Canon 500 f4 OR Canon 800 f5.6

Hi Everyone,

About 2 years ago I sold my Canon 500 f4. Moving to HD video I thought I won't do still bird photography anymore.
Well, I was wrong - big time. As much as I love video and enjoy the HUGE focal lengths due to the small sensor size (anything up to 4,400mm !!!!) - I just LOVE the sigle frame way too much.

Anyway, I need to buy a lens as my Canon 300 f2.8 which I love is a bit too short.

I do all kinds of bird photography including flight. Also do a lot of handholding as well as tripod work. The weight of the 500/800 is not such a big issue as I am quite used to it.

ASSUMING money is not an issue ( I wish :D) what do you people think - I can only buy one.

Thanks in advance,

Ofer

Would you use it on a 1D body? The MFD of the 500 is much shorter, which might make it more versatile with or without TC. The 800 is only one pound heavier than the 500 but as you know, almost twice as expensive. I often wish for 800 or 1120mm but for now I will stick with the 500.

Hi Ofer If its only one lens the 500 would be the way to go Would get an 800 in addition only !!! Glad your back with still birds !!!

Hey Ofer,

I think 500 is better choice for flight and hand holding, 1lb is not much but makes a difference when you are hand holding 3+ hours in the field. I have never tried the 800, Arthur has one, he can tell you how hand holdable it is for flight shots.

I recently bought a 500 from Hunts and have never used a better lens AND it fits in an overhead locker on aircraft.

Thanks for your input guys! Would also love to hear from people who own the 800.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alfred Forns

Hi Ofer If its only one lens the 500 would be the way to go Would get an 800 in addition only !!! Glad your back with still birds !!!

---

Thanks Al, please can you explain why do you think so?

800mm 5.6!
There is an old drag racing saying "there is no replacement for displacement".
It's usually easier to step away from your subject than towards it.
With a full frame sensor, 800mm has always been my favorite focal length.

I'm with James. If you have the money, get the 800. It seems I never take the 1.4 TC off of my 500 these days and I use a 1.6 crop sensor (Canon 40D).

DB

Hi Ofer The minimun focusing distance of the 500 !! 14 vs 19 feet Lots of chances for birds close up will be missed.

I have not figured the magnification difference but the 600 40% more than the five so the 800 must be huge. You would be using another lens? .. maybe a 400? .. huge gap to the 800 !!!

.. it will all boil down to the application and what will suit you best !!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alfred Forns

Hi Ofer The minimun focusing distance of the 500 !! 14 vs 19 feet Lots of chances for birds close up will be missed.

I have not figured the magnification difference but the 600 40% more than the five so the 800 must be huge. You would be using another lens? .. maybe a 400? .. huge gap to the 800 !!!

.. it will all boil down to the application and what will suit you best !!!

---

Thanks guys!
Al, I use the 300 f2.8 with the x1.4 and x2 so will have 420 and 600. The x2 converter is very good for static shots but not that great for serious action.

I like the idea of the 800 f5.6 for flight and also with the x1/4 converter for action - waders ranning on the shore etc.
This is not that easy. I wonder what Artie thinks.

Thanks again,

Ofer

If you have that lens then the 800 would make sense, one sweet lens !!! :)

Artie let me use his 800 and it is certainly handholdable for a while if you are in good shape. It feels only a bit heavier than the 500/TC combo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ofer Levy

Thanks guys!
Al, I use the 300 f2.8 with the x1.4 and x2 so will have 420 and 600. The x2 converter is very good for static shots but not that great for serious action.

I like the idea of the 800 f5.6 for flight and also with the x1/4 converter for action - waders ranning on the shore etc.
This is not that easy. I wonder what Artie thinks.

Thanks again,

Ofer

---

Ofer:

Don't know what body you are using, but you might check and see if the 800mm with a 1.4 TC will autofocus..
My suggestion would be the 500 f4. I have one and am extremely happy with it..

JMHO

Dave

Hi Ofer,

I have used both and own the 500mm. I think the 800mm is great, but it's more of a specialty lens. It's very useful much of the time, but there are times when the long focal length is too much and the minimum focus distance is too far, and the light present is not enough for F5.6 lens. The 500mm is more versatile and it can be used with the 1.4x or 2x TCs. The long distance shots are better with the 800mm, but the 500mm wins otherwise and comes close on the long distance stuff. I say get the 500mm.

I used the 800, it is sharper and has better IS than the 500. The 800 on a MIV is a lot of magnification and I often find myself backing up when shooting larger birds/subjects. The 300 f/2.8 is extremely sharp with converters and I use it as you mention above. When traveling by air or when heading a field it is nearly impossible to take/carry the 300/500/800. Therefore, I find the 300 w/converters and 800 is the bird combo of choice when hiking away from a vehicle. The art of compromise -LOL

My 2 cents,

Chas

Thank you all for the excellent input.
This is a tricky one....;) Although I agree the 500 is a more versatile lens.
I guess I should get it as I owns it for many years and loved it.

Thanks,

Ofer

I have said all of this in Bulletins and on the Blog so I will be brief here. For my style of bird photography the 800 is a no-brainer choice for me over the 500. How often did you use the 500 without TCs? I never use the 2X (28% loss of sharpness) anymore and use the 800 alone a lot of the time (thus avoiding the use of the 1.4X TC--14% loss of sharpness....). And when I do use the 1.4X TC the incredibly improved glass yields amazingly sharp images. The great glass also helps with AF accuracy. And the improved IS is totally ridiculously fantastic. And Alfred has exaggerated the MFD a bit :) (If his 500 focuses down to 14 feet I will be glad to eat it!)

Ofer, just for you I stopped what I was doing and posted my article on the 800 lens on the blog albeit only with one image :) All who are interested in the lens can check it out here:

http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/

ps: There are tons of 800 f/5./6L IS images here on BPN, on the Blog, and in the Bulletin Archives.

Ofer, I think you should get both. :)

With each discussion of which large prime lens is best, the correctness of my decision to acquire a Sigma 300-800 mm f/5.6 lens is confirmed. No worries of TC degradation, because IMO this lens has all the reach I need. No hassle to move closer or back; you merely turn the zoom ring to compose precisely. And no need to reconstruct wing tips in Photoshop that were clipped because the subject was too close.

The weight of the Sigma lens precludes hand holding by most people for BIF. But that is a small price to pay for a lens with such reach, fast focusing and IQ.:)

Norm

Quote:

---

Ofer, just for you I stopped what I was doing and posted my article on the 800 lens on the blog albeit only with one image :) All who are interested in the lens can check it out here:

---

Thank you Artie, as soon as the Aussie $ hits 90 Cents USD I will be talking to Chris at Hunts. Having not worked much this year owing to my poor leg:) I should get all my Tax back after June so that should hasten my purchase.

I love the 500 and have no trouble hand holding it but as the old "Arthuritis" is well into its Winter blues, the extra reach of the 800 will help.

I shall arrange for the wife to do a few extra hours overtime, if you keep coming up with these new "must have items" she may never be able to retire, just as well she loves Nursing.:)

Cheers mate.

Thanks guys!

Artie, I appreciate your input and bassically think you are 100% right. Not much to add here.
If money wasn't an issue I would have bought the 800 yesterday.
However, will start saving and will get it in a few months....;)
This is so exciting!
I held the 800 a few years ago and was amazed by how fantastic it felt.
Thanks guys!!!:)

Ofer, Just do what I do and lease out your kids to drug companies for medical experiments and that lens may be closer than you think, just remember to shackle up the children and remove all sharp objects before going to bed.:)

PS Double lock your bedroom door.

I had a similar dilemma almost a year ago - although owning the 400DO meant the dilemma was between the 600 and 800. In the end I went for the 800 and man am I glad I did. It is one amazing lens, super sharp, super fast, and yeah it's heavy, but you get used to it. I have hand-held it on boats for short periods (about 20-30min on and off) for birds in flight and birds on the water. It is possible! But it really shines on a tripod and Wimberly.
It looks like you have already made up your mind to go with the 800, so good on you. With the 300 and 1.4/2x converter you'll have what you need between 300 and 800, with no real gaps. From people I talked with they almost always seemed to use their 500/600 with converters, so it just made no sense to me to go for either, but to bite the bullet and get the 800.
I did post some stuff on my blog for August last year just after i got the lens - http://www.eco-vista.com/blog/august09.htm
Cheers,
Brent

Norm,

re:

With each discussion of which large prime lens is best, the correctness of my decision to acquire a Sigma 300-800 mm f/5.6 lens is confirmed. No worries of TC degradation, because IMO this lens has all the reach I need.

While I do understand that the 3-8 is a fine lens--James Shadle owns and uses it with great success, and that a big zoom telephoto is fantastic especially for those who do wildlife as well as birds, I do have some big time issues with your statement above.:)

#1: The Canon 800 f/5.6 is so sharp and the glass so superb, that images created with the 1.4X TC are beyond sharp, heck, they are beyond screamingly sharp.

#2: I am using a 1.3 crop camera (MIV) and use my 1.4 teleconverter about 40% of the time on average so your IMO this lens has all the reach I need" comment makes zero sense to me.

No hassle to move closer or back; you merely turn the zoom ring to compose precisely.

There are more than a few times when moving back and using a longer focal length can dramatically improve the image.

And no need to reconstruct wing tips in Photoshop that were clipped because the subject was too close.

That is a ridiculous statement. All of us have clipped wings and toes of birds in flight and at rest when using a zoom lens.....

The weight of the Sigma lens precludes hand holding by most people for BIF.

It also precludes most folks from carrying it in the field! Please let me know the exact weight of the lens alone.

But that is a small price to pay for a lens with such reach, fast focusing and IQ.:)

In your praise of the lens it seems that you have conveniently forgot to mention that it does not feature any type of image stabilization....

Respectfully.

ps: I should have mentioned that when I met with the four top Canon Japan lens designers in NYC about 4 (?) years ago--there were several other Explorers at the meeting--my #1 recommendation was that Canon produce a big telephoto zoom (similar to the old 150-600). That was about a year after the introduction of the Nikon 200-400.

I was hoping perhaps for a 200-500 f/4 DO lens but they seem to have forsaken long lens DO stuff.

I have used the 300-800 lens, and it is very sharp, contrasty and well made; a stellar lens for wildlife photography. We all know the benefit of being able to precisely crop the image in camera, but the mitigating factor for many is the lack of image stabilization, as Artie mentions above. Lens selection is often not made without compromise... should I take the 500 or 600, carry the 300 f/2.8 or 400DO along with it, the typical weight vs reach vs MFD, and the fixed vs zoom debate will continue as long as their are photog's pushing shutter buttons. In the end there is no right or wrong answer, a personal choice to be sure, the key lies in simply making the best image with the equipment in hand.

I think if my primary goal was to photograph small birds the fixed 800 would be my choice.

FYI- I am still debating the 300-800 zoom vs 800 fixed for my wildlife needs ;)

Best,

Chas

Artie here are the specs for the 500 Are you saying they are wrong? I'm confused



Filter Size
52mm (Rear) [52mm Drop-in filter holder required]

f/Stop Range
4-32

Minimum Focus Distance
14.8'

Magnification
1:8.3

Angle of View
5 Degrees

Groups/Elements
13/17

Tripod Collar
Yes (Fixed)

Length
15.2"

Maximum Diameter
5.8"

Weight
8.53 lb

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arthur Morris

#1: The Canon 800 f/5.6 is so sharp and the glass so superb, that images created with the 1.4X TC are beyond sharp, heck, they are beyond screamingly sharp.

#2: I am using a 1.3 crop camera (MIV) and use my 1.4 teleconverter about 40% of the time on average so your [/COLOR]IMO this lens has all the reach I need" comment makes zero sense to me.

That is a ridiculous statement. All of us have clipped wings and toes of birds in flight and at rest when using a zoom lens.....

Please let me know the exact weight of the lens alone.

In your praise of the lens it seems that you have conveniently forgot to mention that it does not feature any type of image stabilization....

Respectfully.

---

Artie:

My comments concerning some of your remarks are as follows:

(1) It's not clear to me how your 800 mm lens with the 1.4X TC can be "beyond screamingly sharp," when you state above that you often use the 800 mm lens without the TC, since it causes a 14% loss of sharpness.

(2) My statement was simply that the Sigma lens provides sufficient reach for ME. That is a simple fact that is not amenable to dispute.

(3) I regret the fact that you regard any of my statements to be "ridiculous." I tried to make what I thought was a cogent contribution to this discussion, and I respectfully suggest that your characterization of my statement adds more heat than light and is not conducive to thoughtful discourse.

I respect your leadership position in the field of nature photography, value what I have learned from you and from the other talented BPN members and moderators, and have never regarded any statement made by you to be ridiculous.

Perhaps what I should have said is that by being able to quickly change focal length, situations in which wing feathers may be clipped should be reduced. My apologies for my imprecision.

(4) The Sigma lens weighs almost 13 pounds and thus is almost always used on a sturdy tripod, with a Wimberley head for BIF. So I think that image stabilization would be an unnecessary addition to the lens.

Norm

Alfred, When talking about the MFDs of the two lenses, you said, "14 vs 19 feet."

14 feet is not 14 feet eight inches. :)

Hi Norm,

re:

(1) It's not clear to me how your 800 mm lens with the 1.4X TC can be "beyond screamingly sharp," when you state above that you often use the 800 mm lens without the TC, since it causes a 14% loss of sharpness.

Making professionally sharp images with TCs has always been possible. The use of TCs will always degrade the images to some degree. The higher the quality of the glass and the sharper the optics, the sharper the resulting images created with a TC will be. Differences in sharpness with the latest optics/glass/lenses are so small that the images are not at all apparent to the human eye at any magnification. When I saw my Least Tern images created with the 800 and the 1.4 TC at ISO 200 and f/13 I was stunned by the sharpness.

(2) My statement was simply that the Sigma lens provides sufficient reach for ME. That is a simple fact that is not amenable to dispute.

I agree 100%. But you are the first bird photographer whom I have ever run across who at some point was not wishing for a longer lens at some point :)

(3) I regret the fact that you regard any of my statements to be "ridiculous." I tried to make what I thought was a cogent contribution to this discussion, and I respectfully suggest that your characterization of my statement adds more heat than light and is not conducive to thoughtful discourse.

I respect your leadership position in the field of nature photography, value what I have learned from you and from the other talented BPN members and moderators, and have never regarded any statement made by you to be ridiculous.

First off thanks for your more than kind words.

I need, however, to admit that I have said more than a few ridiculous things over the years. :o My point was that having a zoom lens in your hand in no way precludes clipping wing tips or toes or anything else. I am sorry that I choose to use the word ridiculous to make that point.

Perhaps what I should have said is that by being able to quickly change focal length, situations in which wing feathers may be clipped should be reduced. My apologies for my imprecision.

That I agree with 100%.

(4) The Sigma lens weighs almost 13 pounds and thus is almost always used on a sturdy tripod, with a Wimberley head for BIF. So I think that image stabilization would be an unnecessary addition to the lens.

Having seen more than a few amazing results with big tripod-mounted IS lens with and without TC we will need to agree to disagree on that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arthur Morris

Alfred, When talking about the MFDs of the two lenses, you said, "14 vs 19 feet."

14 feet is not 14 feet eight inches. :)

---

Artie:

Actually, B & H in the specs for the 800 mm lens lists the MFD as 19.7'. Thus the difference between the MFDs of the two lenses is essentially what Alfred said, regardless of how precisely you wish to read the data. In some circumstances that could make a significant difference.:)

Norm

Norm, as I said, 14 feet 8 inches is not 14 feet. And 19 feet whatever is why I keep two extension tubes in my pocket. What is the MFD of the 3-8?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arthur Morris

Norm, as I said, 14 feet 8 inches is not 14 feet. And 19 feet whatever is why I keep two extension tubes in my pocket. What is the MFD of the 3-8?

---

Artie:

Not surprisingly since the Canon 800 mm and the Sigma 300-800 mm both have the same long focal length, the MFD of the Sigma lens is an almost identical 19.6' (6 m).

And one final interesting point -- at B & H the cost of the Sigma lens is $6,999 vs $10,900 for the Canon lens! $3,901 is an amazing cost differential for the two high quality lenses.:)

Norm

I like my lens. You like yours. I wish that Canon made a big IS zoom. All good.

I agree Artie. All good!

Norm