Canon 500 f/4 - first impressions

[Tannin]

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.

[Andy]

Thanks for that, it's always interesting to read experiences from the step-up to the real heavyweight lenses.

I'm surprised that you haven't noticed the increased minimum focus distance, but this may be something you notice as time goes on when shooting smaller birds... alleviated a bit by teleconverters and/or extension tubes.

I'd get some camo covering for the lens if I were you. Even with a big black Nikon, the solid mass of black is off-putting to birds.

cheers
Andy

[Tannin]

Ahhh .... focus distance .... yes, I forgot to mention that, Andy. Two metres to 4.5 metres, that's a major change, and not a welcome one. I bought a 12mm extension tube and fitted it before I started, expecting to leave it on pretty much all the time and thus get a 3.8m MFD, but wouldn't you know it, the very first bird I spotted on the first day with the new lens was a White-faced Heron and I couldn't get it in frame and in focus with the tube on. (Murphy's Law!)

As for camo, that looks like a necessary step. I don't want to spray paint my shiny new lens, so I guess I'll be asking Belinda (she of the garden with the beautiful bronze-cuckoos) to make one up for me out of canvass or some similar material.

Hmmm .... I don't suppose dispensing with the traditional nitrogen fill and replacing it with helium would make it lighter and easier to carry?

PS: are the big Nikons similar so far as MFD goes? And, for that matter, the big Pentax?

[mcapper]

Another excellent well thought out and balanced review Tannin.

Many thanks

Matthew

[Simon Duncan]

A few comments, the 600 is not 2x times the weight but it sometime feels that way. When I first got the 500 I had hard time finding the subject, especially birds in flight, it comes with practice. Also I took more oof shots then sharp ones, long lens techinque is hugely important. check this article http://www.naturephotographers.net/ejp0801-1.html Also you may want to protect you investment and cut down on some that glare and visiblity with a neoprene lens cover like LensCoat available at http://www.warehouseexpress.com/

Cheers

[Tannin]

Thankyou Simon. As a former digiscoper, I'm OK with long lens technique, but there is always room to improve! I had an interesting learning experience this weekend just gone. The particular birds I was interested in happened to be in a small wetland that was best approached by simply parking on the side of a road and staying in the car till they came out of the reeds. (Painted Snipe - wonderful!) Better to park and wait than get out and try to hide behind some grass or something, I judged.

So, armed with 500 f/4 and 1.4TC, I rested the lens on the passenger side door sill and hunkered down so that I could see the view. I soon discoverd that I could hold the lens really steady that way - much steadier than I can hold it on a tripod. I was very surprised!

I think there are several reasons for this. First, my tripod (Manfrotto 055 NAT 3) is rather wobbly: fine for a scope and OK for a light camera/lens combination, but not really steady enough for the big 500, or the 100-400 for that matter. Second, I'm thinking that the sheer weight of the 500 on the solid car door frame is a benefit. And third, the camera/lens combination is being held at three points instead of one point - by its own weight on the door frame, by my left hand on the lens, and by my right hand on the camera. Further, in this position, scrunched up in the passenger seat and braced well against the car (whether you want to be or not - there ain't a lot of room to play with!) you have good mechanical purchase. It's not like hand-holding or using a tripod in a normal standing position, where you are always at least slightly unsteady.

Anyway, I thought it was a useful discovery, and I'll be doing more of it as opportunity offers.

Cheers,

Tannin

[Simon Duncan]

Tannin,

I would seriously consider getting a nice sturdy tripod like a Gitzo 1325 and a good head preferably a Whimberly head. It makes a world of difference.

[Andy]

Originally Posted by Simon Duncan

Tannin,

I would seriously consider getting a nice sturdy tripod like a Gitzo 1325 and a good head preferably a Whimberly head. It makes a world of difference.

He has been told http://www.worldphotographyforum.com...read.php?t=698

[Tannin]

And he has listened! A good carbon tripod is fairly high on my list of priorities - don't know which one yet, I'll come back and re-read the advice here and probably ask more questions when I'm almost ready to buy (rather than in the serious yike! how much did I just spend!?! mode that a 500 induces). First priority for me now, though, is a macro flash. Tripod next, possibly another macro lens (a longer one), and finally it will be time to look at a new head.

(Finally? Bah .... there is no "finally" when it comes to spending money on camera gear. Well, possibly "when the money finally runs out".)