500mm 5.6 or 6.3?

<p>I would love to have either version of Canon’s 500mm f4 lens, but cannot handle the lofty price. The size might be hard to handle as well. I started thinking a 500mm 5.6 or even a 6.3 lens with IS might be a good seller if Canon or a third party lens manufacturer produced one. Possibly even an EF-S lens. Not only would the lens cost less, but it would be smaller and easier to handle than the f4. My guess on the price of such a lens might be $2400 to $3000. For anyone needing 500mm, but unable to afford the expensive f4 L, this would be a far more affordable option. Just wondering if anyone else would have interest in such a lens and is my guess on the price within reason?</p>

<p>I think we all want our cake and eat it too...<br>

A couple of thoughts: My guess is that it isn't going to happen. Why? The alternatives are already available. For example a 300 2.8 and a 2X TC which I have. I bought the 300 used. It works well. Would I rather have a 600 f4? You bet! However... I'd want the high quality of the Canon and I doubt a company could produce a 500 or 600mm 5.6 or 6.3 that would satisfy me. I can rent a 500 or 600 if I really wanted one for a special trip. Also.. they wouldn't do well with a 1.4 or a 2X TC. There is a reason Canon makes the 600 f4. <br>

In general.. I just don't think there is much of a market for what you are suggesting.<br>

Richard</p>

 

<p>I think a lens like this would do very well. They could retire the old 400/5.6 non-IS and produce a 500/5.6 or 6.3 prime with IS. Those shooting airshows and little birds (where you need some dof and large aperture is not needed) would welcome this lens.</p>

<p>I've wondered if Canon should update their 100-400/4.5-5.6L IS to a 100-500/4-6.3L IS. Kinda like Sigma 150-500/5-6.3 OS, but with better optics. Probably not gonna happen though.</p>

<p>You can consider an older used Canon 500 mm f/4.5 L lens. It doesn't have image stabilization, but is otherwise a very nice lens. I just checked and KEH.com has two for $3700-$3900, if you can afford that price. They are listed as EX+ condition. Canon's 1.4x and 2X TC's are usable with this lens with manual focusing (that's true with the latest 500 mm f/4L IS USM, and the f/4L II as well unless you have a 1-series bodies). You might check on this site's classified section (I haven't). Good luck.</p>

<p>In the meantime, the prices on old catadioptric (mirror) lenses are going lower and lower. You can get a Reflex-Nikkor f/8 lens or a Sigma 600mm f/8 lens for around $200 or less. Of course, they are manual focus, and perhaps not much good anymore for people who have forgot the tricks that used to be used to photograph sports with these things. However, they don't focus any slower than they used to, it's merely the users who have got out of the habit. A cheap adapter and set your camera on M or Av.</p>

<p>Mirror lenses are not for everyone. People who love "bokeh" tend to faint when presented with a mirror lens picture with lots of background highlights, but if you learn to use a nice lens shade, much of the problem with contrast is eliminated. In my experience, the current mirror lenses on the market are best left alone.</p>

<p>Some of the 400mm to 500mm normal long lenses are surprisingly good also, if you need to control aperture settings. Again, there are old Nikon and Pentax, etc. lenses.</p>

<p>Of course, the lenses you can't practically use are the old Canon FD mount lenses. It's the price we pay for having what is really a very nicely done, modern lens mount.</p>

<p>I would <strong>love</strong> a 500mm f/5.6 L IS.<br>

For that matter, I'd love a 400mm f/5.6 L IS.<br>

A 100-500mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS would become my new "walk around" lens in a heartbeat.<br>

I'm still waiting to see how pricy the 200-400mm f/4 L IS (with built-in 1.4xTC) will be. I'm guessing it will be well out of my range... :-(</p>

<p>I'm surprised Tamron or Sigma hasn't released a stabilized 500mm f/5.6. Seems like it would be very popular with birders.</p>

<p>Sigma does have some crazy-long lenses, including a 300-800mm f/5.6 (for $8,000) and an 800mm f/5.6 (for $6,600). Neither is stabilized though.</p>

<p>Sigma does have 150-500/5-6.3 FF compatible and w/ OS for ~ $1000. Such a lens will produce far superior results to the mirror reflex lenses, plus, it has HSM... and OS. ..for $1000.</p>

<p>If you are willing to compromise on the IQ a bit off a primes IQ (and those who suggest a 100-500 clearly are willing), than this lens is already in place, available, and ideal. </p>

<p>It seems such a lens would work fine for the OP.</p>

<p>I can't see any f/6.3 lens coming from Canon. That would mean that it could only autofocus with the 1-series cameras, and then only with the center focus point, as I recall. It would also mean no AF at all with Rebels, XXXDs, XXDs, 7D & 5Ds, which would be the target market for a "slower" lens like that.</p>

<p>I'd like to see a 400 f/5.6L IS, but the more I get into birding, the less attractive any 400 f/5.6 is without a zoom. I have the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS USM, which I see as short on the 400mm end very frequently, but at least I don't need to swap it out when a closer subject presents itself. I'd much rather see a non-DO 400 f/4L IS USM. That should come out cheaper than the current 400 F/4 DO, and be able to take a 1.4x TX on non-pro bodies for a 560 f/5.6.</p>

<p>The upcoming 200-400 f/4 with built-in 1.4x TC is rumored to be VERY expensive, right around, if not smack dab between the 500 f/4 IS USM II and the 600 f/4 IS USM II. At that price, I see the zoom & built in TC as the big selling points (probably size & weight, too), as the longest it'll do is 560 at f/5.6. People looking for similar focal lengths would be better served by one of the primes and a 1.4x TC. In the case of the 500, it might turn out cheaper, and you get 700mm with the 1.4x TC!</p>

<p>One of the newer rumors is a refresh of the 100-400, making it f/4 at the short end (vice f/4.5), and possibly weather sealed, with a twist-zoom rather than the push/pull. That'll likely drop in someplace over $2,500 (and we'll be lucky if it's that cheap).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Those shooting airshows and little birds (where you need some dof and large aperture is not needed) would welcome this lens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Being a bird shooter, I often need big apertures just getting the shot! Not all birds sit on a branch, perfectly lit in the open by sunlight. Many of them forage in the woods, and even on a brilliant sunny day, in the woods, I'm pushing my 7D's ISO so I can keep the shutter speed up to freeze the action. Even birds sitting on a branch move very quickly, and so avoid subject motion blur, you need the larger apertures with a fast shutter speed, and the highest ISO you can get away with. And there are still many folk in the woods with 500 f/4s using flash extenders to get the shots! I'm definitely saving my quatloos for at least a 500 f/4 II...</p>

<p>But, I was looking at the reviews for the 300mm f/2.8 II recently, and that lens, along with both III series extenders prices out about 1/3 less than the 500 f/4 II. That's still the price of a good, used, car, but you can sell the lens on after 10 years for about what you paid for it. Try that with a used car!</p>

<p>It's not quite the IQ of the 500 or 600 II lenses with the 2x TC, but at 300, the reviews say it is spectacular, and it really doesn't lose all that much with the TCs. It's a somewhat more versatile setup for a lot less.</p>

<p>I would think that Sigma would fill this niche. Even with an f/4 they'd be substantially under the Series I 500mm. Their zooms are good, but just don't deliver the IQ near to the prime Canon super teles. They might get close with a prime.</p>

<p>Of course, Sigma also does the 120-300mm f/2.8 OS, which I can attest to being a damn' good lens (being the lens I use on my 7D for bird photography) - very good with a 2x on it too, so <em>6</em>00mm at f/5.6 is eminently doable that way, and (here in the UK at least) easier to track down and cheaper than a good used Canon 300mm f/2.8 IS. </p>

<p>I like the zoom too...</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Their zooms are good, but just don't deliver the IQ near to the prime Canon super teles.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The Siggy 120-300mm f/2.8 OS is easily an IQ match for the Canon primes - then again, my Canon 100-400mm is as sharp as equivalent FL Canon primes too, and that's "not possible" either.</p>

<p>Keith said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The Siggy 120-300mm f/2.8 OS is easily an IQ match for the Canon primes - then again, my Canon 100-400mm is as sharp as equivalent FL Canon primes too, and that's "not possible" either.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not exactly true. See for yourself, looking at current EF lenses:<br>

<a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=249&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=803&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0">http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=249&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=803&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0</a></p>

<blockquote>

<p>Their zooms are good, but just don't deliver the IQ near to the prime Canon super teles. They might get close with a prime.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>They are also, literally, a fraction of the price. At 1/2 the price of a canon 300/2.8, the Siggy 120-300/2.8 produces very nearly the same absolute IQ at the center and near (though obv. not at the edges). OTOH, you could get a Sigma 300/2.8 OS with nearly as makes no difference the same IQ as the Canon 300/2.8 IS - also, about 1/2 the price. - overall, I'd say darn near 'very close'</p>

<p>There is no doubt, for those of us who aren't in the 1% ;-) Sigmas line of telephoto/superteles is vastly more competitive than any of Canon's efforts... IQ? very nearly the same, and price? 1/2 -> 1/4. </p>

<p>Depending on what you're photographing, and old manual focus lens might be just fine. I just picked up an old Pentax M42 screw mount 500mm f/4.5 for about $400. It's a very monstrous and unweildy lens, but a tripod tames it pretty well, especially if you also put a tripod under the camera body. (Using two cheap, yet sturdy, tripods, I've built what I'm calling a pentapod. One tripod supports the lens, and another, with one leg removed, has its remaining two legs attached at the feet to the lens' tripod. Is this rig any good for capturing birds in flight or race cars zooming around a track? Absolutely not! However, if you have a well defined, stationary subject (e.g. a bird's nest) it works brilliantly.</p>

<p>The chief weakness of the Pentax 500/4.5, optically, is its chromatic aberration (true of most of the extreme telephotos of the 70's era). Otherwise it's a pretty sharp lens. CA corrections in post work to some extent, and it turns out a pretty sharp monochrome image. I've paired mine with an older Komura 2X 4-element teleconverter which I finally had time to test yesterday. Results are quite good. I would get a mirror telephoto if I wanted sharper photos and little/no CA (per JDM's recommendation), but I'm one of those people who gets all freaky about bad bokeh! ;-)</p>

<p>All of this is irrelevant if you need to track and focus on moving subject matter. In that case I would definitely get a modern autofocus lens. If you are considering sinking major $$$ into your optics investment, consider that the cheapest initial investment might be a camera body that performs well at high ISO settings. Then you can shoot at the same shutter speed with a smaller aperture (cheaper) lens. I imagine a 7D would be ideal.</p>

<p>The 1D X does not autofocus with slower than f/5.6 lenses so new AF lenses slower than f/5.6 are unlikely (since AFAIK only discontinued cameras would actually AF with them). A lens like 500/5.6 from Canon would <em>not</em> be that inexpensive and it would certainly be assumed to be purchased by high-end users rather than Rebel users; I recall the 600/5.6 Nikon manual focus lens was about 6000 EUR when it was still made so I think this should give the ball park for the price of a new f/5.6 supertele, if not more expensive.</p>

<p>While improved high ISO image quality no doubt makes it easier to achieve sharp results using slower supertelephoto lenses, there are still issues that limit widespread interest. First, at least I find that with long lenses (300mm and up) the background will make the subject look closer to background objects (due the relative distance between the main subject and background being not necessarily great even if they are far away from each other in absolute sense) and the resulting two-dimensional image will often have a cluttered appearance if shot at e.g. f/8 or slower. Of course, if the subject is birds then they are often so small that even at f/8 there will be a lot of background blur. But with people photography I find I want to stay at f/4 or wider whenever I can as f/5.6 is a bit cluttered already in some cases but with a suitable background can be used. Of course, a f/5.6 version can be much smaller than f/4, but Canon seems to have found ways to reduce the weight of their long primes substantially even without resorting to smaller apertures or diffractive optics, and I think they are relying on the attraction created by the reduced weight and increased optical performance rather than introduce slower lenses. Nikon also doesn't seem to display any interest in the slow supertelephoto lens. If we assume that Roland Vink's Nikon lens serial number database approximately reflects the number of lenses sold, Nikon has over the years sold about twice as many 600/4 lenses than 600/5.6's. Adding price to the equation, it would then seem that the faster lens is probably the more profitable venture in this class of lenses. Most people who prefer more portability just use a shorter lens and crop to get the framing they need rather than go with the long and slow.</p>

<p>The increasing pixel density of cameras seems to make this a more and more viable approach - stay with something portable yet fast and get a "free zoom" by cropping. TCs reduce maximum aperture, usually require additional stopping down of the lens, introduce internal flare and reduce contrast, and increase the physical size of the setup, whereas the cropping approach still sacrifices SNR (compared to a longer lens with the same aperture) but there seems to be a lot of potential for additional resolution in the best lenses that can be exploited more and more in the future without resorting to TCs. A 500/5.6 or 600/5.6 may be quite unweildy to carry even though not very heavy, such lenses are very long. Thus maybe a 2.4kg 300/2.8 + high pixel density sensor may be what people prefer to carry and then just rely on the increased MTF of the lens and increased SNR and high pixel density of the camera to crop to the framing they need. And then the very serious will continue to use 500/4's and so on, but they won't be as mobile as the 300mm lens user. </p>

 

<p>I just wish that they'd add IS to the wonderful EF 400mm f/5.6L. On a 7D, with the high pixel density, you can get pretty near the IQ of the 500mm f/4 on a full-frame camera.</p>

<p>Of course, once you start down this road, you've never got enough lens. I have a 500/f4 and find myself using the 1.4x TC over half the time. Adding a TC to the 400/5.6 bogs it down to so slow that it can't be used for anything that moves.</p>

<p>+1 to what David says. Even though a 400 f/5.6 II IS USM would probably cost at least $2,500, based on Canons current pricing trends!</p>

<p>I thought 300 would be fine, so I bought the Tamron SP 70-300... Then I thought 400 would be fine, so I bought an EF 100-400 L... Now I realize that for birds and most other wildlife, there ain't no such thing as "too much lens"... Well, at least till your back tells you so, and you can't afford a Sherpa... ;-)</p>

<p>Yeah, a 500 and 1.4x TC seems to be the big ticket for birds. 500mm f/4 & 700mm f/5.6. in a reasonable package. Though, with the new 600mm coming in at a very respectable weight (a mere 50 grams heavier than the 500 version I)... When you're spending over $10,000 on one lens, what's another $2,500, right? ;-)</p>

<p>$13,000, ugh!</p>

<p>Here's my 7D, 500/f4, + 1.4TC, + 25mm ET, hand held, yesterday:</p>

<p><a title="Close up of broad-tailed hummingbird. by dcstep, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8148/7484376232_013861f404_c.jpg" alt="Close up of broad-tailed hummingbird." width="800" height="534" /></a></p>