Silent Wave vs. newest generation of Canon IS lenses

I am sure this question is currently being pondered by numerous

serious wildlife and nature photographers: "I already have a Nikon

Silent Wave long telephoto lens, should I switch to Canon IS lenses?"

My personal situation is this: I own a 500 F4.0 S-Wave, used with an

F5 body. I am a total sharpness freak, who regularly blows prints up

to the 16"X20" size. I ONLY SHOOT ON A STABLE TRIPOD, with a Linhof

ball head attached. I am considering the Canon 500 or 600 IS lenses

with the most recent form of IS built in. I often times use the

matched 1.4 teleconverter with my S-wave lens. None of these lenses

have been tested by Photodo. Has anyone done any sharpness testing?

Will I see a qualitative difference in the new Canon lenses? Opinions

accepted. I shoot in Alaska and in Africa each summer.

Really the best answer is just to rent an EOS body and IS lens and do a side by side comparision with what you have. Given the cost of the switch, a few hundred dollars spent on lens rental for a weekend would seem to be an excellent investment. Other people's opinions are fine, but in the end it depends on you and your technique as much as the lens.

 

Your sharpest shots won't get any sharper. You may see in increase in the percentage of sharp shots under adverse conditions. Even if Photodo had tested them I don't think lab results taken on a single lens sample are really a good basis for deciding which lens to buy, especally for large and heavy lenses where technique is as important

as intrinsic image quality.

I can offer you my humble opinion. I have had the new Canon 600IS lens for about a month now and have used it close to home and on one major photo trip to Texas for bird photography. All I can say is that it's a dream come true for me. I've never been more thrilled with any photographic gear. It has opened up a whole new world for me. It's awesome. It's amazing. It's revolutionary. Yes, I really am that excited about it!

 

I have previous used a manual Nikkor 500 and non-IS Canon 600, so I do have some frame of reference. IMO Nikon owners are in serious denial if they fail to acknowledge the usefulness of the IS technology. I can routinely get shots that are as sharp as any that I've ever taken by using the 600+2x on a beanbag at 1/60th second. Basically I can shoot as freely at 1200mm as I could formerly shoot at 300mm. In the past I was very, very lucky to get a sharp shot at 1200 on a windless day, holding my breath, on a tripod with the head firmly locked at 1/250. In fact the 2x had largely replaced the 1.4x as the standard teleconverter for me. I'll just use the 1.4x when I need a certain cropping or an additional f stop of speed. The new lens at 1200mm is incredibly sharp!

 

The new 600IS reaaly is that amazing. If you don't believe my claims, then come on by with your loupe and see for yourself.

How soon do you need the advantages of IS/VR in the long glass? If you need it within a year, then you must go with Canon as it is doubtful we will see VR in Nikon lenses that soon. If you can wait or year or more, then save money on a system change and wait for Nikon to introduce VR into their long lenses. It's really that simple. You can, of course, keep two systems going, but that is a real pain and introduces plenty of extra costs and hassels.

I have to throw in one more thing. I know several photographers who due to economics own older, manual focus Nikon teles such as the 600mm f/4 and 800mm f/5.6. They get wonderfully sharp photos from these lenses even with TC's attached. They also use very good technique. I think that if one uses IS as a substitute for good technique, then you end up not getting what you are paying for (IMHO). If one already has good technique, then the IS may help with those photos at the extreme edge of doibility..

 

Also, as I have said many times, what I really need is a lens that will stabilize the subject. I lose many more photos to moving subjects than equipment vibrations.

Actually, I think Bob Atkins has a very good suggestion that Jeffrey Sink should rent a Canon 500mm(or 600mm) /f4 IS lens and a Canon body to check it out in actual shooting siutations to see how much IS helps him, as he hasn't specified what type of nature photography he is into. I can see IS being very useful if you shoot on a bean bag from a safari vehicle in Africa, for example. That is also an opportunity to see whether he likes Canon bodies and the entire system as well.

 

As far as Nikon's VR lenses go, we still don't know how well VR works compared to Canon IS. Historically, Nikon is usually very slow in introducing new technologies to its cameras. It could be a long wait before any Nikon 500mm/f4 VR AF-S becomes available, if ever. While a 600mm/f4 IS permits you to use a 2x TC in many occasions makes life a lot easier for bird photographers such as Arthur Morris, Bob Royce and Terry Danks, a large part of the market for "big glass" is sports photography where IS/VR isn't that helpful. At least to me, it isn't clear that Nikon will ever have a need to introduce any 500 or 600mm/f4 VR. I think it is a bit risky to wait for something that may never happen.

 

If Jeffrey determines that he definitely needs IS and money isn't an issue, I would just get a Canon body and an IS big glass w/ TC. It'll be inconvenient for a while. He can either gradually switch over to Canon or get a Nikon 500mm/f4 VR should one become available.

 

Personally, what really complicates things today is digital. I have little doubt that film bodies will be out of date in a few years. It isn't clear which brand will have better digital technology a few years down the road that may demand yet another costly switch.

With digital quickly rising over the horizon, and with the shorter FL lenses that go with smaller imagers, I think long lenses are going to become obsolete. I bet you wont see much more developement in these long lenses. There! I turned a N vs. C debate into a film vs. digital debate!

I am a retired photographer on a limited budget 500mm and 600mm lenses are not in

my budget, I do mainly bird photography. I use a 100/400 IS as my main bird lens.

Often it is used with a 1.4 extender or a 2x extender. I am able to get very sharp

pictures at 800mm with a tripod. I have also gotten razor sharp images at 560mm

with the 1.4ext hand held at 1/125 second. This allows me to take pictures that were

impossible to take prior to the IS technology. I switched to Canon for this technology

among other reasons and I feel it is the best move I have ever made. If money is not

an object with you then buy one Canon body and one IS lens if not try the rental

route. From what I've seen you'll get shaper pictures than you ever gotten before as

well as shots you couldn't get before........It doesn't matter to me Canon or Nikon it's

just what gets the results for me

Here's my two cents worth. If I was to do it all over again, i would go with Canon simply for the IS. But seeing as I own a 600f4 AFS, I am not about to lose all that money for a small extra percent of keepers. Most of my sharpness problems are with subject movement since i use the slowest film possible so IS will not be of benefit in those situations.

With the big lenses you will not be hand holding so that is not an issue. The main issue will be stabilization using TC's, windy conditions , etc. If sharpness is paramount, then you will not want to use TC's unless necessary. I would think the difference optically between N and C to be trivial for these caliber of lenses. Someone posted about using the 100-400 with 2x and getting sharp images. "Sharpness" is very subjective, and I doubt that his definition is the same as yours especially since you enlarge to large prints.

If you have the dough, then go for it, because it is a worthwhile tool, and you will be old and gray by the time Nikon puts it into their lenses.

I was given the opportunity not long ago to test out the Canon 300mm f2.8 IS lens. I did a side by side comparsion of this lens with a AF-S 300mm f2.8 lens. Both lenses were mounted on Gitzo tripods and set at shutter priority. The cameras used were the EOS 3 and the F5. The speeds tested on both systems were 1/30, 1/15 and 1/8 sec. I tested the Canon lens with IS and without IS switched on. I also handheld the Canon 300mm f2.8 IS lens and shot at 1/60 sec. The results ?

 

At 1/30 sec, both lenses performed equally well - sharp images. However, at 1/15 sec, images with IS switched off were a tad softer. Surprisingly, the AF-S lens produced sharp images at 1/15 sec. At 1/8 sec, all images were soft even with IS switched on. Things looked better with mirror lock-up and 2sec self timer/cable release.

 

The great thing about the IS lens was that it produced consistently sharp images when I handheld the lens and shot it at 1/60 sec. - something I could not achieve with the AF-S lens.

 

Canon has agreed to let me test out their other IS super telephotos(400, 500 and 600mm) soon and I will try to feedback to this site when possible.

 

Regards,

 

 

Alan

"I think long lenses are going to become obsolete."

 

-- Ron Shaw, April 3, 2000

 

I am surprised no one took up Ron's comments, either to agree with or dispute them.

 

I own no digital body and am pretty unknowledgeble about them. I understand that, through some quirk, they produce larger image scale on the frame than conventional bodies, effectively turning a lens into the equivalent of a longer focal length. Great for telephotos, not so great for wide angles. It seems a gift horse but I need to look it in the mouth before accepting it . . . I'm a tad incredulous this will come with no strings attached. What's the bad news about this quirk of digital?

 

Regardless, I remain unconvinced that long lenses will become obsolete but allow Ron the humor he likely intended with the statement.

 

Can I look forward to dispensing with my teleconverter on occasion perhaps?

 

In any event I see long, fast IS'd lenses as great advantages in wildlife photography . . . digital or conventional.

 

If I thought the image quality was there, and the storage problems amenable to field work, I'd be investigating digital pretty quickly.

 

Digital has little application in nature work as I see it . . . and not likely for several years yet either. Journalism is a whole other kettle of fish and I have no problem understanding its ready acceptance in that field.

Just the fact that you can get immediate feedback is a big enough advantage for me to switch to digital for wildlife work; landscape may be a different story. However, the quality of digital must catch up with film, the price needs to be affordable, and there must be reliable storage that can be carried to the field.

 

As it has been pointed out several times in this thread, a major problem with wildlife (and sports) photography is subject movement. To a large degree fast AF solves the problem of focusing a moving target and that is why it has had a major impact on wildlife and sports photography. IS/VR solves the problem of camera and lens movement, which to a fairly large degree is the result of poor technique and/or insufficient camera support. That is why IMO IS/VR isn't nearly as important as fast AF although it may help a lot of mediocre photographers to get sharper images. But IS/VR is still no substitution for a high shutter speed to freeze a moving subject. However, in some situations such as shooting from a canoe as we discussed recently or adding a 2x TC to a 600mm for bird photography, IS may have a major advantage.

Terry, yes, there was a bit of humor in the statement, but it is based a bit on truth. The reason most digital cameras use shorter FL lenses is because digital imagers are fairly small, hence the need for shorter FL lenses. Imagers can (and are) being made larger (like the 18x26mm 6MP ones in the Kodak DC460), but resolution in digital can be achieved with higher density imagers, unlike film. It seems the current push is in increasing the pixel count, and keeping smaller sized imagers. If the desired resolution can be had in a small size, there is no need for a larger physical size. I doubt the future will need large format. (although Im sure the future will still need movements). I have been rooted in film for the last 35 years, but Im amazed at how quickly digital is arriving. I doubt I will purchase another film camera. Digital cameras already outsell film based SLRs. Digital imagers are improving faster than storage solutions (and battery solutions, too!) Check out the image quality that can be had from the new crop of 3+ MP cameras like the Nikon Coolpix 990. These cameras can already make excellent 8x10s, for under $1k retail. The lens used is something like 7-25mm (dont remember for sure), which is like a 35-115 in the 35mm world. Not to sway from the subject, but we can no longer ignore the future, and need to think hard before spending large amounts of money on a camera purchase. Image stabilization techniques are showing up on digital cameras, also. The future is almost here, guys!

i thought the canon i.s. technology required you to turn it off when mounted on a tripod to prevent it from "searching". is this not true and if so then what advantage is there on a tripod?

***

I'm a tad incredulous this will come with no strings attached. What's the bad news about this quirk of digital?

***

 

The bad news is very simple -- the ccd array is smaller than a 35mm frame, so it's just cropping the image. You can realize similar "benefits" with a conventional slide and a pair of scissors.

Mark, the point some people are making is that when CCD technology improves, a CCD (much) smaller than the size of a current 35mm frame will deliver sufficient image quality that large CCDs and hence those huge 600mm/f4 lenses won't be necessary any more. Obviously we are still a long long way from there.

 

Similarly, when film improves (e.g. Velvia and more recently Provia 100F), you no longer need medium format to achieve certain results as 35mm is sufficient.

The only problem with this discussion is that it is ignoring the resolution limits of the lenses used. With the best 35mm films the resolution limits of the best current lenses are visible on film. So, even if you make a digital imager that is much higher quality than film you will still be limited by the resolution of the lens. I am sure that some gains will be made that will allow for use of smaller lenses -- a smaller image circle allows a smaller lens even at the same focal length after all. However, there is a technological limit to what can be achieved, and we are not so far away from it even just using film.

Shun,

 

I understand perfectly well the point people are making. I was merely explaining to the previous poster what he wanted to know.

 

That said, I don't necessarily agree with the point anyway. Lens resolution is only so good. Unless the lens in a digital camera with a CCD, for the sake of argument, half the size of a 35mm frame, has a resolution twice as good as the 35mm lens, you're going to lose out even if you have a quadrillion pixel CCD. I seriously doubt it's possible to make those sorts of improvements. There's also an issue of physics involved: diffraction effects limit how small your image can be if you want sufficient resolution.

We are really drifting off to a totally different topic here. If Bob Atkins feels that it is necessary to delete this off-topic discussion, please do so.

 

It has been mentioned a couple of times that lens diffraction will be a limitation when we go to a smaller image sensing area. I am no optics expert, but is there any theoretical limit on the type of optics we currently use or there is merely some technological limit that could be overcome in a few years? Today people are willing to pay close to US$10,000 for a 600mm/f4. If we can make a "better" 300mm/f4 that can give us 12x magnification on a CCD that is 25% the size of a 35mm frame, people may be willing to pay $5000 for it.

Shun wrote: "IS/VR solves the problem of camera and lens movement, which to a fairly large degree is the result of poor technique and/or

insufficient camera support."

 

This seems a very negative attitude towards image stabilization. Implied is that IS lenses are for photographers using "bad" technique. If you can get a sharp slide with an IS 300mm lens hand holding at 1/50, then doing so is NOT bad technique. It is excellent technique to do precisely that, and presents the photographer with additional opportunites over that attainable with non IS hardware.

 

It is very "bad" technique with less capable hardware that can not possibly yield good results when doing so.

 

IS redefines entirely what "good technique" is when supporting lenses.

If it did not do so, it would be a technological failure.

 

Forget the inverse focal length rule that used to define "good technique" for selecting shutter speeds when hand holding. For IS that rule is obsolete. The "good technique" referred to here is well on the way to being "obsolete" technique for obsolete equipment.

 

Sure, those utilising the "obsolete" technique can get images just as sharp as those from non IS lenses . . . but the need for the extra effort should hardly be construed as some kind or virtue and the need to adhere to it will surely result in fewer opportunites.

 

If you grant IS works, you can hardly slap at it by implying it is little more than a bandaid for "bad" technique.

Brad,

 

These superteles are the latest generation of IS lenses. IS works even when the lens is mounted on tripod.

There's a problem with really small ccds that no one has mentioned.

 

Pixels smaller than a wavelength aren't very useful. Modern chips are produced with hard UV lithography (moving into x-rays). I'm not sure how much complexity there is in a ccd, but they certainly can't keep up with normal chips because the pixels will become smaller than the

waves they are trying to detect. Of course this argument applies to any light-sensitive pixel array, including normal film. For reference, Intel is currently using a 180 nm process for its new processors.

 

Deep red has a wavelength of about 750 nm. A very good digital camera (likely to cost $25k) has a resolution of 5000x5000. Say your pixels are 3 wave lengths across. Multiply the three numbers and you get 11.3 mm which isn't that small.

 

Modern slow films like velvia are pretty close to the fundamental resolution limit. Fast films run into other problems, like too few photons hitting the grain (pixel). Larger grains (pixels) are the solution. I don't think electronic devices will get much better than film, maybe a two fold improvement. Photography will never see the exponential growth of computers, even after they go digital.

 

I suppose you could go into UV photography if you use sapphire lenses. And you though the glass ones were expensive!

I for one have been reading with great interest the debate between Digital v. Film and hope it gets archived.

 

 

For Jeffrey Sink and everyone else getting ready to switch to I.S. the lens that you are switching from is still worth alot, which offsets the cost of the switch. Lenses are tools, not investments, but I must admitt that the thought of a $10,000 tool depretiating so quickly by digital makes me shudder. It also makes the discussion worth while before such a big purchase.

 

As for the original question, I too would wait for a year unless you make a business out of this. Now that Canon has introduced their lenses, that really puts the pressure on Nikon, and in another year the price of the Canon lenses will have leveled off or maybe even fallen.

Bravo to Terry Danks! His response sums it all up.

 

I doubt the price of the Canon IS lenses will come down too much more. Except for B&H, most dealers are selling Canon 600/f4IS lenses for LESS than the Nikon 600-S (under $9k). When gray market lenses become available from reliable sources, better deals maybe will be found.

Sorry to Terry and Bob (Royce) because I simply disagree with Terry's response. I am not against IS/VR. It is clearly a nice feature to have and can't be very useful in some applicatons, but IMO it doesn't make that much of a difference in many other applications.

 

I occasionally hand hold my 300mm/f4 lens although I mainly use it either on a tripod or when I need faster action, I use it on a monopod. But at least I cannot hand hold a 300mm/f2.8 for more than a minute or two. And with the magnification of a 300mm, 1/50 sec is simply not nearly fast enough to freeze any type of action. As it has been said over and over, a major problem in wildlife photography is subject movement, and animal action frequently leads to excellent wildlife images. In other words, most likely you'll still be using 1/250 sec, 1/500 sec or even faster anyway and you'll still need a solid tripod to support your big lens so that your arms won't get tired quickly, or in the case of 500mm/600mm lenses, strong wind won't blow them over.

 

I can see the advantage of IS/VR if you aren't shooting from stationary ground or letting you get higher magnification w/ a 600mm + a 2x TC. However, a lot of the old problems still remain. If you can develop some type of image stabilization that stabilizes subject movement, then it would be a totally different story. For that, you'll need the special power of Piper in the TV series "Charmed." :-)