Some random first impressions after a couple of day's use. Perhaps these will be useful to people thinking about taking the plunge on a big lens. As usual, I wasn't able to have a look at the 500mm Canon before ordering one: it was a case of place the order and then hope for the best. So, some random impressions follow in no particular order. My previous lens (which I still have) is the Canon 100-400L f/4.5-5.6.
It's big The Canon 500 makes the 100-400 look and feel quite small and nimble. Until I got the 500, the 100-400 felt heavy and cumbersome. Not any more, it feels like a rapier now! With the hood attached, the 500 f/4 is too big to easily fit in the usual place I put the 100-400 on a trip: on the passenger seat of my car. I'm still trying to figure out a good way to carry it. I don't want to have to keep it in the back, because you can get lots of good shots just driving around between places: birds on fences and by the roadside often let you get quite close if you stay in the car, and I've had good shots that way. Also, I don't want to remove the massive hood, both because it wastes a lot of time putting it on and off, and because the hood is the best protection you can get for the objective lens.
It's heavy I am really glad I didn't go for the 600mm f/4L, as the 600 is more than twice the weight of the 500. The popular Canon birding lenses line up like this:
- 400 f/5.6L: 1.25kg
- 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L: 1.38kg
- 500 f/4L: 3.87kg
- 600 f/4L: 5.86kg
An adult of average build can comfortably hand-hold the 400L or the 100-400L, and walk around with it all day without more than mild discomfort. You
can hand-hold the 500, but it isn't easy, and after more than a short period holding it up to your eye, it becomes uncomfortable. After a minute or so (depending on your build and fitness) you can't hold it steady anymore and the image is shaking around all over the place. So, yes: by all means plan to hand-hold a 500 f/4, but don't expect it to be comfortable, and don't plan to do it for too long at a time.
The weight is also a factor for walking around. It rapidly starts to feel heavy if, like me, you like to just wander quietly around seeing what birds you can bump into. Yes, you can carry it OK, but you will find yourself picking out comfortable little nooks to have a rest in more often than you did with a scope and tripod, or a 400mm lens. It is, in short, hard work.
It's bright The moment you hold that monster lens up to your eye, you will notice the significantly brighter scene through the viewfinder. I'm not sure why this is: it seems more than one can account for just by the difference between the f/5.6 and f/4 maxima, and I don't notice any similar differences between the various normal-length lenses I attach to the other body. Perhaps it's simply because I have never had anything else except the 100-400L on the birding camera and have grown used to the view.
In action, the extra stop makes quite a difference. Being able to open out to f/4 instead of cranking up to ISO 800 is a significant advantage. But, of course, your depth of field at f/4 is very shallow on the 500, so you need to take care with larger birds.
It's cumbersome and very visible I've evolved a technique with the 100-400L that works quite well: move very slowly, approach obliquely, use whatever cover is available (not to hide - birds are far too smart for that, just to make yourself a little less conspicuous), when almost close enough for a shot, raise the lens and use your left hand to hold it across your chest around shoulder height for the last few steps so that pointing it at the bird requires as little movement as possible. Doing this with the 500L is rather difficult. It is so big and so visible that (on my first impression at least) birds spook at a greater distance, and raising it to your eye can be enough to set them off. And, of course, it's too darn heavy to hold at chest level for too long, not if you want enough strength left in your left wrist to hold it steady on the bird.
It has a small field of view This will ease off with practice, but I found I was often having trouble getting the bird in my field of view with it. (Just like when you first start to use binoculars.) Sometimes, especially for flight shots, I find it's handy to use that super-fast push-pull zoom action of the 100-400L to zoom out to 100, get the bird in frame, and zoom back in. Naturally, you can't do that with a prime lens!
It's sharp Even after a single weekend, I can see that my average shot is sharper than my average shot with the 100-400L was. Wide open or stopped down to f/8, it doesn't matter: the big 500 just delivers.
A 1.4 TC is perfectly practical Yesterday, blessed with good summer light, I slipped a Canon 1.4 teleconverter on and left it on all day. No problem at all. The IS system (and a little care) is amply good enough to cope with a 700mm f/5.6 lens, and some good things eventuated.
It is not flexible An obvious but noticable thing: sometimes you need a bit less than 500mm (or 700mm with the TC) but you can't get it, not short of walking back to the car and swapping lenses. Yesterday the 500L & 1.4TC brought me some decent shots of a young White-necked Heron (a species I always have trouble getting close enough to),
but when the heron took flight was rather too much of a good thing. If I'd had the 100-400L in hand, I'd have nailed a half-dozen good flight shots. As it was, I got only one keeper, and that cut off one wingtip.
The IS is loud Not a major issue, but the IS in the 500L is much louder than in the 100-400L. You get used to it, but it sounds weird.
The switches are badly designed The auto/manual focus switch and the IS on/off switch are placed such that you can bump them off very, very easily. This makes you miss shots. It
never happened with the 100-400L. All the other switches are recessed so that you can't move them by accident, but not these two. Sure, you notice the AF is out to lunch very quickly, but if you were grabbing a quick flight shot, you just lost it. The IS one is worse - you can very easily not notice that it's not working (especially as I'm used to the whisper-quiet 100-400 IS) and wind up with a lot of shots that are pretty poor. One to watch out for and get used to checking. With practice, I'm sure it won't be an issue.
Summary so far After two solid day's use, I have fewer good pictures than I'd have got with the 100-400L. In the main, I suspect, that is because I'm still learning how to use this monster. It will probably be quite a while before I'm getting consistent results with it. After a learning period, doubtless I'll develop a different set of habits, and start seeing real rewards.
Oh, and do I regret hocking my grandmother to get this lens? Not for one moment!
I'd be interested to see what others who have stepped up to a 500 or a 600 have to say on this topic, especially on leaning to make the most of the big glass.