Nikon v Canon 500mm?

Nikon v Canon 500mm?

I use a Nikon 500mm F4 ED-EF II lens in conjunction with either a D2Hs
or D2H body and find it absolutely useless for any wildlife
photography in motion. It is barely adequate for sports.

It is quite incapable of tracking any bird in flight and is constantly
jumping in and out of focus. And it will not autofocus with any
teleconverter.

The same applies to my Nikon 80-200mm F2.8 zoom (converters are OK but
slow)

I am seriously considering changing to a Canon system, i.e. EOS 1d II
or III and a 500mm IS lens, despite the crazy white colour (for
wildlife photography anyway)

Can anyone tell me if Canon lenses are any better at autofocus
tracking, faster, and do work with teleconverters?

I'm a professional press photographer using Nikon gear for over 40
years so I have a fair idea of camera equipment. But this lot is
driving me crazy, with so many missed shots. I would be better off
with my ancient 600mm F5.6 manual focus lens.

I have sent the 500 lens away for checking and even through the repair
man couldn't find anything wrong, he did suggest that I might need a
new motor!

Re: Nikon v Canon 500mm?

Robert Brace wrote:
> <Richard> wrote in message
> news:ugjo7350f7ruqqik6mq4k3tjh2000a87k6@4ax . com ...
>> I use a Nikon 500mm F4 ED-EF II lens in conjunction with either a
>> D2Hs or D2H body and find it absolutely useless for any wildlife
>> photography in motion. It is barely adequate for sports.
>>
>> It is quite incapable of tracking any bird in flight and is
>> constantly jumping in and out of focus. And it will not autofocus
>> with any teleconverter.
>>
>> The same applies to my Nikon 80-200mm F2.8 zoom (converters are OK
>> but slow)
>>
>> I am seriously considering changing to a Canon system, i.e. EOS 1d II
>> or III and a 500mm IS lens, despite the crazy white colour (for
>> wildlife photography anyway)
>>
>> Can anyone tell me if Canon lenses are any better at autofocus
>> tracking, faster, and do work with teleconverters?
>>
>> I'm a professional press photographer using Nikon gear for over 40
>> years so I have a fair idea of camera equipment. But this lot is
>> driving me crazy, with so many missed shots. I would be better off
>> with my ancient 600mm F5.6 manual focus lens.
>>
>> I have sent the 500 lens away for checking and even through the
>> repair man couldn't find anything wrong, he did suggest that I might
>> need a new motor!
>
> You need a Canon 1D III as fast as you can get one. Get your order in
> quickly.
> How foolish to think a Nikon D2H or D2Hs could even think of achieving
> correct focus through the 500mm f4 Nikkor (I presume you meant
> "Nikkor", not "Nikon").
> I'm sure that combination has never been successfully used in
> Wildlife, Action or Sports shooting.
> As to the expertise of your "repair man" with his deep insight, I'll
> just leave that alone as it is obviously a match to your ability to
> handle the "press photography".
> Back under the bridge with you, I'm sure someone will be along in the
> morning with a new supply of the green pills.
> Bob

Your sarcasm is noted. :)
However, it remains a fact that Nikon STILL does not offer IS/VR in any of
their super-teles...which is a complete mystery to me. For wildlife, IS is
EXTREMELY useful at these focal lengths. For the wildlife shooter, this
reason ALONE is cause to give Nikon shooters reason to seriously consider a
switch. Does that mean Nikon isn't good for wildlife? Of course it
doesn't. But there are real, and significant advantages for long lenses
with IS. You should see the VISUAL difference on the Canon 500 f4 with IS
on vs. off. An AMAZING difference.

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
w w w .pbase . com /markuson

Re: Nikon v Canon 500mm?


"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox. . net > wrote in message
news:0X0fi.470599$115.92630@newsfe10.phx...
> Robert Brace wrote:
>> <Richard> wrote in message
>> news:ugjo7350f7ruqqik6mq4k3tjh2000a87k6@4ax . com ...
>>> I use a Nikon 500mm F4 ED-EF II lens in conjunction with either a
>>> D2Hs or D2H body and find it absolutely useless for any wildlife
>>> photography in motion. It is barely adequate for sports.
>>>
>>> It is quite incapable of tracking any bird in flight and is
>>> constantly jumping in and out of focus. And it will not autofocus
>>> with any teleconverter.
>>>
>>> The same applies to my Nikon 80-200mm F2.8 zoom (converters are OK
>>> but slow)
>>>
>>> I am seriously considering changing to a Canon system, i.e. EOS 1d II
>>> or III and a 500mm IS lens, despite the crazy white colour (for
>>> wildlife photography anyway)
>>>
>>> Can anyone tell me if Canon lenses are any better at autofocus
>>> tracking, faster, and do work with teleconverters?
>>>
>>> I'm a professional press photographer using Nikon gear for over 40
>>> years so I have a fair idea of camera equipment. But this lot is
>>> driving me crazy, with so many missed shots. I would be better off
>>> with my ancient 600mm F5.6 manual focus lens.
>>>
>>> I have sent the 500 lens away for checking and even through the
>>> repair man couldn't find anything wrong, he did suggest that I might
>>> need a new motor!
>>
>> You need a Canon 1D III as fast as you can get one. Get your order in
>> quickly.
>> How foolish to think a Nikon D2H or D2Hs could even think of achieving
>> correct focus through the 500mm f4 Nikkor (I presume you meant
>> "Nikkor", not "Nikon").
>> I'm sure that combination has never been successfully used in
>> Wildlife, Action or Sports shooting.
>> As to the expertise of your "repair man" with his deep insight, I'll
>> just leave that alone as it is obviously a match to your ability to
>> handle the "press photography".
>> Back under the bridge with you, I'm sure someone will be along in the
>> morning with a new supply of the green pills.
>> Bob
>
> Your sarcasm is noted. :)
> However, it remains a fact that Nikon STILL does not offer IS/VR in any of
> their super-teles...which is a complete mystery to me. For wildlife, IS
> is EXTREMELY useful at these focal lengths. For the wildlife shooter,
> this reason ALONE is cause to give Nikon shooters reason to seriously
> consider a switch. Does that mean Nikon isn't good for wildlife? Of
> course it doesn't. But there are real, and significant advantages for
> long lenses with IS. You should see the VISUAL difference on the Canon
> 500 f4 with IS on vs. off. An AMAZING difference.
>
> --
> Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
> w w w .pbase . com /markuson
>


At 500mm shouldn't a tripod negate most if not all of the advantages of
IS/VR?

Re: Nikon v Canon 500mm?

Pete D wrote:
> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox. . net > wrote in message
> news:0X0fi.470599$115.92630@newsfe10.phx...
>> Robert Brace wrote:
>>> <Richard> wrote in message
>>> news:ugjo7350f7ruqqik6mq4k3tjh2000a87k6@4ax . com ...
>>>> I use a Nikon 500mm F4 ED-EF II lens in conjunction with either a
>>>> D2Hs or D2H body and find it absolutely useless for any wildlife
>>>> photography in motion. It is barely adequate for sports.
>>>>
>>>> It is quite incapable of tracking any bird in flight and is
>>>> constantly jumping in and out of focus. And it will not autofocus
>>>> with any teleconverter.
>>>>
>>>> The same applies to my Nikon 80-200mm F2.8 zoom (converters are OK
>>>> but slow)
>>>>
>>>> I am seriously considering changing to a Canon system, i.e. EOS 1d
>>>> II or III and a 500mm IS lens, despite the crazy white colour (for
>>>> wildlife photography anyway)
>>>>
>>>> Can anyone tell me if Canon lenses are any better at autofocus
>>>> tracking, faster, and do work with teleconverters?
>>>>
>>>> I'm a professional press photographer using Nikon gear for over 40
>>>> years so I have a fair idea of camera equipment. But this lot is
>>>> driving me crazy, with so many missed shots. I would be better off
>>>> with my ancient 600mm F5.6 manual focus lens.
>>>>
>>>> I have sent the 500 lens away for checking and even through the
>>>> repair man couldn't find anything wrong, he did suggest that I
>>>> might need a new motor!
>>>
>>> You need a Canon 1D III as fast as you can get one. Get your order
>>> in quickly.
>>> How foolish to think a Nikon D2H or D2Hs could even think of
>>> achieving correct focus through the 500mm f4 Nikkor (I presume you
>>> meant "Nikkor", not "Nikon").
>>> I'm sure that combination has never been successfully used in
>>> Wildlife, Action or Sports shooting.
>>> As to the expertise of your "repair man" with his deep insight, I'll
>>> just leave that alone as it is obviously a match to your ability to
>>> handle the "press photography".
>>> Back under the bridge with you, I'm sure someone will be along in
>>> the morning with a new supply of the green pills.
>>> Bob
>>
>> Your sarcasm is noted. :)
>> However, it remains a fact that Nikon STILL does not offer IS/VR in
>> any of their super-teles...which is a complete mystery to me. For
>> wildlife, IS is EXTREMELY useful at these focal lengths. For the
>> wildlife shooter, this reason ALONE is cause to give Nikon shooters
>> reason to seriously consider a switch. Does that mean Nikon isn't
>> good for wildlife? Of course it doesn't. But there are real, and
>> significant advantages for long lenses with IS. You should see the
>> VISUAL difference on the Canon 500 f4 with IS on vs. off. An
>> AMAZING difference. --
>> Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
>> w w w .pbase . com /markuson
>>
>
>
> At 500mm shouldn't a tripod negate most if not all of the advantages
> of IS/VR?

No. Not with super-tele. You'd be amazed how much movement remains--even
on a very solid tripod at those focal lengths. -This is expecially true
with an extender...or even just the crop/enlargement effect of sensors on
such lenses. I have a very sturdy carbon fiber tripod...with a massive,
Really Right Stuff BH-55 Ball head on a Wimberly Side-kick (a gimbal-style
head designed specifically for large lenses), and even with that rock-solid
set-up, you still see small "jitters" at these huge focal lengths. When you
press the shutter and IS engages, the difference is amazing. This is
further demonstrated on the Mark III by using the Live-View feature, which
lets you get a TTL view on the rear screen, but enlarged 5x or 10x with
great clarity and response-time...with IS still engaged. Here is where the
view is nothing short of jaw-dropping, in two respects: 1) -Amazing to see
just how much movement remains, even on a tripod, and 2) -The amazing
ability of IS to quell those movements.

More recent super-teles from Canon are designed specifically to remain on
while on a tripod. Earlier generations were better left off when tripod
mounted, but the current version is a huge help. Oh, and did I mention it's
really really helpful??? :)

-Mark²

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
w w w .pbase . com /markuson

Re: Nikon v Canon 500mm?


"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox. . net > wrote in message
news:qr3fi.390031$ZA5.76449@newsfe15.phx...
> Pete D wrote:
>> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox. . net > wrote in message
>> news:0X0fi.470599$115.92630@newsfe10.phx...
>>> Robert Brace wrote:
>>>> <Richard> wrote in message
>>>> news:ugjo7350f7ruqqik6mq4k3tjh2000a87k6@4ax . com ...
>>>>> I use a Nikon 500mm F4 ED-EF II lens in conjunction with either a
>>>>> D2Hs or D2H body and find it absolutely useless for any wildlife
>>>>> photography in motion. It is barely adequate for sports.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is quite incapable of tracking any bird in flight and is
>>>>> constantly jumping in and out of focus. And it will not autofocus
>>>>> with any teleconverter.
>>>>>
>>>>> The same applies to my Nikon 80-200mm F2.8 zoom (converters are OK
>>>>> but slow)
>>>>>
>>>>> I am seriously considering changing to a Canon system, i.e. EOS 1d
>>>>> II or III and a 500mm IS lens, despite the crazy white colour (for
>>>>> wildlife photography anyway)
>>>>>
>>>>> Can anyone tell me if Canon lenses are any better at autofocus
>>>>> tracking, faster, and do work with teleconverters?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm a professional press photographer using Nikon gear for over 40
>>>>> years so I have a fair idea of camera equipment. But this lot is
>>>>> driving me crazy, with so many missed shots. I would be better off
>>>>> with my ancient 600mm F5.6 manual focus lens.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have sent the 500 lens away for checking and even through the
>>>>> repair man couldn't find anything wrong, he did suggest that I
>>>>> might need a new motor!
>>>>
>>>> You need a Canon 1D III as fast as you can get one. Get your order
>>>> in quickly.
>>>> How foolish to think a Nikon D2H or D2Hs could even think of
>>>> achieving correct focus through the 500mm f4 Nikkor (I presume you
>>>> meant "Nikkor", not "Nikon").
>>>> I'm sure that combination has never been successfully used in
>>>> Wildlife, Action or Sports shooting.
>>>> As to the expertise of your "repair man" with his deep insight, I'll
>>>> just leave that alone as it is obviously a match to your ability to
>>>> handle the "press photography".
>>>> Back under the bridge with you, I'm sure someone will be along in
>>>> the morning with a new supply of the green pills.
>>>> Bob
>>>
>>> Your sarcasm is noted. :)
>>> However, it remains a fact that Nikon STILL does not offer IS/VR in
>>> any of their super-teles...which is a complete mystery to me. For
>>> wildlife, IS is EXTREMELY useful at these focal lengths. For the
>>> wildlife shooter, this reason ALONE is cause to give Nikon shooters
>>> reason to seriously consider a switch. Does that mean Nikon isn't
>>> good for wildlife? Of course it doesn't. But there are real, and
>>> significant advantages for long lenses with IS. You should see the
>>> VISUAL difference on the Canon 500 f4 with IS on vs. off. An
>>> AMAZING difference. --
>>> Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
>>> w w w .pbase . com /markuson
>>>
>>
>>
>> At 500mm shouldn't a tripod negate most if not all of the advantages
>> of IS/VR?
>
> No. Not with super-tele. You'd be amazed how much movement remains--even
> on a very solid tripod at those focal lengths. -This is expecially true
> with an extender...or even just the crop/enlargement effect of sensors on
> such lenses. I have a very sturdy carbon fiber tripod...with a massive,
> Really Right Stuff BH-55 Ball head on a Wimberly Side-kick (a gimbal-style
> head designed specifically for large lenses), and even with that
> rock-solid set-up, you still see small "jitters" at these huge focal
> lengths. When you press the shutter and IS engages, the difference is
> amazing. This is further demonstrated on the Mark III by using the
> Live-View feature, which lets you get a TTL view on the rear screen, but
> enlarged 5x or 10x with great clarity and response-time...with IS still
> engaged. Here is where the view is nothing short of jaw-dropping, in two
> respects: 1) -Amazing to see just how much movement remains, even on a
> tripod, and 2) -The amazing ability of IS to quell those movements.
>
> More recent super-teles from Canon are designed specifically to remain on
> while on a tripod. Earlier generations were better left off when tripod
> mounted, but the current version is a huge help. Oh, and did I mention
> it's really really helpful??? :)
>
> -Mark²
>
> --
> Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
> w w w .pbase . com /markuson
>
>

300mm is about my limit at the moment so do not see so much effect.

I guess being able to use faster shutter speeds would be very desirable at
these sort of focal lengths (as it often is in shorter lengths too I guess).

Re: Nikon v Canon 500mm?

Pete D wrote:
> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox. . net > wrote in message=
 

>>>
>>> At 500mm shouldn't a tripod negate most if not all of the advantages
>>> of IS/VR?
>> No. Not with super-tele. You'd be amazed how much movement remains--=
even 
>> on a very solid tripod at those focal lengths. -This is expecially tr=
ue 
>> with an extender...or even just the crop/enlargement effect of sensors=
on 
>> such lenses. I have a very sturdy carbon fiber tripod...with a massiv=
e, 
>> Really Right Stuff BH-55 Ball head on a Wimberly Side-kick (a gimbal-s=
tyle 
>> head designed specifically for large lenses), and even with that 
>> rock-solid set-up, you still see small "jitters" at these huge focal 
>> lengths. When you press the shutter and IS engages, the difference is=
 
>> amazing. This is further demonstrated on the Mark III by using the 
>> Live-View feature, which lets you get a TTL view on the rear screen, b=
ut 
>> enlarged 5x or 10x with great clarity and response-time...with IS stil=
l 
>> engaged. Here is where the view is nothing short of jaw-dropping, in =
two 
>> respects: 1) -Amazing to see just how much movement remains, even on a=
 
>> tripod, and 2) -The amazing ability of IS to quell those movements.
>>
>> More recent super-teles from Canon are designed specifically to remain=
on 
>> while on a tripod. Earlier generations were better left off when trip=
od 
>> mounted, but the current version is a huge help. Oh, and did I mentio=
n 
>> it's really really helpful??? :)
>>
> 
> 300mm is about my limit at the moment so do not see so much effect.
> 
> I guess being able to use faster shutter speeds would be very desirable=
at 
> these sort of focal lengths (as it often is in shorter lengths too I gu=
ess). 

IS allows you to use slower shutter speeds......

-- 
john mcwilliams

Re: Nikon v Canon 500mm?


"John McWilliams" <jpmcw@comcast . net > wrote in message
news:ee2dnRYi5rdKseDbnZ2dnUVZ_hqdnZ2d@comcast . com ...
Pete D wrote:
> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox. . net > wrote in message

>>>
>>> At 500mm shouldn't a tripod negate most if not all of the advantages
>>> of IS/VR?
>> No. Not with super-tele. You'd be amazed how much movement
>> remains--even on a very solid tripod at those focal lengths. -This is
>> expecially true with an extender...or even just the crop/enlargement
>> effect of sensors on such lenses. I have a very sturdy carbon fiber
>> tripod...with a massive, Really Right Stuff BH-55 Ball head on a Wimberly
>> Side-kick (a gimbal-style head designed specifically for large lenses),
>> and even with that rock-solid set-up, you still see small "jitters" at
>> these huge focal lengths. When you press the shutter and IS engages, the
>> difference is amazing. This is further demonstrated on the Mark III by
>> using the Live-View feature, which lets you get a TTL view on the rear
>> screen, but enlarged 5x or 10x with great clarity and
>> response-time...with IS still engaged. Here is where the view is nothing
>> short of jaw-dropping, in two respects: 1) -Amazing to see just how much
>> movement remains, even on a tripod, and 2) -The amazing ability of IS to
>> quell those movements.
>>
>> More recent super-teles from Canon are designed specifically to remain on
>> while on a tripod. Earlier generations were better left off when tripod
>> mounted, but the current version is a huge help. Oh, and did I mention
>> it's really really helpful??? :)
>>
>
> 300mm is about my limit at the moment so do not see so much effect.
>
> I guess being able to use faster shutter speeds would be very desirable at
> these sort of focal lengths (as it often is in shorter lengths too I
> guess).

IS allows you to use slower shutter speeds......

Of course it does but doing so has its disadvantages as well and you don't
always want to do so, IS also helps at higher shutter speeds especially with
long lenses, its all relative of course, at 500mm 1/250th is a slow shutter
speed.

Re: Nikon v Canon 500mm?

Pete D wrote:
> "John McWilliams" <jpmcw@comcast . net > wrote in message
> news:ee2dnRYi5rdKseDbnZ2dnUVZ_hqdnZ2d@comcast . com ...
> Pete D wrote:
>> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox. . net > wrote in message
>
>>>>
>>>> At 500mm shouldn't a tripod negate most if not all of the
>>>> advantages of IS/VR?
>>> No. Not with super-tele. You'd be amazed how much movement
>>> remains--even on a very solid tripod at those focal lengths. -This
>>> is expecially true with an extender...or even just the
>>> crop/enlargement effect of sensors on such lenses. I have a very
>>> sturdy carbon fiber tripod...with a massive, Really Right Stuff
>>> BH-55 Ball head on a Wimberly Side-kick (a gimbal-style head
>>> designed specifically for large lenses), and even with that
>>> rock-solid set-up, you still see small "jitters" at these huge
>>> focal lengths. When you press the shutter and IS engages, the
>>> difference is amazing. This is further demonstrated on the Mark
>>> III by using the Live-View feature, which lets you get a TTL view
>>> on the rear screen, but enlarged 5x or 10x with great clarity and
>>> response-time...with IS still engaged. Here is where the view is
>>> nothing short of jaw-dropping, in two respects: 1) -Amazing to see
>>> just how much movement remains, even on a tripod, and 2) -The
>>> amazing ability of IS to quell those movements. More recent super-teles
>>> from Canon are designed specifically to
>>> remain on while on a tripod. Earlier generations were better left
>>> off when tripod mounted, but the current version is a huge help. Oh, and
>>> did I mention it's really really helpful??? :)
>>>
>>
>> 300mm is about my limit at the moment so do not see so much effect.
>>
>> I guess being able to use faster shutter speeds would be very
>> desirable at these sort of focal lengths (as it often is in shorter
>> lengths too I guess).
>
> IS allows you to use slower shutter speeds......
>
> Of course it does but doing so has its disadvantages as well and you
> don't always want to do so, IS also helps at higher shutter speeds
> especially with long lenses, its all relative of course, at 500mm
> 1/250th is a slow shutter speed.

Exactly.

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
w w w .pbase . com /markuson

Re: Nikon v Canon 500mm?


"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox. . net > wrote in message
news:qr3fi.390031$ZA5.76449@newsfe15.phx...
> Pete D wrote:
>> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox. . net > wrote in message
>> news:0X0fi.470599$115.92630@newsfe10.phx...
>>> Robert Brace wrote:
>>>> <Richard> wrote in message
>>>> news:ugjo7350f7ruqqik6mq4k3tjh2000a87k6@4ax . com ...
>>>>> I use a Nikon 500mm F4 ED-EF II lens in conjunction with either a
>>>>> D2Hs or D2H body and find it absolutely useless for any wildlife
>>>>> photography in motion. It is barely adequate for sports.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is quite incapable of tracking any bird in flight and is
>>>>> constantly jumping in and out of focus. And it will not autofocus
>>>>> with any teleconverter.
>>>>>
>>>>> The same applies to my Nikon 80-200mm F2.8 zoom (converters are OK
>>>>> but slow)
>>>>>
>>>>> I am seriously considering changing to a Canon system, i.e. EOS 1d
>>>>> II or III and a 500mm IS lens, despite the crazy white colour (for
>>>>> wildlife photography anyway)
>>>>>
>>>>> Can anyone tell me if Canon lenses are any better at autofocus
>>>>> tracking, faster, and do work with teleconverters?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm a professional press photographer using Nikon gear for over 40
>>>>> years so I have a fair idea of camera equipment. But this lot is
>>>>> driving me crazy, with so many missed shots. I would be better off
>>>>> with my ancient 600mm F5.6 manual focus lens.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have sent the 500 lens away for checking and even through the
>>>>> repair man couldn't find anything wrong, he did suggest that I
>>>>> might need a new motor!
>>>>
>>>> You need a Canon 1D III as fast as you can get one. Get your order
>>>> in quickly.
>>>> How foolish to think a Nikon D2H or D2Hs could even think of
>>>> achieving correct focus through the 500mm f4 Nikkor (I presume you
>>>> meant "Nikkor", not "Nikon").
>>>> I'm sure that combination has never been successfully used in
>>>> Wildlife, Action or Sports shooting.
>>>> As to the expertise of your "repair man" with his deep insight, I'll
>>>> just leave that alone as it is obviously a match to your ability to
>>>> handle the "press photography".
>>>> Back under the bridge with you, I'm sure someone will be along in
>>>> the morning with a new supply of the green pills.
>>>> Bob
>>>
>>> Your sarcasm is noted. :)
>>> However, it remains a fact that Nikon STILL does not offer IS/VR in
>>> any of their super-teles...which is a complete mystery to me. For
>>> wildlife, IS is EXTREMELY useful at these focal lengths. For the
>>> wildlife shooter, this reason ALONE is cause to give Nikon shooters
>>> reason to seriously consider a switch. Does that mean Nikon isn't
>>> good for wildlife? Of course it doesn't. But there are real, and
>>> significant advantages for long lenses with IS. You should see the
>>> VISUAL difference on the Canon 500 f4 with IS on vs. off. An
>>> AMAZING difference. --
>>> Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
>>> w w w .pbase . com /markuson
>>>
>>
>>
>> At 500mm shouldn't a tripod negate most if not all of the advantages
>> of IS/VR?
>
> No. Not with super-tele. You'd be amazed how much movement remains--even
> on a very solid tripod at those focal lengths. -This is expecially true
> with an extender...or even just the crop/enlargement effect of sensors on
> such lenses. I have a very sturdy carbon fiber tripod...with a massive,
> Really Right Stuff BH-55 Ball head on a Wimberly Side-kick (a gimbal-style
> head designed specifically for large lenses), and even with that
> rock-solid set-up, you still see small "jitters" at these huge focal
> lengths. When you press the shutter and IS engages, the difference is
> amazing. This is further demonstrated on the Mark III by using the
> Live-View feature, which lets you get a TTL view on the rear screen, but
> enlarged 5x or 10x with great clarity and response-time...with IS still
> engaged. Here is where the view is nothing short of jaw-dropping, in two
> respects: 1) -Amazing to see just how much movement remains, even on a
> tripod, and 2) -The amazing ability of IS to quell those movements.
>
> More recent super-teles from Canon are designed specifically to remain on
> while on a tripod. Earlier generations were better left off when tripod
> mounted, but the current version is a huge help. Oh, and did I mention
> it's really really helpful??? :)
>
> -Mark²
>
> --
> Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
> w w w .pbase . com /markuson
>

Mark:
I'm glad the intent of my post wasn't lost on you.
No disagreement at all on the benefits of the VR/IS superteles and
Nikon's glacial approach to expanding VR's availability. However, to
present existing equipment as woefully unsuited to a task that others have
been successful in for years is nothing short of Trollish, to put the
kindest spin on it.
In my opinion, and coming as it does on the heels of the latest buzz on
Canon's flagship and its reported AF difficulties, the OP's comments were
simply that.
Roger's comments are accurate and to the point (as usual), assuming the
OP's comments were, in fact, genuine (which I strongly doubt).
Bob

Re: Nikon v Canon 500mm?

Robert Brace wrote:

> However, to
> present existing equipment as woefully unsuited to a task
> that others have
> been successful in for years is nothing short of Trollish, to put the
> kindest spin on it.

> Roger's comments are accurate and to the point (as usual), assuming the
> OP's comments were, in fact, genuine (which I strongly doubt).

Bob,
Thanks for the compliment. While I agree that much of the
range in light conditions enables non IS/VR
lenses to operate quite well, the IS/VR technology opens
up conditions where you normally couldn't get the shot.
A couple of recent examples with a 500 mm lens:

1/10 second with 500mm + 2x TC, ISO 400:
* w w w .clarkvision . com /galleries/gallery.africa/web/lilac-breasted.roller.c01.24.2007.JZ3F1500b-700.html

500 mm f/4 L IS lens + 1.4x TC 1/100 second at ISO 400:
* w w w .clarkvision . com /galleries/gallery.africa/web/lion.c01.23.2007.jz3f0264b-700.html

On the first image (bird at 1/10 second), I also did the shot
without IS to show the difference. Someday I'll put together
a web page illustrating the difference. The non IS images
were a complete blur and non were usable.

Roger

Re: Nikon v Canon 500mm?


"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest . net > wrote in
message news:467DECFC.4080602@qwest . net ...
> Robert Brace wrote:
>
>> However, to present existing equipment as woefully unsuited to a task
>> that others have
>> been successful in for years is nothing short of Trollish, to put the
>> kindest spin on it.
>
>> Roger's comments are accurate and to the point (as usual), assuming
>> the OP's comments were, in fact, genuine (which I strongly doubt).
>
> Bob,
> Thanks for the compliment. While I agree that much of the
> range in light conditions enables non IS/VR
> lenses to operate quite well, the IS/VR technology opens
> up conditions where you normally couldn't get the shot.
> A couple of recent examples with a 500 mm lens:
>
> 1/10 second with 500mm + 2x TC, ISO 400:
> * w w w .clarkvision . com /galleries/gallery.africa/web/lilac-breasted.roller.c01.24.2007.JZ3F1500b-700.html
>
> 500 mm f/4 L IS lens + 1.4x TC 1/100 second at ISO 400:
> * w w w .clarkvision . com /galleries/gallery.africa/web/lion.c01.23.2007.jz3f0264b-700.html
>
> On the first image (bird at 1/10 second), I also did the shot
> without IS to show the difference. Someday I'll put together
> a web page illustrating the difference. The non IS images
> were a complete blur and non were usable.
>
> Roger

Roger:
Outstanding to say the least!
I'm amazed that the bird would stay motionless for the 1/10sec, never
mind the ability to "get the shot" under those circumstances.
As I've mentioned, I'm a complete fan of the VR/IS technology and since
my shooting doesn't depend upon its use, I really don't have any problems
which need to be solved by it (my criteria for new investment). However, I
do get tired by the wait for Nikkor's VR superteles to reveal themselves and
Nikon's glacial march forward.
Also the alignment of Canon's latest difficulties and Nikon's
non-offerings was obviously too coincidental for the trolls to ignore.
The success rate is now higher because of VR/IS to be sure. However to
assume all difficulties are magically eliminated because of it is, in my
opinion, the worst kind of folly.
Bob

Re: Nikon v Canon 500mm?

Robert Brace wrote:
> "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest . net > wrote in
> message news:467DECFC.4080602@qwest . net ...
>> 1/10 second with 500mm + 2x TC, ISO 400:
>> * w w w .clarkvision . com /galleries/gallery.africa/web/lilac-breasted.roller.c01.24.2007.JZ3F1500b-700.html

> I'm amazed that the bird would stay motionless for the 1/10sec, never
> mind the ability to "get the shot" under those circumstances.

Yes, I had to wait for the bird to be motionless
before pressing the shutter.

> The success rate is now higher because of VR/IS to be sure.

Yes, but for moving subjects, the success rate is higher
now than years ago because of predictive autofocus,
and more so than with IS/VR technology, in my opinion.
Several companies have predictive autofocus.

> However to
> assume all difficulties are magically eliminated because of it is, in my
> opinion, the worst kind of folly.
> Bob

I agree.

Roger

Re: Nikon v Canon 500mm?

Save a lot of money and get what you want. Buy the Nikkor 80-400mm VR
lens on a D80 or D200 body. If you can't track birds in flight with
that combo then give up photography.

<Richard> wrote in message
news:ugjo7350f7ruqqik6mq4k3tjh2000a87k6@4ax . com ...
>I use a Nikon 500mm F4 ED-EF II lens in conjunction with either a
>D2Hs
> or D2H body and find it absolutely useless for any wildlife
> photography in motion. It is barely adequate for sports.
>
> It is quite incapable of tracking any bird in flight and is
> constantly
> jumping in and out of focus. And it will not autofocus with any
> teleconverter.
>
> The same applies to my Nikon 80-200mm F2.8 zoom (converters are OK
> but
> slow)
>
> I am seriously considering changing to a Canon system, i.e. EOS 1d
> II
> or III and a 500mm IS lens, despite the crazy white colour (for
> wildlife photography anyway)
>
> Can anyone tell me if Canon lenses are any better at autofocus
> tracking, faster, and do work with teleconverters?
>
> I'm a professional press photographer using Nikon gear for over 40
> years so I have a fair idea of camera equipment. But this lot is
> driving me crazy, with so many missed shots. I would be better off
> with my ancient 600mm F5.6 manual focus lens.
>
> I have sent the 500 lens away for checking and even through the
> repair
> man couldn't find anything wrong, he did suggest that I might need a
> new motor!

Re: Nikon v Canon 500mm?

Frank Arthur wrote:

> Save a lot of money and get what you want. Buy the Nikkor 80-400mm VR
> lens on a D80 or D200 body. If you can't track birds in flight with
> that combo then give up photography.

The old screw-drive of this lens makes it highly impractical for this
application.






Rita

Re: Nikon v Canon 500mm?

On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 19:58:08 -0600, "Roger N. Clark (change username
to rnclark)" <username@qwest . net > wrote:

>Richard wrote:
>> I use a Nikon 500mm F4 ED-EF II lens in conjunction with either a D2Hs
>> or D2H body and find it absolutely useless for any wildlife
>> photography in motion. It is barely adequate for sports.
>>
>> It is quite incapable of tracking any bird in flight and is constantly
>> jumping in and out of focus. And it will not autofocus with any
>> teleconverter.
>>
>> The same applies to my Nikon 80-200mm F2.8 zoom (converters are OK but
>> slow)
>>
>> I am seriously considering changing to a Canon system, i.e. EOS 1d II
>> or III and a 500mm IS lens, despite the crazy white colour (for
>> wildlife photography anyway)
>>
>> Can anyone tell me if Canon lenses are any better at autofocus
>> tracking, faster, and do work with teleconverters?
>>
>> I'm a professional press photographer using Nikon gear for over 40
>> years so I have a fair idea of camera equipment. But this lot is
>> driving me crazy, with so many missed shots. I would be better off
>> with my ancient 600mm F5.6 manual focus lens.
>>
>> I have sent the 500 lens away for checking and even through the repair
>> man couldn't find anything wrong, he did suggest that I might need a
>> new motor!
>
>Richard,
>
>Have you considered that your problem might be the camera
>and not the lens? Did you use the lens with Nikon's top
>film cameras? I have not heard this complaint from
>Nikon users before, and many take superb photos with
>Nikon lenses. e.g. see
> * w w w .gustafsonphotosafri . com
>
>Having said that, I do not have these problems with
>a Canon 500 mm f/4 L IS lens and a 1D Mark II body.
>IS is a big help in many situations and helps steady
>an image, especially when using TC (even stacked
>1.4x + 2x TCs on a tripod). Examples: see my bird,
>bear and Africa photos at: * w w w .clarkvision . com
>
>Roger

Roger,

I doubt if it is the camera as the same problem occurs with both
aforementioned ones.

No, I haven't tried it with a film camera, as I was well into digital
when I got this particular 500mm. lens. I guess I could resurrect my
old F5 and charge up the battery.

However, the lens does need a thump every so often to get the
autofocus working.

I did have the older Nikkor 500mm AF lens before, and it was
marginally better at auto focusing. Unfortunately falling into a rocky
stream didn't help!

What I would really like to know is if anyone has been able to compare
both camera/lens systems, i.e. Canon 500mm. v Nikon 500mm. as regards
tracking birds in flight?

Certainly more and more sports photographers seem to be changing over
to Canon.

TIA,

Richard.