jay dougherty

<a href="http://www.photocamel.com/index.php/topic,355.0.html">This</a> may be the best explanation of crop factor I've seen.

I wonder: can the "eyes only" blurring effect seen in the sample be duplicated with a tilt/shift lens?

I meant to say Arca heads are no longer the best. I wish there were a way to edit these messages after having posted them.

Gitzo heads, IMO, are no longer the best. In fact, I have sworn them off entire, having had one too many lock-ups for my taste and patience.

 

If you're shooting long lenses, get a Wimberley and dedicate a tripod to the endeavour. If not, then your Gitzo suggestion would be fine. Bogen makes a good Pro Ball head. Really Right Stuff now makes fine ball heads. Avoid Gitzo; servicing those heads is a pain, as well, at least for those in the U.S.

I love the 500 and the 600. The 500 I love more, since it's more portable.

 

But I read someone's post about the Cooper's Hawk, and it reminded me of a wonderful experience I had recently. I was setting up the 600 with flash bracket. Just as I got it set up, a Cooper's flew on a branch and allowed me to frame it just right with the 600 before flying away. The 600 was just the right length. Not often than you have this experience with fixed lengths.<p>

 

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/2900777">Cooper's Hawk</a>

I am going to add a new wrinkle and suggest that you get a 500mm f/4 IS.

 

Wait a minute. That's not a new wrinkle, is it?

 

That's because there's no other wrinkle worth considering. Forget the 4.5 lens. It's a compromise at this point.

 

I have the 500 and the 600. The 500 is the gem, believe me, downright svelte compared to the 600, a joy to use and to carry. It's also sharper than the 600, I believe, and I tested 4 different brand new 600mm f/4 IS lenses.

 

Don't sell the 100-400, though.

Canon should not leave its customers conjecturing about such important matters and questions as those put forth here.

 

This is ludicrous and irresponsible.

 

That's my opinion. Canon is pulling here something tantamount to a mount upgrade, possibly rendering investments worthless one way or another.

I don't understand why the 300 and the 500 would be considered together -- they're for very different purposes. 300 would just be too short for most of the nature shooting I do, and 500 would be too long for much of what a 300 f/2.8 would work with.

 

Anyway, I know of no one who regretted getting the 500, at least not from a sharpness standpoint.

Jim,

 

I appreciate your comments. These were actually taken with the 600, one of the four I've tested recently. I was too lazy to update my equipment list. That's why I listed the 500. Based upon my testing, you're more likely to get a tack sharp 500 than 600. The 500 is just superb. Just superb. But I'VE ONLY TESTED ONE COPY.

 

LOL.

 

Actually I felt the eye of the herons was pretty sharp. Maybe it's my monitor. Discouraged now....

>>I guess I'd rather have it this way and risk being sold stuff as "new" that had been returned, then to get stuck with something I found I didn't like and couldn't take back.

 

I've returned only 1 or 2 lenses in the last 10 years, because despite the ads and reviews, they just didn't work as well as claimed. There's no way for me to tell that without "buying" it and I'd hate to get stuck with something that I'd been suckered into buying because it had been overhyped in the press.

 

<<

 

I agree. I'll reiterate that no dealer would have seen my $7,000 for the 600 f/4 if I hadn't had the opportunity to test and return if it didn't meet my standards. I lived in Germany for eight years and although I loved it there and would rather live there than in the U.S., especially given the current political leadership in the U.S., the return policies I did not like.

 

I doubt I'd have a 600 if I had to buy it in Germany.

 

I've probably dropped 40k or more with my photo dealer, so I think they've done alright by me overall.

>>I would never purchase a $7,000 lens from a retailer who told you that you had to stick with what you have, regardless of the defect. Would you? Granted, one could argue that the lens could be returned to Canon, but this would entail hardship on the user (being without a newly-paid-for lens for months) and it has been said that there is no guarantee Canon could repair a CA issue without making something worse.

 

It's a tough problem.

 

<<

 

To add to my own post: who's really to blame here? If Canon's QC were up to snuff, then there would be little reason to sift through a series of lenses looking for the best. I hope Canon ends up with these lenses back at their doorstep. Only then will someone at the factory get serious.

>>Getting the high performance you expect is very much a hit and miss affair. <<

 

I spoke to someone at the Canon service center in NY who said essentially the same thing - about hit and miss. "Luck of the draw" are the words.

>>I must say I would have reservations about buying from a dealer with the very relaxed policy about 'bring it back if you don't like it' that seems to surface quite often on this forum.

<<

 

This works both ways.

 

I would never purchase a $7,000 lens from a retailer who told you that you had to stick with what you have, regardless of the defect. Would you? Granted, one could argue that the lens could be returned to Canon, but this would entail hardship on the user (being without a newly-paid-for lens for months) and it has been said that there is no guarantee Canon could repair a CA issue without making something worse.

 

It's a tough problem.

>>Are they condemned and go back to Canon to be crushed? Probably not.<<

 

You answered your own question, but better yet would be to ask a sales rep at the store in question. I did. The response I got was that if goods are returned in salable condition and pass their inspection and no problems are reported, they are resold.

 

In my case, I carefully note the problems I found. In one case, I went so far as to suggest that the lens not be resold.

For the test to be meaningful, I would add that all of the lenses should be "new" or in the same like-new condition; otherwise you introduce yet another variable, of wear and tear.

>>Canon were pretty good. It actually went back to Japan for testing and they did replace a group of elements. It was better after the repair.

<<

 

This is good to hear.

>>The problem is how do you know if the lens you own is up to spec? Not many of us get the chance to pick through 4 lenses costing $7000+ each to see if there's a sample variation. <<

 

This is why I posted this message. In searching the net, you will rarely if ever find an observation on a lens from someone who has tested more than one sample.

 

To answer you question, the unsettling truth for many is that "you don't know if the lens you get is up to spec."

 

>>Did you see any difference in center sharpness (where there should be no CA)<<

 

Yes, but the differences related to contrast, and I assume a lens with CA will have reduced contrast and that this is how CA "shows up" in the center.

 

>>It's possible all the lenses were "within spec" of course. <<

 

It is, but if this is the case, it's troubling. If I'm spending 7k on a lens, I want it to produce gallery-quality photographs (assuming I have that ability, of course). I don't want my lens to put me at a competitive disadvantage. Unfortunately, based on my experience, *most* buyers of the Canon 600mm f/4 IS will be getting a lens that is not optimally adjusted.

 

As I said, the 600 I tried in March was without detectable CA. It was *sharper* than my 500 f/4 IS. All others I tried were not, and one was so bad as to be unusable by my standards.

 

Sharpness is particularly important for me with long lenses, since I want maximum clarity for such fine elements as animal hair. CA turns fine hair into matted colorations, and it makes you want to reach for the USM tool every time.

 

Now, if I had not first tested, by chance, a very good copy of the 600, I never would have known that the others were inferior. How did I test 4? I kept returning them to the dealer until I found one I could live with. When I'm spending that kind of money, I want a good lens, and I've been told that sending such a lens to Canon and asking for improvement is a crap shoot -- you may get the lens back worse than you sent it.

 

Yes, this experience leads me to believe that if you've tried only one copy of a lens, a responsible opinion regarding that lens should be preceded by the words, "I've only tried one copy, but...."

I have recently tested four brand new 600mm f/4 IS lenses by shooting

lens charts under identical circumstances. What I found was

disturbing. No two lenses were optically equivalent. The amount of CA

varied in all lenses - one was acceptable and the other three were

varying degrees of "maybe." CA reduces clarity and resolving power.

 

A 600 I had briefly back in March showed virtually no CA.

 

If you're picky about your expensive lenses, you'll want to keep this

in mind. I am personally disappointed the lack of quality control -

or perhaps "within spec" means a lot of different things.

I find myself chuckling as I read this: so much hatred. Some of you make my "bad mood" days look like a carefree stroll through the gates of paradise. I don't know about the rest of you, but I always assume those with the most vitriol to be the least enlightened.

If you're picky about your $7000 dollar lenses like I am, you will want to be aware that there are sample variations with the 600mm and 500mm lenses. In other words, not all 600mm lenses will work alike.

 

I recently tested four Canon 600mm f/4 IS lenses, all brand new, and all were different optically. One had CA so bad as to be unacceptable by any measure -- soft. Two were better but different from one another and still not that sharp. The other was tack sharp, without a trace of CA.

 

So there you are. Buyer be ready to test.

The 1.8 is a horrible lens, the worst Canon lens I have ever used. It is a piece of you know what. I hate it.

 

The 1.4 is super.

Thanks. I will be getting the 1549, since I use the center column.

 

I never understood how folks who don't have center columns adjust their tripod legs in-between the obvious extensions in those cases where they need to go up or down a few inches. I guess they just don't go up or down a few inches? If I had been restricted in this fashion, I would have lost many a great shot.

 

Anyway, I have the 1329 and use the center column all the time with my 500 f/4 with no adverse effects whatsoever. I just use proper long lens technique, resting my hand gently on the lens, and I'm good to go.

 

I've also used this tripod, extended, with the 600 successfully, but since I need another tripod, I figured I'd get the heavier one, for the really big lens.

 

If I ever did forego the center column, I would definitely get the model with six leg extensions for maximum height versatility.

Is the 1549 the same thing as the 1548, with the addition of the

center column? I need something the weight of the 1548, but I do

like the center columns. Anyone used the 1548 6-section vs 3

section?

I used PhotoShop's rotate image command -- when I want the shot level.

News flash: I like the 500mm lens better. So I take back much of what I said earlier. I find the 600, at least my copy, to have less contrasty pictures than the 500, no sharper, and indeed the weight does get to you after a while. Lifting the 500 seems so much nicer after you trek with the 600.

 

As for reach, at this length, the extra 100 could/should be made up for by positioning, even with small birds. Yes, small birds are easier to photograph with the 600, but I was annoyed several times by the 600's MFD, on the other hand, and I have taken stunning bird photos with the 500.

 

So the jury's out, for me, on the 600. The 500 is probably simply a more versatile lens.