Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jun 29, 2004, 12:42 AM   #11
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 13
Default

Eric, thanks for the perspective. Maybe a birthday present for myself. Thinking about what you said (e.g., shoulder hurting), probably it would be a good idea if I went somewhere to actually see those lenses and hold them, etc. I could probably get something in a trade-in for the 500 f4.5.
BobT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 14, 2004, 1:16 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 577
Default

eric s wrote:
Quote:
For wildlife it might be better to upgrade. That extra 1/2 a stop is a life saver. If the optics are worse in your lens (I honestly don't know) the 500 & 600 have amazing optics. You can add a 1.4xTC and basically loose no optical quality. Yes, they are that good. I have the 600mm f4 IS and it's heavy.. but amazing.
Eric, why is the half stop worth it in your opinion? I see you bit the bullet and bought the 600mm. Congrats! Any chance we can see a few pictures you took with it?

Thanks,
Barthold
barthold is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 14, 2004, 11:04 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

When you shot in the wild, the lighting isn't very good (often.) You take what you can get (at least I do) Shooting at 1/200 vs. 1/300 is a big difference to me. That is what 1/2 a stop gives me. It also allows me to get a bit more DOF by increasing the f-stop by 1/2 a stop instead (but often it's the shutter speed I need.)

As for results, I've been posting them in the wildlife section here. I haven't posted much recently, but if you go back for a post started by me anything within the last 3 weeks or so (except one) is with the 600mm (obviously, unless I say otherwise in the post.)

For example:
http://www.marx7.org/~esmith/web_pos...on_display.jpg

Eric
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 14, 2004, 4:53 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 577
Default

Eric, that makes sense to me. Going from 1/200 to 1/300 is a big difference, or at least can be. Thanks for the picture link! It looks really sharp, almost oversharpened to me? I'll go browse the wildlife section for more. How'd you like the 600mm so far?

Barthold
barthold is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 14, 2004, 11:09 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

It looks sharper partially because it was reduced (that is full frame.) I probably should have reduced it with bicubic smooth instead of bicubic sharp. Personally, I don't think it's over sharpened, but it's close.

Other than the weight, I love it. It's damn heavy at 12.5 lb. I'm seriously thinking of doing some weight lifting to make it easier to hike with (yes, I'm silly... I hike with it.)

Eric
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 1:38 AM.