800mm too much lens?

Printable View

08-04-2009, 03:51 PM
Greg Schneider

800mm too much lens?

I think there are a few 800mm users on here...I have been enjoying the razor sharp images this lens produces for a few months now, but I can't afford both it and the 600 which I upgraded from.

I love the 800, but my only concern is that there might be times when 800mm is too much (shooting primarily on the 1D3/1.3x crop). My supertele lineup right now is the 300 2.8IS, 600 and 800. I'm 99% sure I would sell the 600 vs the 800, but do you folks think I would have too much of a gap between focal lengths? A 500 might make sense, but it's mostly out of the picture at least for now. Although the 600 is the most flexible in this focal length, I find an astounding difference in IQ between the 800mm and 600 +1.4x, and the 800 is far nicer to handle and shoot with.

Most birds in my area are best photographed with an 800mm, but I'm sure there are situations when 600mm is perfect - tame birds or situations where you can't back up easily. What do you all think?
08-04-2009, 04:20 PM
Kaustubh Deshpande

All I can say is thats a nice problem to have :-) Haven't owned either so can't comment intelligently. My longest is 300 f/4 non-is plus a 1.4x

KD
08-04-2009, 05:16 PM
Axel Hildebrandt

Since you have a 300f/2.8 I don't see a reason why you should not keep the 800 and sell the 600.
08-04-2009, 05:18 PM
Ed Erkes

For bird photography, the 800 is the one I'd recommend keeping. However, I no longer use fixed focal length lenses for wildlife. I use the Nikon 200-400 and the Sigma 300-800. The flexibility of a zoom is nice to have, specially if you're shooting from a stationary position, such as a blind.
08-04-2009, 06:09 PM
Greg Schneider

Thanks all. That was my thinking - I should be at least able to "get by" with a 300 and 800 combo. :) Now if Canon released a revamped 600 with optical performance similar to the 800 even with a 1.4x on, and slimmed it down I could see myself going for that due to the flexibility.
08-04-2009, 06:27 PM
Daniel Cadieux

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greg Schneider

Most birds in my area are best photographed with an 800mm, but I'm sure there are situations when 600mm is perfect - tame birds or situations where you can't back up easily. What do you all think?

I think you answered your own question here ;-) Plus, in cases where the birds are so tame and/or that you can't back up I would think your 300 2.8 (+ 1.4 TC if needed) would fit the bill nicely there.
08-04-2009, 06:31 PM
Greg Schneider

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Cadieux

I think you answered your own question here ;-) Plus, in cases where the birds are so tame and/or that you can't back up I would think your 300 2.8 (+ 1.4 TC if needed) would fit the bill nicely there.

Hehe, yes. For some reason I feel the need for some reassurance.
08-04-2009, 06:31 PM
Ed Cordes

300 f2.8 + 2X TC = 600. This plus the 800 should be ideal for most of us.
08-04-2009, 07:01 PM
Ákos Lumnitzer

Keep the 800mm man! I just wish its price was closer to the 600.
08-04-2009, 08:29 PM
Kiran Khanzode

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed Cordes

300 f2.8 + 2X TC = 600. This plus the 800 should be ideal for most of us.

+ 1 on this. I routinely use this at 600, produces phenomenal quality....
08-04-2009, 10:03 PM
Billsnature

No, You should sell the 800mm, and sell it quickly! Even if it means taking a huge financial loss. Because I am a nice guy, I will give you $7500 for it. :D

Just my 750,000 cents on your thinking.

I have the 600mm and have been toying with the idea of an 800mm. Is the IQ difference between the 600mm plu 1.4X and the 800mm really that noticable?

Thanks
Bill
08-04-2009, 11:25 PM
Phil Liew

Keep the 800mm. I have just sold both my 500 mm and 600 mm and buying another 800 mm, it is a present for my wife!
08-05-2009, 06:38 AM
Markus Jais

Keep the 800.
I currently use the 4/500L IS. I love it but for 95% of all my bird images I use a 1.4x and even that is often not enough except for tame birds in some areas like the Neusiedler See Nationalpark in Austria.

If I could afford the 800 I would instantly sell the 4/500 and get the 5.6/800. Unfortunately 11.000 Euros is way to much.

I would keep the 2.8/300 which is great for groups of birds or large mammals in places like Yellowstone.

I think the combination of 2.8/300 (with 1.4x and 2x) + the 5.6/800 is perfect - at least it would be for me and I would prefer it over my 4/300 + 4/500 + 1.4x.

Hope this helps.

Markus
08-05-2009, 07:49 AM
Mike Milicia

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billsnature

Is the IQ difference between the 600mm plu 1.4X and the 800mm really that noticable?

Assuming the tests shown here :

http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/article...-1200-1600.htm

are accurate (and I have no reason to think they are not), the sharpness of the 800mm blows away the 600mm+1.4x,
especially when wide open.
08-05-2009, 09:01 AM
Greg Schneider

It has been very noticeable for me, but remember you are comparing a lens with a 1.4x vs a lens that is 10 years newer with no TC. The images even at f5.6 with the 800 are incredibly, incredibly sharp.

Thanks for the reassurance - I'll be selling the 600!
08-05-2009, 02:28 PM
Doug Brown

That's an impressive test! Canon is loaning me an 800 for the Festival of the Cranes at Bosque del Apache this year. I'm looking forward to spending a week with it. I'll be posting images and impressions. Then I'll have to decide whether to take the plunge!
08-05-2009, 02:57 PM
Axel Hildebrandt

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Brown

That's an impressive test! Canon is loaning me an 800 for the Festival of the Cranes at Bosque del Apache this year. I'm looking forward to spending a week with it. I'll be posting images and impressions. Then I'll have to decide whether to take the plunge!

I have a pretty good idea how you will decide. :)
08-05-2009, 03:37 PM
Mark Fuge

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Brown

That's an impressive test! Canon is loaning me an 800 for the Festival of the Cranes at Bosque del Apache this year. I'm looking forward to spending a week with it. I'll be posting images and impressions. Then I'll have to decide whether to take the plunge!

Doug, maybe you can get it at 1/2 price as being used! ;)

Dream on!!! :D :D
08-05-2009, 07:27 PM
Phil Liew

Doug, plunge deep and plunge well and you know that already - it is just the final push!
08-05-2009, 09:37 PM
James Shadle

I'd rather step back than try and work myself forward.
Keep the 800mm!
08-09-2009, 10:44 AM
Lana Hays

Greg
A friend suggested I try out his 800mm Thursday. Oh dear....what a major mistake. I had been contemplating selling the 500mm for a 600mm but after trying the 800mm I was sold. What an incredible lens. I carried it around with my tripod and swear it didn't seem any heavier than my 500mm. I should have never tried it out because I really want one now. I don't think you'll have any regrets with the 800mm!!!!!
08-09-2009, 09:35 PM
Roger Clark

OK, so you have a 300 f/2.8, 800 f/5.6. How do you carry it all? My 500 f/4 plus all my other lenses and bodies makes for a 35 or so pound backpack not including the tripod and head and I'm not including my 300 f/2.8 (I never seem to carry both at the same time. Just curious what all the gear would weigh. Can you get the 800 on a plane as carry-on legal?

Roger
08-09-2009, 09:55 PM
Doug Brown

Quote:

Originally Posted by rnclark

Can you get the 800 on a plane as carry-on legal?

It's not a problem on domestic flights on normal-sized aircraft (e.g. the entire Southwest fleet). I have not uncommongly packed my Think Tank Airport Security with a 600 f/4, 500 f/4, 400 f/5.6, 70-200 f/4, 1D Mark III, 50D, and assorted bits and pieces without a problem.
08-09-2009, 11:47 PM
Roger Clark

Doug,
Wow. What are the dimensions and weight of all that?
08-10-2009, 06:51 PM
Brent Stephenson

I just got the 800 f5.6 and all I can say is WOW! See my thread on my query of 600 vs 800 here

http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...ad.php?t=42678

Not to say I wouldn't have been saying WOW about the 600, with this being my first super-tele. However, I've used a few f4 L series lenses having had the 300 f4 IS for 10+ years, the 70-200 f4 non-IS for 5 years, and the 400 DO f4 for 9 months. Using it even on the 1.6 crop factor 50D I was blown away with the increase in photographic opportunities this lens brought me. Using it for around 10 hours or so over the weekend I took probably almost 4000 images through it and just cannot believe how accurate the AF is and how tack sharp the images are out of the camera.

For me I'm seriously glad I went the slight increase in price (here in NZ it was only a small increase believe it or not) and I can now use a straight prime 800 without using a 600 and 1.4x extender most of the time, which is what many guys I've talked to/read about are doing. I don't think you would regret going up to the 800, especially with the 300 and 1.4x extender in your kit. For me the 400 DO is the perfect companion, and I found myself dropping the backpack and changing to the 400 DO when the subjects got really close - like the great egret on my main blog page. It almost came too close for that lens (3m MFD)!

I've put a couple of images of 100% crops and a whole bunch more stuff shot through the 800 on my blog pages - www.eco-vista.com/brentsblog.htm - take a look. I won't profess to being the best at digital processing but reckon the images have come out pretty well with minimal post-processing.

Cheers,
Brent
08-19-2009, 07:54 PM
Arthur Morris

Sell the six.
08-29-2009, 07:56 AM
Pao Dolina

When I was considering FL I narrowed it down to the 600 vs 800. Though the 800's a stop slower it was technically better overall. Longer, lighter and has insane amounts of IS not to mention it shipped in mid-2008 vs the 600 being a 1999 film lens.

What swung my decision was Art's assertion that you need more length than speed when doing wildlife which makes sense in my side of the world because most of the birds here are tiny. Plus the fact that by the time you need more stops the birds flew home.

I'd only get the 600 if you needed the f/4 or if money was an issue. I've seen some revel over the 600 recently and you know what, I do not want to be forced into a body of water or risk my life over a shot to save a few bucks. Neither do I want to break my back over the weight (yes, sherpas are cheap but do you want them to carry your gear?)

Medical bills are much most costly. Rather put money into better gear. ;)
08-29-2009, 10:46 AM
Mark Fuge

I was wandering through the B&H catalog on line the other day and noted that they have a used Canon 1200mm for sale, in case anyone is looking for a longer lens! ;) You can check yourself to see if it is in your budget range. Not bad for a used lens with extra range.
09-20-2009, 01:49 PM
Pao Dolina

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Brown

It's not a problem on domestic flights on normal-sized aircraft (e.g. the entire Southwest fleet). I have not uncommongly packed my Think Tank Airport Security with a 600 f/4, 500 f/4, 400 f/5.6, 70-200 f/4, 1D Mark III, 50D, and assorted bits and pieces without a problem.

Hi Doug I was looking at your Airport Security's weight and it tips 12-14 pounds. Does Southwest allow more than 15.5 pounds on flights? Over here we're only allowed that much for carryon. :(