Had to go Canon for 500 or 600mm

[farmer on the hill]

I have been for some time looking at buying a 500mm 0r 600mm lens to add to my

Nikon collection. I posted a couple questions on Photo.net and got a very good

response as far as advise was concerned. Having weighed all options (I think

all), I have come to the conclusion that I can't weight for Nikon to stop

dragging their heels in order for me to give them my money. I have decided to

go Canon for telephoto work for the following reasons.

 

1) Canon 500 & 600 lenses have image stabilization.

 

2) I will buy the Canon D30 camera which looks OK to work with this lens as I

need the DX format.

 

3) The money I save as the Canon lenses are less expensive and have image

stabilization, will be put towards the Canon camera body.

 

Can any one tell me if I am going wrong, is there something I have overlooked,

after all, this is a major investment for me and I don't want to be further

committed to a system that is falling behind.

 

The only down fall I can see is one more camera body in the bag and if I am

going out solely to shoot wild life and sport, I will only be taking one

lens/camera anyway. In the mean time for all other work I will use the Nikon

gear.

 

This could be the beginning of the end of a 30 year working relationship with

Nikon and I will be hard pressed to remain loyal to Nikon if they have dropped

out of the race to be on cutting edge.

[farmer on the hill]

I forgot to mention that the Canon is available and the Nikon is either out of stock or back ordered at B & H.

[joeb]

Are you purchasing a D30 or 30D? The 30D would be fine the D30 has much lower resolution (3.1 MP) and has a first generation sensor (announced 5/17/2000). I would not recomend the D30. I would recomend the Digital Rebel XT if body price is an issue

[farmer on the hill]

Yes Joe, The 30 D is what I meant. Thanks for the correction.

[mark_chappell]

Jonathan: Concur with Joe: you DO NOT want a D30 (long obsolete), you want the

current 30D -- or even better if you can cough up the dough, the 1DIIN.<P>

 

<I>This could be the beginning of the end of a 30 year working relationship with Nikon

and I will be hard pressed to remain loyal to Nikon if they have dropped out of the race to

be on cutting edge.<P>

The only down fall I can see is one more camera body in the bag and if I am going out

solely to shoot wild life and sport, I will only be taking one lens/camera anyway. In the

mean time for all other work I will use the Nikon gear.</i><P>

 

Been there, done that, for exactly the same reason. I think it's a very valid reason. But

one caution: you'll probably need more than just a lens and a camera from Canon. For

wildlife at least, you'll probably want a teleconverter or two, extension tubes, and flash.

That can add up. <P>

 

Like you I kept most of my Nikon gear for a few years after getting the Canon 500 mm and

a body. See if it works for you, at least for a while -- it's possible to deal with two

systems. It does become inconvenient when you travel, however (2 flashes instead of 1,

2 backup bodies, etc. etc.).<P>

 

Finally, you should know (if you don't already) that simple adapters let you use your Nikon

lenses on Canon bodies -- although with no autofocus and manual diaphragm control.

[farmer on the hill]

Hi Mark,

 

Where do you get these adapters ( not that I think I will be using them). I seldom go out with all my lenses. Usually I only take the equipment I need for a specific job, I brake them down in three ( Medium format camera and 4 primes, digital and 2 zooms and now long telephoto as I want to start doing high end pro work with extreme telephoto.

[mark_chappell]

<I>Where do you get these adapters ( not that I think I will be using them)</I><P>

 

I don't have any (although I'm tempted to get one to use my 20/4 Nikkor on my 1DII).

Apparently there are several sources and the Chinese-manufactured ones available from

ebay are perfectly good (lots of threads on this in the EOS forum). You can also use Leica

and Zeiss Contax lenses on EOS cameras in a similar way. <P>

 

FWIW, I'm very happy with my Canon 17-40 but there are lots of people who think Canon

wideangles are the weak part of their lens range (the long teles are the best). So if you

ever decide to move completely to Brand C and you have some Nikon wides you like, keep

the adapters in mind.

[richard_liu2]

Unfortunately, you're right about Nikon's 500mm 600mm lens. Nikon doesn't offer in this range. They suck. I've been looking for one too, but there is none. One alternative is Tamron(I think) either 175-500mm or 200-500mm. But I don't know if it has image stablizer and how good the AF is. I have seen some good results of flying condor from photosig. If you think of adapter, look for the vendor Fotodiox on ebay.

[mark_chappell]

<I> Unfortunately, you're right about Nikon's 500mm 600mm lens. Nikon doesn't offer in

this range. They suck. </i><P>

 

Sure they do -- both 500/4 AFS and 600/4 AFS. Both are fine lenses I'm sure, but the lack

of stabilization is (IMO) a critical flaw in lenses this long. Plus they cost more than the

stabilized Canon equivalents.<P>

 

<i>One alternative is Tamron(I think) either 175-500mm or 200-500mm. But I don't know

if it has image stablizer and how good the AF is. </i><P>

 

It is not stabilized and its AF won't hold a candle to what you get with Canon USM or

Nikon AFS. Not to mention that the N and C lenses are 99.99% certain to have far superior

optical quality and speed.

[richard_liu2]

I understand what you meant, Mark. But it's hard to justify the cost, and then there is the size.

 

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/pcd0161/photo-sneer-8.jpg

[peter_ehrenpreis]

Johnthan,

 

FYI: you can also get a Nikon to EOS (Canon) adapter so that you can/could use your Nikon glass on the Canon, all be it in manual only.

 

The 30D is great or a 5D (full frame but more $)

[ShunCheung]

Jonathan, cameras are tools for taking pictures, or for some people, items for collection. At least IMO, it is not some kind of relationship like spouses. If Nikon does not have what you need and Canon does, definitely buy Canon.

 

It also puzzles me that why Nikon does not put VR into their long teles. While VR is not that important to me, it obviously is to a lot of people. (B&H does have the 500mm/f4 AF-S II in stock, though, but only in the more expensive US version.)

 

However, IMO, what would be wrong is to buy one long lens and a 30D body. For one thing the 30D is not designed for sports and action photography. To take fully advantage of Canon, get a 1D Mark IIn that gives you 8 frames/sec for sports photography. Moreover, I would gradually switch over completely to Canon. What happens if that one Canon body you have breaks? In the long run, it is unwise to have two systems or use adapters to put Nikon lenses on Canon bodies. As an interum solution, that would be ok.

[ramon_v__california_]

i don't see the logic in having VR in a lens not meant to be handheld. o well, i guess you can pan on a monopad. i hope you are not making a bad decision in trying to save for a lens and getting a second body that will trigger a string of compatible lenses.

[ShunCheung]

Ramon, when you have a long lens on a tripod but need to shoot at 1/30 sec or so, having VR helps. VR lets some bird photographers to add 2X TC's on long tele and still get decent results. Without VR, vibration problems greatly decreases your percentage of good images.

[genec]

If you think you need VR with a tripod mounted lens then I guess you do.

However, here is a little food for thought. I use a Sigma 500EX HSM f4.5 on a regular basis for bird photography - often with a 2.0 and even with a 1.4 + 2.0 stacked with superb results. I have found it to be consistently razer sharp. You do need good long lens technique but that will be true with any lens/camera combination.

 

The only nudge I would give Nikon over the Sigma is, perhaps, build quality but the Sigma is certainly robust enough for me and I got it used for $2000; way less than half the cost of either of the two other brands.

 

I have never for a moment given a thought to the lack of VR/IS. I personally find it to be greatly overrated except for the infrequent times that I use my 70-200 handheld.

 

I think that all too often we tend to go for the newest gadgetry rather than learning how to use what we have. I am not casting stones at anyone - I am a gadget hound myself but sometimes the reality of budget has to take sway :). Meanwhile I am happily getting great images rather than saving for the next $5000 lens.

[mark_chappell]

<I>i don't see the logic in having VR in a lens not meant to be handheld.</I><P>

 

As Shun says, stabilization is very helpful at low shutter speeds on a tripod. It's also helpful

at higher shutter speeds if you can't lock your tripod head (you're tracking a moving target),

or if you're photographing from within a vehicle using a beanbag or just resting the lens on a

window. And it is quite possible to handhold big teles, at least briefly. I do it all the time for

flight shots with a 500/4 IS -- although lifting the rig gets painful pretty quickly, and I would

not want to try it with an ~11-pound 600/4 (but I've seen it done).

[farmer on the hill]

Richard,

 

I have a Tamron 200-400 5.6 and it does not measure up to Nikon; I did a comparison test with a 80-200 2.8 Nikon and with the Tamron set to 300mm and the Nikon image cropped to effectively be 300mm, the Tamron still did not measure up, the difference was like night and day. I am looking at the Canon lenses because it's a prime, fast F4 and the image stabilization is a plus.

 

At present not including the Medium Format equipment, I have 1 D200, 1 D70, 1 80-200 2.8 1 17-55 DX 2.8 and 1 Tamron 200-400 5.6. I am not going to spend any further amount of money as this will only be a further commitment especially with a 7000-8000 dollar lens.

[mark_chappell]

<I>especially with a 7000-8000 dollar lens.</i><P>

 

The Canon 600 IS will set you back that much but the Canon 500 IS costs "only" about $5500.

[farmer on the hill]

The whole driving force behind all this is to get equipped for the world cricket game that Barbados will be hosting this time next year. It's a very prestigious event for Barbados and I may get a pass as an official photographer for Barbados; I will be there shooting among the best sport photographers in the world and the images I take will definitely make or brake my future in this event. I will also have to get a lot of battery and memory back up and definitely a spare camera just in case.

[farmer on the hill]

My subject is a batsman standing about 80-90 yards away and I would like to get in quite tight.

[richard_liu2]

When I was researching on a lens in this range, I didn't find a good lens that gives satisfying result, unless it's a prime. The Tamron 200-400 certainly did not measure up. I only saw few shots from a tamron xxx-500mm of flying condor with ok quality, not close enough to a prime. There is not enough review about this lens. I understand your situation of switching to canon. Based on the results from the new nikon DX 18-70mm, 18-200mm, i hope nikon will(like what Shun estimated) come up with some new one in this range with VR. A f5.6 is good enough for me. A $8000+ 500/600mm Nikon is mostly out of reach for people who don't make a living on it. I'm not trying to overweigh on the VR feature. But a 200-400(or little longer), f5.6 with VR may help reduce the size and weight of the lens, and provide lot more opportunities. The cost(going to location, time spent waiting) of loss of opportunity, which usaully lasts only few minutes, is becoming unbearable for me. Unfortunately, Nikon still struggling with current production.

[John Crowe]

In my opinion IS is not necessary for sports since you need high shutter speeds anyway to stop the action. A monopod is an absolute must since you do not want to be handholding a lens of this size.

 

 

Having said that, if you are spending $5000-$8000 on a lens then you may as well get the lens that is more flexible, with IS, to cover other types of subjects and situations.

 

 

A 500 or 600mm lens gets awfully long on a 1.6x factor camera. Maybe great for a few specific subjects but not so great for others. Spending the mega bucks may warrant you considering the Canon EF 400mm f2.8 L IS and 1.4x converter instead. Just a little more flexibility with not much loss in quality with the 1.4x. Good luck.

[farmer on the hill]

Jon,

 

Point well taken, however I do think that the 500mm is probably the best bet and have the 1.4 converter just in case. Remember I am shooting a sportsman about 90 meters away and I do need to get in close. Cricket is not like foot ball or hockey where the players are all over the field, a batsman only has to make his run between two wickets about 25-30 ft. apart.

[richard_liu2]

Correction: The xxx-500 is not a tamron, it's a sigma.

 

http://www.photosig.com/go/photos/view?id=1757636&forward=browse

[farmer on the hill]

Gene,

 

Had a look at your bird shots, very sharp and good colour, unfortunately Sigma say it will only work as a manual focus with the 1.4 converter.