Stan, I think you need to muscle up.....grab that bull by the horns and get yourself a 600 f/4.......when I was your age I could handhold that lens for minutes on end.
My Trimmed Kit Takes A Little More Planning On Trips...
But At It's Peak, There Were Several Doubles...
500mm f4.5, 500mm f4 IS, 300mm f2.8, 300mm f2.8 IS
I Was Replacing All My Big'uns To IS, Except The 200mm f1.8
Then Sold My 500mm f4 IS For Money & Lack Of Use......
The 400mm f2.8 + TC Is Just As Sharp. I Did Include A Nikon 400mm f3.5
In The Count, As Allowed..... Also Now Sold.....
PetKal wrote:
Stan, I think you need to muscle up.....grab that bull by the horns and get yourself a 600 f/4.......when I was your age I could handhold that lens for minutes on end.
pffft... 600...
I shoot 400 2.8 IS handheld all the time - the darn hawks have no courtesy to fly within swinging limits of Wimberley. I'll get a black eye eventually
PetKal wrote:
Tommy, could be RCicala, or Burningheart (Robert) or some joker....I don't know ?
Also, DavidP, Joshua, Netexpress, etc.....all kinds of folks here who have been hoarding big lenses.
Not me , just got home from a day of shooting (T+S, 100 macro, Rokkor, and TS Nikon) all on the 5D MKII.
burningheart wrote:
Oh wait, the 14, 15 Fisheye, and 14 FD have rear filter holders for wratten filters.
He he, I knew someone might latch onto that. Therefore, if you read the supertelephoto definition in my OP, you will see I specified "white" lenses only.
I own six of those at present.
Two copies of 200 f/1.8 which hail back to the days when Canon seemed capable of truly inspired lens design. Even if one lens develops a terminal fault, there is a backup copy.
Then, the ubiquitous 300 f/2.8 IS, 200 f/2 IS and 500 f/4.
Lastly, there is 500 f/4.5L, yet another very special lens. A top notch IQ, yet "only" 3kg in weight. If that lens had IS and a faster AF drive, then that would have been a perfect long wildlife lens for me. Such as it is, I use it more often than its f/4 successor.
The only way I'd get to my seventh supertelephoto lens would be if Canon introduces an excellent 200-400 f/4 or 400 f/4 prime, based on refractive optics.
I can always use lighter and faster lenses, but not longer and heavier. 500mm is plenty for me, so much so I don't even bother with the TC's any longer.
300 F2.8L IS & 500 F4L IS both cost 80% of all my lenses collection and I have total 9 L lenses. But no regrets, they are both producing best shots I ever made.
PetKal wrote:
Lastly, there is 500 f/4.5L, yet another very special lens. A top notch IQ, yet "only" 3kg in weight. If that lens had IS and a faster AF drive, then that would have been a perfect long wildlife lens for me. Such as it is, I use it more often than its f/4 successor.
Why would you use the 4.5 more than the 4?
The 4.5 is undoubtably a stellar lens and I wouldn't want to take any glory from it.. but.. the 4 is just.. better. In every department IMO, except weight.
And it's not as if the 4 can't be hand-held. It's a rare occasion I use a tripod with it; 80% of the time it's hanging from my side as I'm walking/trekking wherever.
Adam L wrote:
Why would you use the 4.5 more than the 4?
The 4.5 is undoubtably a stellar lens and I wouldn't want to take any glory from it.. but.. the 4 is just.. better. In every department IMO, except weight.
Weight is a very important consideration for those that shoot those lenses in a true hand-held manner. Also, my f/4.5 and f/4 have practically identical IQ.
IS is a big help on a 500mm lens. Yet, because fatigue sets in sooner with the heavier lens which triggers increased camera/lens shake, f/4 needs IS more than f/4.5.
Lastly, and that is my biggest problem with the f/4.5, the AF drive is sluggish (0.6 sec drive speed according to Canon). The f/4 is better but not a speed demon in that regard either.
PetKal wrote:
for those that shoot those lenses in a true hand-held manner.
Can you expand on this please? What is "true hand-held manner"?
PetKal wroteLastly, and that is my biggest problem with the f/4.5, the AF drive is sluggish (0.6 sec drive speed according to Canon). The f/4 is better but not a speed demon in that regard either.
You're right, it's not the fastest horse in the stable.. it's certainly no 300/2.8 or 200/2, but it's still pretty fast! I have to say I've never missed a shot because of sluggish AF on a 500.
, just got home from a day of shooting (T+S, 100 macro, Rokkor, and TS Nikon) all on the 5D MKII.
then it is 7. 