Should I wait for Nikons 600/4 VR lens or buy now?

[henry_domke]

I read online that the �600/4 will be upgraded to VR soon�. I have been saving

to buy the Nikkor 600/4 lens and was considering buying it in the near future

for my bird photography. Even though I do sell my images I don�t sell much so

I can�t make an argument to buy now and upgrade later.

 

How much of a difference does image stabilization make on long glass? What

would I gain? What would I loose? Does anyone have experience with

Canon�s 600/4 IS lens versus the non-IS lens? I anticipate mounting the lens

on a Wimberly head on a sturdy tripod and attaching it to my Nikon D1x.

 

How was resale value affected of Canon�s non-IS lenses when IS was

introduced?

 

Should I buy the Nikkor 600/4 now or wait for the VR version to come out?

[daniel_ck_chan]

I have asked Nikon Japan for their plan of issuing super tele lens with VR lens, but they answer me with no plan, no date. I ask the same question to Nikon Hong Kong, but they said that it would beat their AFS super tele lens (non-IS).

 

I cannot wait anymore and finally switch to settle with the EF500 IS lens with HKD45,000 (around USD5,770). I am no regret for the switch (except $$) and now very satisfied with the new combo. I need not to worry about the equpiment anymore but only how to approach the target (birds) to take a good picture.

[thidglance]

This might not be the answer your looking for (and it is comming from a nikon guy) - I would buy a Cannon 600 F4 IS USM with a cannon body and just dedicate it. This might sound a bit crazy, but compare the lens price to the body price ... Canon have the technological edge ... howerver you will not be disapointed with the 600 F4 AFS - the IS really seems to help with TC shots though - esp the 2x

[craig_bridge]

As an owner of a 80-400VR and 600 f/4 AFS, I wouldn't wait if I was planning on using it on a tripod. A 600 f/4 is too heavy to hand-hold. Image Stablization doesn't do much good when you are on a stable tripod/head, and in some cases will cause a blur on a false motion detection. If your working on a mono-pod, go the Canon route or be prepared to wait.

[steve_dunn2]

<p>That sort of glass is way out of my price range, so unless someone wants to send me one as a present :-) I can't provide any personal experience. Those who <em>have</em> used the Canon IS superteles report that IS is useful with the lens mounted on a tripod; contrary to the popular misconception, it's not just for handholding (the IS in some of the earlier lenses wasn't supposed to be enabled if you used a tripod, but the IS superteles and the 70-200/2.8 IS are OK on a tripod). See Philip's comments in <a href="http://www.photo.net/canon/600-is">his review of the Canon 600/4 IS</a> and <a href="http://www.birdsasart.com/faq_superis.html">Art Morris' comments about the Canon IS superteles</a> for examples of how useful IS can be on a tripod.</p>

[ShunCheung]

I would take those rumors w/ a grain of salt. Nikon might introduce VR versions of their big lenses, but until they announce it officially, your wait could very short or very long. Given that they just introduced a series of AF-S II lenses, it doesn't seem to make sense to replace them so soon. But I could be wrong, of course.

 

IMO IS/VR would make a big difference in those long lenses because that would allow you to use 2x TCs, when vibration is otherwise hard to control even with a good tripod. If you shoot film, you can always get a Canon 600mm/f4 IS and a $1000 body dedicated to it. If you shoot digital, those bodies are expensive and depreciate quickly. Moreover, Nikon users still have more selection in DSLRs w/ an excellent Fuji S2 as an alternative.

 

One way to do it is to get a used Nikon 600mm/f4 AF-S to avoid the initial depreciation. If Nikon indeed introduces a VR version, upgrade then and you won't lose as much.

[kferris575]

Henry,

 

I would wait for the Nikon version to come out, or switch to Canon. The IS feature is one of the best advancements in lenses in a while. It is very usefull when photographing in lower light (as is the case with most nature work). In addition, it really helps with teleconverters. If you can get a chance (rent a lens for a day or so, or go into the field with someone who has an IS lens), it may help you make your choice.

 

Kevin

[robert_kennedy]

In the end it sort of comes down to finances.

 

You need to weigh how long it takes you to save up for that lens, against your need/desire for the VR lens. If it takes two years, then you might want to wait a while. If it takes 6 months, maybe you'd want to go for it.

 

In theory VR gives you a couple of extra stops. You can shoot at slow shutter speeds and come out with a crisp image. So you would effectively get a 600/2.8(maybe less/more?) or something like that out of it. The tripod thing might be an issue. If Nikon did release this lens, then I'm sure it would be adjusted to work well with a tripod/monopod.

[wildpicture]

If I were you, I would look for a really good second hand Nikon 600/4 and buy that if the price is right. If Nikon would bring out a VR version of this lens (might still take a year or even two), you can sell it without too much loss. When bought second hand these lenses keep their value quite good. By then you may also have saved enough to buy the new VR version. Although I wouldn't be surprised if a new VR version would be VERY much more expensive.

 

Not too long ago I bought a Canon 500/4 IS after having used a MF Canon FD500/4.5L for many years. I was able to sell the FD500/4.5L within a week for just $150 less than what I had paid for it.

 

Now that I have the 500/4 with IS, I love it. Provided the subject doens't move of course, I can get very sharp shots at 1/60 and 1/30 from a tripod. Even 1/15 might work. The Canon IS detects when used from a tripod and performs perfectly on a tripod. Works wonderfull from within a car with beanbag too.

 

So IS or VR is a great thing to have. In my opinion more usefull even than AF ! But if you have to wait for another two years, you'd better buy something now and enjoy it for the next two years. In these two years you will be able to get great shots and a wealth of experience.

 

Regards,

Hans

[alan_woolnough]

Hello Henry,

 

I think Hans has made a crucial point, in his reply.

 

I only use manual focus, for my bird photography, and always tripod mounted. Ive never found camera shake to be the main problem with telephoto work, from close range. The main problem, especially with birds, is subject movement. Although the new lens you are refering to, may allow you to shoot at a slower shutter speed, this may not be a big enough advantage to justify the expense, if you are shooting for yourself. Even if you were able to use the possible extra couple of stops to increase DOF, at close distances, with long teles, the result would be marginal.

 

I, personally, would go for the 600 F4, as it is a proven lens, for bird photography, and i tend to concentrate on hide photography. However, if you are into stalking, either hand held, or with monopod, then IS lenses could be a big advantage. Which ever lens you decide on, is less important than your technique, IMO.

 

Best of luck

[Mike D]

I hand hold an 80-400 VR zoom lens which works great. You have to turn the VR off when the lens is mounted on a tripod. There is no assurance that if Nikon did introduce a 600 mm VR lens that you could utilize the VR feature while the lens is mounted on a tripod. My understanding is that the Canon IS lenses are tripod compatable. If correct, you may have only one option and it is available now.

[bob stewart jacksonville]

Newer Canon IS lenses are tripod compatible, such as the 600 f/4 IS and 500 f/4 IS. On the 300 f/4 IS by contrast, the IS does not work with a tripod.

A big advantage of the Canon 600 f/4 IS is that it allows you to use a little bit lighter tripod. Being the cheapskate I am, I bought a 600 f/4 (no IS) and a Gitzo 1500. With a Wimberly head its rock steady and I don't really miss the IS even with a 2x tc. If your willing to sacrifice your back more than your wallet buy a used non IS and a very sturdy tripod.

[ShunCheung]

My main problem with the "wait for a 600mm/f4 VR" approach is that you are waiting for something that doesn't exist, until there is an official Nikon announcement.

 

Nikon can be very slow in responding to demands. I recall as far back as 1990 that a lot of people were hoping for a 80-200mm/f2.8 AF with a tripod collar. It wasn't until 1996 that one became available. The 300mm/f4 D AF-S also took years, and those who want AF-S compatible extension tubes are still waiting .... I am afraid that you'll get very frustrated after a few months because there is no end in sight.

 

If you must have a 600mm/f4 IS, Canon is the only game now. Otherwise, I think Hans and I are making essentially the same point. The "conventional wisdom" is that a 600mm/f4 manual focus is better than no big lens, and a 600mm/f4 AF non-IS/VR is better than no 600mm/f4 AF. I would get the best that is available and affordable to you for now and upgrade later.

 

Worst comes to worst, say the day after you buy a 600mm/f4 AF-S, Nikon announces that they'll produce a 600mm/f4 AF-S VR. It'll be at lesat 3 to 6 months before it is actually available. (The 70-200 VR was announced back in February, that was 6 months ago and still not available yet.) On top of that the initial price will be high. It'll be another year or so before the price comes down and stabilizes. So it'll be a while beofre you actually upgrade anyway.

[bobatkins]

Unless you are young and in no particular hurry, I wouldn't wait for more Nikon VR lenses. Nikon are notoriously slow in upgrading their lens line.

 

Canon non-IS long glass prices (used) dropped by maybe 25% in the first year after the long IS glass was introduced. They seem to have more or less stabilized as a "low cost alternative" to IS lenses, but prices slip further as used IS lenses slowly hit the market.

 

Personally I'd switch to Canon if you really must have a stabilized 600mm lens. Not that the Canon glass is necessarily better, but my guess is that for a LONG time Canon will offer a greater range of stabilized lenses, from consumer grade out through 600mm. If you don't really care all that much about IS/VR stick with Nikon and wait..and wait...and wait...

[clivecc]

I own both the Canon 600mm F4 IS and non-IS. Both are superb lenses but the IS wins for me by a long way. Optically IS is a hair better but what really shines is IS. I can safely say that I get sharp images with the 2X TC down to 1/15 sec on my Gitzo 500 Tripod as long as the subject is still. This was shot at 1/15 sec at 1200mm on the IS:

 

http://www.clivecc.com/Random_Favorites/Rnd_15.htm

 

I was never able to acheive these results with the old lens plus 2X TC at less than about 1/60 sec. Even then it was hit and miss. This ability to shoot at low shutter speeds is important for me as I do almost all of my work with Velvia and I don't usually push it. You have the D1 so you will probably be able to shoot at ISO 200 in not so good lighting (giving you 2 stops advantage over Velvia) and maybe making IS less of a necessity for you......your call.

 

Hope this helps.

 

Clive

[raul_lithgo]

The time to "switch to Canon" if you wanted IS was several years ago. Now that Nikon has its first VR lens on the market and has announced development of the 70-200 AF-S VR, means that making the costly switch is not a good idea unless you have load of extra cash burning a hole in your pocket, or you can justify the cost for business reasons.

 

Besides there is more to a system than is/VS. Nikon has lead the field in Digital bodies for years and with the introduction of the D100 continues to do so. Since digital is probably the next big change in photography, do you want to give up on the leader?

 

IS/VR is a useful tool, but my biggest wildlife photo problem is SUBJECT movement, not camera movement.

[dan_smith]

Waiting for Nikon and big glass in the 'Canon catch-up game' can be frustrating. Canon came out with the 600 f/4 and Nikon sat on their hands for a full five years while a steady stream of Nikon shooters changed from black to white barrel lenses.

You wait & hope and in the meantime Canon has the glass you want available to use today. Even if you go with the single use body & only the 600 f/4 IS you are ahead of the game. You can always sell it when Nikon finally gets in gear or use it as the basis for a change in systems if you find it fits your style.

[bob_royse]

I posted a review at my website a couple of years ago on this lens when it first came out, so I'll refrain from rewriting it here. I took it down from my website about a year ago, since much of the information seems outdated now that many people are using digital cameras (which I know nothing about and can't afford), but the page is still accessible here :

 

http://www.roysephotos.com/600IS.html

 

The same can also be found on one of Arthur Morris' archive pages. I forgot which one.

 

I still feel that IS is incredibly important for bird photography, especially when using teleconverters. I certainly would recommend getting a Canon 600IS + a body for it if you're seriously interested in photographing birds. When or if a Nikon 600VR does come out, it would probably be a long time before its price was less than the combined price of a Canon lens with an EOS3.

[ShunCheung]

Fast AF is such an important feature because it lets you focus on fast moving subjects that most people cannot do manually; it is very important in sports photography and in many aspects of wildlife photography. That was why Canon EOS blew away Nikon in the late 80's and early 90's as Dan mentioned above, until Nikon finally introduced AF-I in 1992.

 

IS/VR (significantly) reduces camera vibration so that one can use slower shutter speeds when photographing stationary subjects. I agree that IS can be very useful as adding a 2x TC onto a 600mm/f4 becomes a lot more practical. However, if your subject moves, it negates the advantage of IS as you'll still need a fast shutter speed to freeze the subject.

 

The fact of the matter is that you can't argue both ways. If you need fast AF to deal with moving subjects, IS is essentially useless in those situations. If you have totally stationary subjects that IS shows its advantages, AF is not very necessary. What is truely important depends on your subject. To me, it lies somewhere in between. IMO AF is still the more important of the two; that is partly why I still don't own any IS/VR lenses. (I think Nikon's 80-400 VR is poorly designed and I don't feel that VR is that useful in the up-coming 70-200 VR's focal-length range.)

 

If you still shoot film, I would just get an EOS-3 body and Canon's 600mm/f4 IS and you are all set. If you shoot digital already as in Henry's case, Canon currently doesn't make a 5 or 6M pixel pro body yet, and buying a very expensive but quickly depreciating DSLR body such as the EOS-1D solely for the advantage of IS in a 600mm/f4 is a very costly solution.

 

There are already rumors that Nikon may soon announce some new lenses dedicated to its digital bodies. The implication is that CCD/CMOS sensors might stay in their current size, and no full-35mm-frame sensors are in the near future. Whether that will indeed be the case remains to be seen. But potentially these big 600mm/f4 could become obsolote as smaller and lighter super-telephotos with a smaller image circle will be the future. And we can also use some very short wide angles to have true super-wide for digital.

[chuck_jacob]

Having used an AFS 500/4 with 1.4x and 2x TCs extensively for birds for 4 years, here's one take on your question.

 

A high percentage of my best shots were only possible with AF.

 

A significant, though lower, percentage of my best shots owe greatly to the creative freedom and quick response of modern evaluative metering (I do use manual/spot when that's the best solution).

 

I shoot about 50% off beanbags, 50% with tripod, and I aprobably shoot a far larger percentage of low-ligh shots than mos folks. I know I've had a some throw-aways due to camera shake, but frankly, I be hard pressed to say I've actually missed any really good photo opportunity do to image shake while using tripod or bean bag.

 

So, While IS/VR might allow me to be a little sloppier, it may not have added even one shot to 'best of' collection. IS/VR would ne nice to have in my big tele - sure, why not - but I do'nt loose any sleep over it. It's clearly LESS important than fast, accurate AF and top notch evaluative metering - to say nothing of persistance and creativity.

 

So do.nt worry too much about IS/VR. And one thing for sure - if you wait, you'll miss oopportunities.

[chuck]

I don't doubt Nikon is working on a 600mm f/4 VR. Why? not because Canon has it. Nikon can live happily with being technologically behind Canon. It has made a habit of it. The real reason is Sigma is slated to release its own line of IS lens. It's clear Nikon no long makes it its goal to keep abreast of Canon, but it still strives to not be number 3. So it can't very well live with being upstaged by the lowly and much patronized Sigma. <p>

There is precedence in Nikon failing to act to counter Canon, but bestirred into action by threat of being upstaged by Sigma: Between 1995-1997, Nikon clientale looked enviously at Canon's EF 70-200 USM. Nikon was totally unmoved, and released just one minor revision with a tripod collar in 1997. Then in late 1997, Nikon's slumber was disturbed when Sigma announced its own HSM 70-200 f/2.8. Nikon instantly stirred into frenzed action and came out with its own 80-200 AF-S not even 6 month later.