, and I have had serious issues with the AF. Please note: _I_ have issues, not the R5 or R7 or before the R7 the R10. They all did or do well if I did do my part. My problem is that I mostly shoot from a small boat which makes it far harder to get the "first contact" right and the AF goes wild, in relation to my wishes that is. On firm ground or on rare mirror seas my hit rate improves drastically.
Sometimes I think we demand too much of our toys, especially AF wise.
Of course it _can_ be the lens. But I would not put much of my money on that bet. Rather perhaps 10/90 on body/photographer.
Sounds to me like you are assuming the AF instability is the fault of the 100-500, and not the R6 or the user. If that is correct, you would probably have the same AF instability with the 200-800. It still impresses me that the R6 II/100-500 combo with a 2x TC, will lock on birds at a very great distance.
I got that you are shooting with the R6 MkII and not the R6.
And not assuming anything.
Could be the lens, could be the teleconverter, could be the camera and it could be the user. Heck, it could be solar flares for all I know. I'll just dig around the settings to see if I'm missing something.
Z250SA wrote:
I have used the 100-500 extensively on the R5 and R7, and I have had serious issues with the AF. Please note: _I_ have issues, not the R5 or R7 or before the R7 the R10. They all did or do well if I did do my part. My problem is that I mostly shoot from a small boat which makes it far harder to get the "first contact" right and the AF goes wild, in relation to my wishes that is. On firm ground or on rare mirror seas my hit rate improves drastically.
Sometimes I think we demand too much of our toys, especially AF wise.
Of course it _can_ be the lens. But I would not put much of my money on that bet. Rather perhaps 10/90 on body/photographer. ...Show more →
The R6 has more settings and adjustments than any other camera I have owned. I began shooting 36 years ago when manual focus was the only game in town and it's hard to imagine we kept pace with college football/basketball games, birds in flight and other moving subjects. If I am the root cause of this issue, it is due to a lack of experience with the settings, not the camera.
Hence the statement that I may be missing something. Again, I'll research the settings and see what I can find that might improve AF performance with the 100-500mm when I'm using the 1.4x TC. Just thought I'd toss it out here to see if anyone had any insight.
And shooting from boats is very challenging. Fun trying to time everything with the wave action.
It’s another episode of… Canon releases a product with a lot of potential and mucks it all up with lazy design.
Great idea, terrible execution. The spread of apertures is worse than a 150-600/200-600/180-600. No internal zooming. No removable foot. No arca swiss built in. Lazy all around. Compare Canon and Nikon and it’s astounding. 400 4.5, 600 6.3, 800 6.3, 180-600. I just don’t get Canon anymore. What am I gonna do with f9 at dusk? They could have used DO tech and made it f6.3 on the long end. That would have been crazy cool.
