Artie's folly!

Well thank you Arthur Morris!

Having purchased your books, DVDs and PDFs and just finished reading book # 1 ( mostly in the toilet thanks to our awful weather in Melbourne this weekend) I am now faced with a "long lens <link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CUsers%5CChris%5CAppData%5CLocal%5CTemp%5Cmsoh tmlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><link rel="themeData" href="file:///C:%5CUsers%5CChris%5CAppData%5CLocal%5CTemp%5Cmsoh tmlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_themedata.thmx"><link rel="colorSchemeMapping" href="file:///C:%5CUsers%5CChris%5CAppData%5CLocal%5CTemp%5Cmsoh tmlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_colorschememapping.xml"><style>  </style>dilemma" which could conceivably cause my wife to seek out a divorce lawyer :)

Being a lifelong biker, I forsook long lenses a while ago and stuck to my trusty 70-200 f/4, 300 f/4L IS and 400 f/5.6 L, but Arties work of art book #1 ( I have yet to take the laptop into the loo to research the DVD of book #2) has convinced me that despite Arthur'sritis, buggered legs and diabetes I must once again return to the long glass.

The question is.

The 400 f/2.8 + TCs or the 600 f/4 + TCs, a reply before I die in my sleep (I suspect a knitting needle to the heart) would be great.

Artie your books are a Godsend and may well send me to God a fraction quicker than planned.:)

On the Canon side I don't think you'll find many folks using either the 400 or 600. The 500 is the gold standard for birding among the big whites, with a greater reach than the 400 without the considerable additional weight of the 600. The 800 is another great, if amazingly pricey, option.

Thanks Dan, I considered the 500 f/4 but since I can not carry any of the big three 400/500/600 on my bike I looked at reach and the 800 f/5.6 is also on my list and is lighter than the 600 and is $2000 dearer than the 600 and $4500 dearer than the 500 f/4.

My choice will be on use ability not price which is why I need advice.

This will probably be my last big purchase in lenses and I would like to get it right.

Thanks for your help mate.:)

I got the 800 in January, the same day I got the 1d Mark IV. I put the 800 on the mark IV and haven't used anything else on the camera since. I have the 600 as well -- and did use it extensively, often with converters. Now the 800 gives me the same reach as the 600+ and it is lighter. You have the 400 5.6. Those are the two lenses I carry most when I'm shooting with my Canon gear.
I too have done a lot of biking with camera gear. I pretty much used the same kind of combos you used. When I shot Nikon, I used to carry the 80-400 plus a couple of shorter zooms. It's a whole different thing though, carrying gear on a bike comparing to trudging along and setting up a truly long lens. They're both rewarding but to me they required a different mindset and a different set of expectations of what I might see and photograph.
I agree that Artie's books are dangerous. He's even more dangerous in person. You watch him work and it all looks so easy and then you try to do what he does and you realize he is working extremely hard to accomplish what he does. It's that skill set of the seasoned pro that hides how much has gone into acquiring those skills.

Hi Chris. What are you trying to photograph? How close can you get to your subjects? Are you intending to lug the lens around on a motorcycle? What body are you pairing the lens with? Do you like to hand hold or will you be working off a tripod?

You won't find many bird photographers using the 400 f/2.8; it's an aweful lot of weight and price for not much reach. I have both the 500 and the 600, and have used the 800 for about a week and a half in November. They're all excellent lenses. If you can answer the above questions, I'll try to give you my opinion on which way to go.

Chris,

You do not say what camera you are using. That makes a difference in the number of pixels on a bird. For example, about 4 years ago, the gold standard (in the canon line) was a 1D Mark II and 500 mm or 600 mm lens. It is still a good standard. But newer cameras have smaller pixels, and while smaller pixels collect fewer photons, technology improvements have made the loss in photons not too bad, and improvements in fixed pattern noise mean overall higher quality. Some comparisons:

A 500 mm lens on a 1D Mark II (8.2 micron = 0.0082 mm pixels) sees 0.0082/500 = 16.4 microradians/pixel.

A 500 mm lens on a 1D Mark III (7.2 microns pixels) sees 0.0072/500 = 14.4 microradians/pixel.

A 300 mm lens on a 1D Mark IV (5.7 micron pixels) sees 0.0057/300 = 19.0 microradians/pixel.

A 300mm lens on a Canon 7D (4.3 micron pixels) sees 0.0043/300 = 14.3 microradians/pixel.

The smaller the microradians/pixel, the more fine detail that can be recorded (assuming the lens and technique does not smear the image). So the 7D with a 300 mm lens will see more pixels on subject than a 1DII and 500 mm lens and just slightly more than a 1DIII+500 mm lens.

The advantage of the 7D is that it is also smaller and lighter. The advantage of the 1D series is that it can be used with a 2X TC and still autofocus.

The disadvantage of the 7D is the smaller pixels mean a little more noise. Over the 1DII, the per pixel noise would
have been about 1.9x worse with no technology improvement, but it is only 1.4x worse (1/2 stop) and you get 1.9x more pixels on subject with the same lens.

The other thing to consider in lenses which would save some money is a 300 f/2.8. That would allow you to use a 2x TC with consumer cameras, while saving some money over a 500 mm lens. Then if weight is important, a 400 f/4 DO would allow the use of a 1.4x TC on a consumer body. I have 300 mm f/4, 300 mm f/2.8 and 500 mm f/4 (all IS) lenses and choose what I want to bring depending on weight limits. The 500 is great and my lens of choice for dedicated photo trips, but the weight and bulk of the lens plus big tripod and gimbal head are a lot to haul around. The 300 f/2.8 is much lighter, extremely sharp, fast AF, and I can hand hold it much easier, and a smaller tripod works well. When I take the 300 f/2.8 + tripod, the system is probably half the weight (at least it seems that way) of the 500 + tripod.

Roger

Quote:

Hi Chris. What are you trying to photograph? How close can you get to your subjects? Are you intending to lug the lens around on a motorcycle? What body are you pairing the lens with? Do you like to hand hold or will you be working off a tripod?

First, I use and carry on the bike a Canon ID MK III, 5D MKII, and a recent acquisition a 7D ( I tried a ID MKIV and did not find the advantage (which I did not notice) worth the $s so I bought a second "new" ID MKIII)

I have no intention of trying to haul a LONG WHITE lens on my bike it will be a tripod mounted lens for use when my poor wife carts me around in the car and mounted in a custom mount in my punt for use in our lakes and rivers so that I can finally get great shots of birds on or above the water from their level also for our song birds bee and honey eaters in our bushland.

The limitations of my favored lens/camera combos is that I rarely have the reach for the smaller birds and have longed for a great long lens for use in my camo punt, which we use in our wonderful lake systems and rivers.

Normally this would require me to lose 40 years and walk many miles through our Nat Parks that are in the lake systems to get to the shorelines.

Now being retired (medically induced) with a wife who works part time it would give us both the opportunity to return to our younger exciting days without the need for a helicopter assisted evacuation at the end of the day.:)

Thank you all for your time and wonderful help and a pox on Artie for being such an inspiration in so many ways.:)

you dont say what bike , i sometimes take my Pan European out and can pack my 500f4isL, mk3, 7d and 300f2.8isL plus tcs dinner and flask with lots of room to spare .
i also strap my monopod and gimble head to the bike .
Rob.

Quote:

you dont say what bike , i sometimes take my Pan European out and can pack my 500f4isL, mk3, 7d and 300f2.8isL plus tcs dinner and flask with lots of room to spare .
i also strap my monopod and gimble head to the bike .
Rob.

Rob unfortunately I don't do cruisers.

I am now on bikes 62 (2003 Yamaha FZ1) and 63 (2008 1250 Suzuki Bandit) having spent a large part of my life racing bikes (Isle of Man TT 67/68 to give you an idea of my age) so though no longer a dedicated Sportsbike nut (too much metal in legs) I still prefer Sports Tourers so no big whites on my bikes.

In my top box and tank bag I carry three cameras 1D MKIII, 5D MKII and 7D along with 2 X 1.4 TCs, 70-200 f/4L, 300 f/4 L IS, 400 f/5.6, 17-40 f/4L and 135 F2 L. and Gitzo monopod and 4 7D/5DMKII batteries.

Moving up to the larger whites (some of which I owned in the past) "curse you Artie:)" will allow me to shoot my wetland birds in the time honored manner of the many Floridian's here, in the shallows in my waders, to cruise the margains of our lakes and their wildlife reserves in my 12' punt and electric motor with my darling and wonderful wife (yes she reads my posts) at the tiller am already having my Manfrotto cut and securely mounted in the middle of the Punt so I can shoot seated.

I have spent 25 years on our wonderful Gippsland Lakes shooting mainly seabirds, Dolphins and now want to get close and personal with the many shore birds that nest in the foliage on the margins of the lakes.

http://www.pleasetakemeto.com/austra...rk/information

If God grants me a few more years I will be happy and fortunately I can now afford to indulge my recently "Thank you Artie:)" acquired passion.

I use a Canon 400 f2.8 IS. Cost apart, the weight is an issue. It is a tough lens to handhold. I have done it with a 2x attached on a 1 series body. It is not easy to get sharp shots with that combo. I have not used a 800mm. However, given its lower weight and better weight distribution, the 800mm should be easier to handhold apart from giving the reach. You also get the advantage of using a 1.4x TC with the 800mm for those small birds.

Cheers,
Sabyasachi
PS: I liked your humorous style. It certainly brought a cheer in my face.

Thanks Sabyasachi, I had the luck to handle the 600, 400 500 and 800 today at a mates house who works renting camera equipment for a large Melbourne dealer.

The 400 f/2.8 is a no contest, quality apart I hated it, no balance at all, the 800 was not bad but even on a heavy duty tripod with a wimberley mount it was very difficult to keep steady. The 600 was heavier than the 800 and not much shorter but I really liked the 500 f/4 with the 1.4X on it, I could easily hand hold it though it probably belongs on a good tripod or at least a monopod.

At the moment unless otherwise convinced, I will order the 500 on Wednesday thence off to find a really good tripod which does not mind seawater, all suggestions welcome.

Thanks again mate.

I strongly believe that there is insufficient humor in this world so I pass on my love of making light of things when I can, sadly I was not born with a shred of Diplomacy or Political Correctness in my genetics.:)

PS I am not ruling out buying both the 500 and 800, you only live once.

PPS When I am giving evidence at my bankruptcy hearing I intend to use Artie's book as a mitigating circumstance. :)

Good choice Chris!

Thanks all for your wonderful help.:)