I searched the archives, but didn`t get an answer to this question:How good is IS in daily work in wildlife-photography? How often to you use it? Are the results - say - with a 2xTC on a 600/4 on a good tripod viewable better with IS than without? Is image stabilizer really the big hit on long lenses?
I`m asking this, because I`m considering buying a used 500/4 IS or a used 600/4 (which would be 25 percent cheaper than the 500. I do general wildlife - not manly birds!).
Thanks for comments
Norbert
-- Norbert Rief, October 15, 2000
You won't find an answer because it's different for everyone. Sometimes IS will help, sometimes it won't. You're also looking at the difference between a 600mm lens and a 500mm lens. For some people those 100 extra mm would be worth the loss of IS, for some it wouldn't.For example I just returned from Maine, shooting a mixture of wildlife and scenics. Shooting Moose, I was using a 500/4.5L on a Gitzo 1325 with 1.4x and 2x TCs. This doesn't even give me AF, nevermind IS, when the TCs are used. I was quite happy with MF and most of the time I used manual exposure too! I also had a 300/4L IS lens. Most of the time I had the IS turned off and the lens on a tripod. A few times I took quick, hand held shots with IS on.
If you're shooting in high wind with long lenses and TCs, I'm sure IS will help. Whether it's worth 25% more to have IS but 100mm shorter focal length is an individual decision. When I was using a 600/4, most of the time I didn't miss IS, but I don't deny IS can be handy at times and given the choice I'd probably rather have it than not.
-- Bob Atkins, October 15, 2000
I find IS to be extremely useful. It's not really necessary under "traditional" circumstances - when you can shoot from a stable tripod. But it's enabled me to get some great shots that wouldn't have been possible otherwise; for example by stalking wildlife in dense rainforest or on very steep slopes (places where a tripod won't work) and by shooting from canoes. And for those times when you have to shoot from a vehicle, as in most of the African game parks, the combination of IS and a beanbag is unbeatable.As Bob said, only you can decide how much the extra 100mm is worth... in my case it the IS plus the lower weight of the 500/4 would be worth more.
I would hesitate to put a 2xTC on anything except in an emergency. If you do IS will help sometimes, but it's not a substitute for good technique.
Karl Lehmann www.lostworldarts.com
-- Karl Lehmann, October 15, 2000
Norbert, I gotta agree with Karl. If the choice is between a 500/4 with IS and a used 600/4...I vote for the 500 with IS. I shoot mostly nature and birds. Having owned both the 400/2.8 IS and its predicessor 400/2.8, I have become a major fan of IS, even when working from a tripod. While IS is not the savior to compensate for poor technique, it definitely helps get that extra little bit of sharpness if you are really serious about your work.By the way, I do know where there is a 400/2.8 IS is available, used, less than a year old...if you or anyone else is lookin'. Generally, you can't find these new IS lenses used...at least not yet. They are all too new. Email me at: markclagrange@AOL.com
-- Mark LaGrange, October 15, 2000
Oh I forgot one other thing. As useful as I find IS, I could almost do without AF. Yeah I know everyone else loves to talk about how they love to track moving subjects with it....and then miss the critical focus on the subject's eye ....and, with the shallow depth of field that these "big" lenses offer, I feel the need to have more control to make sure that the eye is the perfect focus point selected.The relevance to your question is that there may be some lighter weight manual focus older used lenses, that will meet your needs, and at more reasonable prices. IMHO, the real gain of the new big lenses is IS not AF. But if you do have the money, IS is the "real deal" for that last little bit of critical sharpness.
-- Mark LaGrange, October 15, 2000
My experience is quite the oposite.For fast moving subjects(small birds and other wildlife),IS really doesnt help too much.At 1/30-1/60 shutter speed,any movement from those small critters are enough to blurry the whole image,even with IS.Of course,IS have some merits too,but IMO,works best on stationary or "slow" moving subjects.If you get a good shutter speed(enough light),even without IS,your chances to get a decent picture are great,and just depend on your shooting technique. I rented a 500 4.0 IS and after 2 weeks I decided to "save" some money and bought a used 600 4.0(non-IS).For the photography I do,IS didnt help too much.Besides,nothing compares to reach,and the 600 4.0 gets me closer.Good luck in your choice.
-- Martin DeFavero, October 15, 2000
NO....IS has nothing to do with whether the SUBJECT is slow moving or otherwise. Shutter speed has to be the deal there. IS is solely about YOUR movement. With these large lenses focal lengths, especially when using teleconverters, lens movement is exaggerated. This is where IS is intended to make impact.
-- Mark LaGrange, October 15, 2000
Mark,You are wrong,buddy,if your subject moves,with a lower shutter speed,you get blurry pictures,with IS or not.Read what I wrote again..I said about low shutter speeds.IS DOES NOT compensates with moving subjects.If you are paning,thats a completly diferent thing.
By the way,I saw another post of yours that you jumped in to try to "sell" your 400 2.8 IS lens,so im going to take your coments with a grain of salt.
-- Martin DeFavero, October 16, 2000
Guys, please be civil and respect one another.Back to Norbert's original question. Let's forget about IS for the time being; if you don't specialize in birds, a 500mm may be a better choice than a 600mm anyway. A 500mm is much lighter and usually won't be too long for larger mammals. And of course having IS has to be a plus on either a 500mm or 600mm unless it costs too much extra. If you shoot a lot of birds, then the extra reach from a 600mm is important.
By the way, when Canon introduced their long IS lenses about a year ago, they also make them considerably lighter than their previous non-IS conterparts. I think the 600mm IS is like a couple of pounds ligther than the older 600mm non-IS. On top of that a 500mm is lighter and less bulky than a 600mm in general. Therefore, if you compare the weight of a 500mm IS vs that of a 600mm non-IS, the difference is pretty significant. You really need to pick them up both and feel the difference. Just keep in mind that a great lens that you can't carry around much might not be very useful, depending on your strength and shooting pattern (e.g. whether you hike around much away from the car or not, etc.).
-- Shun Cheung, October 16, 2000
My long lens is a Nikon 400 2.8 AF-I which I use extensively with a Nikon TC-14E or a TC-20E. I have shot approximately 8000 slides while on Safari in Kenya and Tanzania mostly from vehicles and using only a couple of bean bags. Vibration is not a problem--very fey shots are blurry except related to too slow a shutter speed for the subject's motion. I find very little image deterioration with the TC-20E and AF is preserved (5.6). For me I can live with an 800 5.6 instead of 840 5.6 (a 600 with a 1.4). One big lens is all you can shlep on a plane and having a fast 400 (2.8), a fast 560 (4) and the 800 5.6 provides the maximum amount of long lenses. The trick is having a vehicle with few other passsengers (my wife) and a driver who sits still. My wife who shoots a Canon XL-1 (video) and I can both shot unless I am changing lenses (i.e., adding, subtracting, or changing TCs). Me loading film causes her some problems. Now when Nikon comes out with a 600 4.0 VR I will buy it for domestic bird shoots just because Arthur Morris says I should and I trust him. I shall see how useful it is. My 80-400 VR is coming later this month and I believe the VR will be very useful because I will use it for handheld flight shots. Evidently my hands shake at 55 years but I don't rattle or roll. I was playing with some Canon IS binoculars the other day and the IS really improved my viewing (wildlife). I can't believe how much my hands shake when holding a couple of pounds at eye level.
-- Mark Haflich, October 16, 2000
IS is incredibly useful for me. I use the 600f4 IS for birds, leaving the 2x on 90% of the time and leaving the IS on 100% of the time. Despite what a previous poster mentioned, it's razor sharp. I think he'd have difficulty picking out slides shot with or without the 2x attached. At 1200mm I can follow a moving subject in the wind and leave the tripod head loose or I can shoot at relatively slow shutter speeds (1/30 sec.) from a beanbag on the car window. It's very difficult to regularly get sharp shots with a 2x on a 500mm or 600mm lens without IS even under ideal situations.Having IS has made a dramatic impact on my bird photography. Since getting it last March, I've taken it on three birding trips to Arizona, Montana, and Texas, as well as using it on spring and fall migrants and summer residents here in Ohio. I'm absolutely thrilled with the lens. Thinking back to only a year ago seems like a primative age of telephoto photography without IS.
Given a choice between a non-IS 600mm or and IS 500mm, I'd definitely pick the 500, since you can still routinely shoot at 1000mm. But the weight difference between the IS 500 and 600 is only 3 lbs. or so. That's barely even noticable once you throw in the weight of a tripod, head, camera body w/booster, teleconverter, and possibly a flash unit, battery pack, flash bracket, etc.. Where exactly do all these people who complain about the weight of a 600mm lens take their 500mm lenses? The price difference betweeen the 2 lenses is also not really going to be that significant over the life of the lens. If you really need a 600mm, then get the 600IS. Unfortunately I don't think you'll find many used ones out there, since I can't imagine anyone willing to part with one.
-- Bob Royse, October 16, 2000
I second what Bob Royse said. I get a much higher percentage of sharp images (mostly birds) with the 600 + 2x with IS than without it. When the IS is activated, the image in the viewfinder really settles down, even without teleconverters. It doesn't help with subject movement, but it a major help with camera movement. When I first saw the difference, I was amazed! If I were making the choice again, I would absolutely choose the IS.
-- Robert P. Boner, October 16, 2000
Think about the weight.I have a 600/4, my friend has the 500/4IS. He can hand hold his for flight shots, there's no way in Hell I'll be able to hand hold the 600/4. There's about 5 lbs difference between the 600/4 and 500/4IS, and especially with the IS this translates to being able to use a lighter tripod. On an Arca B-1, my 600 is more prone to vibration (on carbon fibre Gitzo 1325) than the lighter 500 IS (on aluminum Gitzo 13xx ). IS obviously helps here. We both routinely use 1.4x converters (840/5.6 and 700/5.6) because we shoot bird photos.
For fast moving little critters (e.g. warblers) IS is of less use because one has to use a fast enough shutter speed to freeze movement. It's a major advantage on more static subjects in high wind.
Bottom line ? I envy Mike the lighter weight and IS. He envies me the extra 100mm. It's your own call.
-- Phil Jeffrey, October 16, 2000
Martin...chill. The 400/2.8 IS is being sold because I purchased the 600/4 IS. I believed that since I do *almost exclusively* bird photography, I wanted the extra reach. I believe in IS enough to put my money behind my beliefs. Canon's 400/2.8 IS is also a very fine lens.Experience has taught me that sharpness rules. IS is not going to outdate or compensate for poor technique....but it does help with maximizing the sharpness of that final result.
-- Mark LaGrange, October 16, 2000
While this may be a little off subject I'd like someone to define or explain proper technique. I am just trying to learn a little here. thanks
-- Jess Lee, October 16, 2000
"Proper Technique" is basically a sturdy tripod and stable ball head. For a 600/4 this means at least a 4 series Gitzo or equivalent and at least a B1 ball head (maybe a B1G).It also means, at slower shutter speeds between about 1/30 and 1/2s, using mirror lock up when possible.
When using TCs, especially a 2x, especially in windy conditions, using a sandbag on the lens or a second tripod under the camera - or switching on the IS I guess!
-- Bob Atkins, October 16, 2000
Good technique is properly shooting to get sharp shots in the situation you're in. IS telephotos have revolutionarily redefined what that is.As I said previously, but perhaps didn't emphasize enough, with Canon IS telephoto lenses, the 2x replaces the 1.4x as the defacto teleconverter of choice. Instead of really buying a 700mm or 840m lens when purchasing a 500mm or 600mm, you're buying a 1000mm or 1200mm. That's the real difference in practical terms, especially with the modern EOS bodies where you have AF with an effective f8 lens. As far as technique goes, what was formerly considered good technique with a 300mm lens is now adequate technique at 1200mm (except handholding of course!). Canon states that with shorter lenses that you get 2 additional stops of handholdability. (1/60th sec. is 1/4 of 1/250 sec.) The same sort of rationale can be applied to long telephoto technique. (300mm is 1/4 of 1200mm) At least that's how I see it in practice and on the light table.
As far as a previous poster's comments goes that IS isn't useful for warblers, well, that's just pure horsefeathers. In fact that's exactly the type of photography (or one of them) where IS can be appreciated the most. You need fast shutter speeds to freeze their movements? That's a ridiculous concept to my warbler photography. Yes, you need fast reflexes to follow their movements and catch them in that rare eloquent pose, but firing the frames as they move around is a total waste of film that will almost never yield a good shot. Warblers move fast and not even 1/1000 sec. will freeze them. When using an IS telephoto such as a 600/f4+2x, you can leave the tripod head free. Being able to use a 2x instead of a 1.4x gives you more magnification and a cleaner background than a 1.4x would. Of course you're also freer to keep a farther distance (less disturbance to subject) as well as getting a better angle on a warbler that might be a few feet higher than you in a tree. The Canon IS telephotos also have shorter minimum focusing distances than their predecessors. It was previously necessary to add extension tubes to a non-IS 600/f4+1.4x to be ready for those close encounters with warblers. With the IS 600/f4+2x that's not necessary and you're in reality only losing about a half stop of light from the previous warbler setup. If a warbler is holding momentarily still for 1/90th sec., chances are it's holding still for 1/60th sec. as well. And you can go even slower if necessary with an IS600+2x.
If your warbler shots are regularly bad because of subject movement, then you're simply not pressing the shutter button at the right moment. That's the type of technique that no piece of equipment or technology innovation can ever possibly help.
Also - since it hasn't been clearly stated on this thread - the Canon IS 600 is a few pounds lighter than the older version and the 500IS is heavier than the past f4.5 model. The result is that the two lenses (IS 500&600) aren't really appreciably that different in weight when all things are taken into consideration.
-- Bob Royse, October 17, 2000
I have recently shot some migratory birds as well as some territorial cattle egrets using the EF 600/4 L IS with 2X TC mounted on a loosened Wimberly head. IS mode 2. So far the slides have been reasonably sharp , considering it has been shot with as low as 1/90 at 1200mm.
-- Alex Yap, October 17, 2000
I think Bob Royse works for Canon!:)<<I think he'd have difficulty picking out slides shot with or without the 2x attached>>
Sorry,Bob,but something is wrong there.
I already shoot with the 500 4.0 IS,and had the 300 2.8 IS too(sold it),that reviews(trustable reviews) and professionals says it's even sharper than the 600 4.0 IS. With the 2x atached in any of the mentionated lenses,I could EASILY tell wich shot was taken with the 2x,and wich was not.Hell,I can even tell when the 1.4x is atached!
I met George Lepp in a seminar,and he afirmed that he can easily pick up the shots taken with the 2x attached,even tough he said the images with the 2x stills "ok".Yes,his own words..."ok".
I for one believe a lot what a photographer like George Lepp says,since in my opinion,he is one of the very best nature photographers out there.
Regarding the advantages of the IS lens,of course there is!You are paying twice as much as an used 600 non-IS,so lets hope it's something that can help photographers,otherwise,why would somebody pay $$$$ for this lens?
In my case,since I NEVER use a 2x converter atached in any lens,IS or not....my 600 4.0 non-IS is more than enough for the pictures I like to take,and I NEVER felt that I missed a shoot cause the lack of IS.
There's still lots of Nikon an Canon non-IS users,that shot with 600's that are able to take the same pictures you take,believe me.Is not everyone that believes or think IS is the solution for everything.
For me,the only benefit I see in the big IS telephotos is to keep it more stable during windy conditions on a tripod,or for folks that need to shoot on boats,airplanes etc.Since I dont shoot on boats,or airplanes and can keep my lens stable even with moderate winds,there's nothing for me there.Will I sell my beloved 600 non IS to upgrade to the IS version??Hell no!I can be able to produce PERFECT images with my set up,so why should I upgrade?
If Canon come up with a 600 2.8...that's a diferent story!And I believe Canon WILL come with a 600 2.8 in two years,after the succesfull introduction of the DO optics(VERY light) in the last Photokina
IS is here,have some benefits,but like Bob Atkins says,is not for everyone,or......... is not everyone that needs it.I know I don't.
-- Martin DeFavero, October 17, 2000
Bob Atkins thanks fror your description of proper shooting styles when using a big lens. I Have used the 600 F4 since my first MF nikon purchased in 1980. For the past 11 months I have used the Canon 600 F4 IS. When I received the canon I ran some side by side test from my be loved nikon and the new white thing. Short story is the sharpness was the same to me under a loupe on the light table. The Canon has far better coatings which gives nicer color, which means the slides look better rather than sharper. After useing the IS for nearly a year including about 100 rolls of flight shots at Bosque I would say go for the IS. I shoot mostly large animals and the extra cost has been paid for by selling photos I could not have made without IS.
-- Jess Lee, October 17, 2000
Please keep this topic alive folks! I am saving as we speak, to buy the 600 F4, IS, and would love to feel I am making the right choice for my $8,800 hard earned dollars........ I do appreciate the input.
-- Randy Bienia, October 17, 2000
I'll add another "chill Martin" here.I still stand by my statement that in practical real world shooting situations, the 600IS + 2x is sharp enough to use as an everyday lens without reservations. Perhaps if you're shooting small lines on a test chart in controlled situations with and without teleconverters at various apertures, and then viewing the results with a microscope, you'll see some real differences. But I don't photograph lines. If you're ever in Columbus, Ohio, then please drop by with your loupe. I'll plop a hundred or so sharp bird photos on a light box for you. Yes, the Canon 600/f4IS lens is theoretically sharper at f8 without a teleconverter than wide open with a 2x, but I truly don't believe you'll find any conclusive evidence over which teleconverter was used by examining the feathers of various sparrows, warblers, and sandpipers photographed in real world situations. I do believe that you'll see more than a few mindblowingly sharp slides shot wide open with a 2x, though.
-- Bob Royse, October 17, 2000
I think we are drifting into nit-picking but I'll pick with you about the 2x and the 600. In experiance the 2X images are degraded when compared with 1.4x converter images. Not only on test shots but in real use, but I use the 2x when I need the extra reach and produce saleable images. The biggest factor in making these 2X images usable is IS. Example, last month Yellowstone, madison river pre sunrise. A bull follows his herd into the river I am panning with the 600 IS gitzo 410, kirk king cobra head not lock down to follow the action, Shutter speed 1/15 second. The bull stops to bugle as the cows clear the frame I shot in that brief time his head is back with mouth open in profile. I only get off 3 frames No mirror lock up. The result will be a two page advertisement the first of the year. No way could I have got this shot with less that 1/60 pre IS. Just my experiance.
-- Jess Lee, October 17, 2000
Jess, I think you've got my set up Gitzo 410, King Cobra, 600/4 IS etc. Happy???When we are shooting at extreme focal lenghts (800-1200mm) every little vibration is magnified. IS is just another tool to contribute to the minimization of this vibration....thereby increasing sharpness. Yes we can do without....but if the tool is there, and you can afford it, it contributes.
Extending on the technique discussion. Art Morris is a believer in this IS technology. Furthermore, he has a fine dissertation regarding proper technique regarding usage of IS on his website. What other creative techniques are ya'll usin' to minimize vibration with these monster lenses?
-- Mark La, October 17, 2000
<<I'll add another "chill Martin" here.>>No need for that.
<<I still stand by my statement that in practical real world shooting situations, the 600IS + 2x is sharp enough to use as an everyday lens without reservations.>>
For some,it's acceptable.For me,it's not.And that's not what you said in the first post.
<<Perhaps if you're shooting small lines on a test chart in controlled situations with and without teleconverters at various apertures, and then viewing the results with a microscope, you'll see some real differences. But I don't photograph lines. If you're ever in Columbus, Ohio, then please drop by with your loupe. I'll plop a hundred or so sharp bird photos on a light box for you. Yes, the Canon 600/f4IS lens is theoretically sharper at f8 without a teleconverter than wide open with a 2x, but I truly don't believe you'll find any conclusive evidence over which teleconverter was used by examining the feathers of various sparrows, warblers, and sandpipers photographed in real world situations. I do believe that you'll see more than a few mindblowingly sharp slides shot wide open with a 2x, though.>>
A 2x teleconverter WILL deteriorate image quality by 20-30% just by putting it on ANY lens,IS or not.And if you don't do your part(technique speaking),the diference can be even bigger.That's already been mentionated lots of times,by lots of people.So THERE'S diference in quality,no matter the lens you are using.I will reapeat again for you:I can defenetly spot EASILY wich shot you used a 2x and wich you not.I don't need more than a good 4x loupe to see that.You said in your first post that one couldn't tell the diference when a 2x is attached,and I will strongly disagree with you there,based on my very own experiences(yes,real world experiences.I don't shot line tests either) and by the experience of lots of users.This already have been mentionated thousand of times,in lot of places.
So no matter wich lens you use,the diference is there.If you can't see,well,that's another story and maybe it's your eyes fault.
-- Martin DeFavero, October 18, 2000
<<I will reapeat again for you:I can defenetly spot EASILY wich shot you used a 2x and wich you not.>>Bob Royse needs no one to defend him. That said, I will jump in anyway. Any comments about Bob's photographs are pure speculation unless you have seen them. I have seen hundreds of them. Are the ones taken with the 2X converter as sharp as ones that were not? I can't say for sure because my interest was in the birds, not in making comparisons. I CAN say that the question of sharpness NEVER occurred to me while viewing the slides. Details in the feathers and around the eyes seemed razor sharp. I know of NO ONE who has greater variety and quality of bird photos than Bob. When he tells me something about bird photography, I tend to listen pretty closely.
I have used the 600 IS with 2X converter for my own bird photography and my conclusions are: I have a much higher percentage of sharp photos using IS with the 2X converter than I did using the 2X converter with a 600 lens without IS; some of the photos taken with 600 IS and 2X are sharper than those taken with 600 non IS and no converter (not surprising-none of us has perfect technique all the time); if I lay a bunch of my slides on the lightbox, I can say that some are sharper than others, but I can't say for sure which were taken using the 2X converter and which were not.
-- Robert P. Boner, October 18, 2000
For what it is worth, Nikon Japan will be releasing the 80-400 VR in Japan on 11/3/2000.VR/IS is a tool. It won't substitute for crummy technique, but it will help if you are pushing your skills to the edge.
-- Stanley McManus, October 18, 2000
<<Bob Royse needs no one to defend him. That said, I will jump in anyway. Any comments about Bob's photographs are pure speculation unless you have seen them.>>Same here,Robert.I have more than 400 pictures published World Wide,8 International Awards,28 pictures published in National Geographic,and 5 covers on Time Magazine.Thats really enough background for a 30 years old man like myself.I'm not questioning Bob Royse as a photographer.I'm questioning his coments about the 2x converter,and about his "IS or nothing" speech.He seems totally impressed with his new toy.What he doesnt realize is that a lot of photographers out there doesn't need this technology to get pictures.I know that I don't.
<<I have seen hundreds of them. Are the ones taken with the 2X converter as sharp as ones that were not?>>
No,they are not.They CAN'T be.Is the TELECONVERTER limitations,not the lens.A 20% to 30% decline in image quality is expected when you use a 2x converter..so please tell me how can a image that have 20%-30% less quality be as good as a naked lens.That's NOT possible,sorry,you can argue whatever you want,as many time as you want,and you will prove nothing.Sorry.
<<I can't say for sure because my interest was in the birds, not in making comparisons.>>
My interest in THIS topic is to make comparisons,since Bob Royse afirmed that he can't difer a naked lens and a lens with a 2x converter.Thats not true,and never will be.Unless somebody make a teleconverter that does not deteriorates image quality.If you want to talk about birds,lets talk.Im very passionate about birds.
<<I CAN say that the question of sharpness NEVER occurred to me while viewing the slides. Details in the feathers and around the eyes seemed razor sharp.>>
There's a BIG diference between sharp and TACK sharp.No matter how hard you try,you will NEVER get TACK sharp using a 2x converter,no matter what techinique or lens you used.I have very critic eyes,maybe you don't.For me,there's no way you get get a really tack sharp image with a 2x.Details in the feathers dont prove nothing.I can get details in the feathers using a cheapo 100-300 USM zoom.
<<I know of NO ONE who has greater variety and quality of bird photos than Bob. When he tells me something about bird photography, I tend to listen pretty closely.>>
So listen to me.I can show you some breath taking images I have done,and without IS!Stop by sometime,I can show you.Im putting a web site together(about time!),and will tell you and Photoneters when it's done. <<I have used the 600 IS with 2X converter for my own bird photography and my conclusions are: I have a much higher percentage of sharp photos using IS with the 2X converter than I did using the 2X converter with a 600 lens without IS;>>
Of course you have!You are using IS,thats NOT the point!You need IS,Bob Royse needs IS,I don't need!And lots of photographers don't need either!
<< some of the photos taken with 600 IS and 2X are sharper than those taken with 600 non IS and no converter (not surprising-none of us has perfect technique all the time);>>
You answered your own question here.
<<if I lay a bunch of my slides on the lightbox, I can say that some are sharper than others, but I can't say for sure which were taken using the 2X converter and which were not.>>
Again,YOU can't say.I can.Easily.I believe MANY other can difer,you can bet on that.Please,I dont want to keep arguing about that.I like Photo.net,and I'm always surfing here once in a while.I dont want to make it look like usenet posts.I know what im talking about.If you or Bob are happy with the 600 IS 2x combo,thats great!I know I will never be happy with a 2x converter.2x converter means emergency.Means that you are trading off something.I want my 35mm already small images to be as sharp as a image can be,so I don't use it.Simple.And no matter what you say,the deterioration is there.Some see,others don't.
-- Martin DeFavero, October 19, 2000
Lets not turn this into a religious war!As some of you may know, In my youth (a few years ago...) I did a lot of lens testing. I tested the 600/4L, 300/2.8L and a bunch of other high quality lenses both "naked" and with 1.4x and 2x Canon TCs. These were not IS lenses (we didn't have IS telephotos "back then"). I did test the 300/4L IS and it's performance with TCs was very similar to that of the 300/4L non-IS lens (in fact maybe not quite as good).
TCs lower resolution. No doubt at all. 2x TCs lower resolution more than 1.4x TCs. Again, no doubt at all. No big surprise since as has been pointed out TCs must theoretically lower resolution, even perfectly matched diffraction limited TCs on diffraction limited lenses.
On real world images I generally found that the lens + 1.4x TC images looked pretty much as good as the prime lens images - even though the measurable resolution was lower. With a 2x TC it was usually not hard to see the effect of lower resolution. On some images it was more obvious than others, depending on the level of detail and size of the subject in the frame.
On side by side comparison shots with and without a 2x, taken from distances so as to give the same subject size in the frame I have NEVER seen a shot with a 2x that was hard to tell from the shot without the 2x.
Howvever there's excellent, good and then there's good enough. If you have no comparison shot then the 2x shots may well be good enough. They may be pretty good, but they're not as good as they would have been without the 2x and shot from 1/2 the distance. From a practical point of view (i.e. can you sell the image) this may not be an important factor since there will rarely be a comparison shot available. However from a strictly scientific viewpoint I don't put much, if any, faith in claims that images shot with 2x TCs are "just as good" or "virtually indistinguishable" from images shot with the same lens without the TC. In my experience it just ain't so - unless maybe you're shooting generic ISO 800 print film and getting 3"x5" prints made at the local supermarket! I don't know about high speed slide film since all my tests were done with Velvia or Sensia 100 and I rarely shoot slides over EI 200 in my own "real world" nature work.
IS isn't an issue here - unless you think the prime 600/4L IS is significantly optically superior to the non-IS lens (ditto for the 300/2.8). I used double tripods, MLU etc. so lens movement wasn't an issue.
Clearly IS is an advantage for many photographers who make their living from their images, and in the end that's what counts. Under real world conditions with 2x TCs on long lenses mounted on a single tripod and with wind and camera induced movements I have no doubt that IS technology will yield a higher percentage of sharp images.
-- Bob Atkins, October 19, 2000
After reading through the above thread I had to concentrate on doing my breathing exercises to keep my blood pressure from going through the roof. As one who owns both the 500mm and 600mm IS lenses, has used them extensively with 2X teleconverters, and grosses more than 1/4 million dollars annually while photographing only birds, I believe that I might be qualified to answer the question: "How good/useful is IS in daily work?" For those who do not know me, I must state that I am, and have been, a Canon contract photographer since 1995. Before you dismiss my opinions as hype, please consider the fact that I have stated often that the Nikon F-5 is, even with the introduction of the Canon EOS 1v, the world's best camera body. First off, it is an absolute fact that good photographers make good images with whatever equipment they have in their hands. That said, Canon's 500 and 600mm IS lenses allow photographers to work routinely at 1000 and 1200 mm respectively and consistently produce images that range from sharp to tack sharp. I agree with just about everything that Robert Royce had to say, except for his statement that the weight difference between the 500 IS and the 600 IS is not significant. I have worked with the 6 IS since it first came out, and recently, while on a trip to Cape May, NJ, purchased the 500 IS from Hunt's Photo (with my very own money). (Canon does not simply GIVE contract photographers whatever equipment they desire.) After carrying around the old 6 and even the 6 IS for years, toting the 500 IS is like playing with a toy. It is light and so easy to work with as to be a dream. Therefore, the choice of the old (non-IS) 600 versus the 500 IS is a no brainer. The 500 is lighter and gives you a comfortable 1000mm focal length to work with while the old 600 is heavier and gives you only a comfortable 840mm to work with. Buy the 500mm IS. As for sharpness, the Lepp quote about easily picking out images made with the 2X TC were pre-IS supertelephoto remarks. Late last winter I showed him many originals made with the 2X and the 6 IS last year at his Sarasota seminar and he was blown away. As for a Great Blue Heron head shot made with stacked TCs, he said, "It is certainly publishably sharp." I invite all of the ignorant naysayers (ignorant because they speak without ever having seen Bob's or my originals, to visit me in Indian Lake Estates, Florida near Lake Wales in the center of the state, and see not only the thousands of sharp images that I have produced with the 500mm and 600mm IS lenses with the 2X TCs, but the Roadrunner-head image made with the lens supported only on the car window at 1200mm at 1/45th of a second. The image is so sharp that you can see the reflection of my rental car AND the tires in the bird's eye. And if they like that one, I would be glad to share the Great Egret head-shot that I made with stacked 2X TCs at 1/100th of a second. The ruby-red eye on that bird is laser sharp. Now, while it IS true that great photographers make great images with whatever equipment they are using, it is an irrefutable fact that nobody can make the images that I have described above WITHOUT TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE IMAGE STABILIZER LENS TECHNOLOGY. The statement that I can--with perfect technique--do anything with my non-IS supertelephoto (Nikon or otherwise) and TCs that you can with your IS lenses and TCs is nothing but as Bob Royce would say, "Horsefeathers." I would say it's a bunch of crap. As for the subject movement issue: if the bird moves during a slow exposure, the image will not be sharp. What IS does is allow you to make sharp images routinely at shutter speeds as slow as 1/30 of a second with the 2X TC WHEN THE BIRD PAUSES FOR AN INSTANT. Another sharpness factor that I believe comes into play when photographing small birds at point-blank distances: since depth-of-field increases as camera-to-subject distance increases, images of small birds made with 2X TCs exhibit increased depth-of-field (at a given image size) when compared to images made with the prime lens alone. Example: a sparrow image made at 17 feet with a 600mm lens will exhibit less depth-of-field than a sparrow image made at 34 feet with a 600 mm lens and a 2X TC. I have noticed that images of small bird's made with the 2X TC are sharper through the shoulder than images made with the prime lens alone. If there is anyone with the knowledge to confirm or refute this suspicion, I would appreciate hearing from them. Karl Lehmann's statement, "I would hesitate to put a 2x TC on anything except in an emergency. If you do IS will help sometimes, but it's not a substitute for good technique." is patently absurd. Earlier in his post he writes, "I find IS to be extremely useful." As for claims of handholding the 500 IS for flight, that can be done but only for a few moments in extreme situations. Nobody, not even Brian K. Wheeler, the world's best raptor photographer who hand-holds the old Canon 300 2.8 for 12 hours at a stretch, can hand-hold the 5 IS for more than a few minutes at best. Bob Atkins' statement that "Proper Technique" is basically a sturdy tripod and stable ball head. For a 600/4 this means at least a 4 series Gitzo or equivalent and at least a B1 ball head (maybe a B1G)" is far from the whole story. First off, I now recommend only the Wimberley head with the big lenses. Secondly, there is a lot more to getting sharp images than utilizing a big tripod and sturdy ball head. To learn about maximum sharpness techniques, get a copy of my book, "The Art of Bird Photography," or check out the archived BIRDS AS ART Bulletins on my web site (as one poster suggested, thank you). As for Martin DeFavero, the only partially civil thing that I can say in response to his comments is: "Please come to Indian Lake and bring your loupe and all the razor sharp images that you have made with your old 600 and the 2X and/or with stacked TCs with you." He will be traveling light. As for Martin's derogatory remark's suggesting that "maybe it's Bob's eyes" then I guess that I, and all of the photo editors that use my work, are blind also. Jess Lee speaks of "degraded images with the 2X as compared to (sic: those made with) the 1.4X" and then tells you about a two-page advertising spread that he made with the 600 IS/2X TC combo at 1/15th of a second (WITHOUT LOCKING THE TRIPOD HEAD!) Will someone please tell me what part of the Twilight Zone I am in? As for the King Cobra head, it's a good thing that he didn't lock down that head, it has the worst creep that I've ever seen in any tripod head: when you begin to tighten it, the lens points down and down and down. You've got to frame the image with your subject barely in the frame to end up with the composition that you want. And, the Sidekick-style design is totally absurd for big lenses. (Again, see my comments in the archived Bulletins.) If you read this far, thanks for hearing me out. Best and great picture making to all. Arthur Morris/BIRDS AS ART
-- Arthur Morris BIRDS AS ART, October 22, 2000
First of all, thanks a lot to all of you for contributing answers to my question. It was really very helpful in making my decision, which was:I got the 500 IS.
I agree with a lot of you, that sharp images are not only an IS or not-IS question (I bought the lens on saturday - before I read Art Morris` passionate appeal for the IS-lens).
But I thought, when there is a new technique which helps the photographer, then I´ll use it and i`ll not go for a longer not up-to-date lens (I`m not doing mainly birds, so I don`t really need the 100mm extra - and in case, I have a 1.4xTC). The 600 was 25 percent cheaper - but it still was a few thousand $. If one pays so much money, one will use this lens for quite a while. And I don`t want to think after a few months: if I only had bought the 500 IS, then my images would be sharper, better etc. Now - with a 1st class lens - I know that it`s only my fault, when the images aren`t good enough (no excuse on the equipment any more).
It was also a question of weight. The 500 is not as heavy as the 600 - but one still can`t handhold it. I tried it when I made some test-shots using IS on and IS off - but I`m sure you have to be a bodybuilder to handhold this lens longer than five minutes (btw: I met a photographer who used the 600/4 AFS - his comment when he held my lens: "no weight at all").
These were the reasons I bought the 500, I just wanted to explain to you after you all took part in my decision.
Just a short note about the IS (sorry if this is getting longer): It`s fantastic. I used it on a manfrotto 455 (bogen 3something), and you can really see how the shaking stops when IS is on. I tested the lens in a national park and went down to 1/15 with 500 and 1/20 with 700 (TC). I also made some test shots using a newspaper tv-programm stuck to a wall (on tripod: IS on, IS off, TC; handheld IS on, IS off; IS off mirror lock up). I will give you an update when I get my slides back.
Thanks again to all of you,
Norbert
-- Norbert Rief, October 22, 2000
<<After reading through the above thread I had to concentrate on doing my breathing exercises to keep my blood pressure from going through the roof. As one who owns both the 500mm and 600mm IS lenses, has used them extensively with 2X teleconverters, and grosses more than 1/4 million dollars annually while photographing only birds, I believe that I might be qualified to answer the question: "How good/useful is IS in daily work?">>Relax,Artie...You don't need to prove nothing to people,nobody needs.I make $$$$$ anually too,and I do not consider myself better than nobody.I work at an BIG advertising agency,so I know EVERYTHING about marketing,about how to do marketing and how people DO marketing.
<<For those who do not know me, I must state that I am, and have been, a Canon contract photographer since 1995. Before you dismiss my opinions as hype, please consider the fact that I have stated often that the Nikon F-5 is, even with the introduction of the Canon EOS 1v, the world's best camera body.>>
Yes,everybody knows about that.Usually,Big companys like Canon choose people like you to show euphoric opinions about new prodcuts from time to time.That's helps Canon sell their product.Thats what I work with it."ADVERTISING".BELIEVE me people when I say that.Canon and Nikon NEEDS those professionals to good mouth their products.ITS MUCH CHEAPER FOR THEM,than to expend lots of money with add in magazines,TV spots,outdoors etc etc. Next time I see Canon comercial,I will want to see you say that about the F5.
<<First off, it is an absolute fact that good photographers make good images with whatever equipment they have in their hands>>
Wow,you still have nice things to say!<g>
<<That said, Canon's 500 and 600mm IS lenses allow photographers to work routinely at 1000 and 1200 mm respectively and consistently produce images that range from sharp to tack sharp. I agree with just about everything that Robert Royce had to say, except for his statement that the weight difference between the 500 IS and the 600 IS is not significant. I have worked with the 6 IS since it first came out, and recently, while on a trip to Cape May, NJ, purchased the 500 IS from Hunt's Photo (with my very own money). (Canon does not simply GIVE contract photographers whatever equipment they desire.)>>
Like I said before,IS helps,BUT NOT in the pictures that me,and other ARTISTIC photographers like to shot.Pictures resulting from this combination(f/8),are not TACK sharp.Publishable?Yes...but who in the hell told you you need the last in sharpness to publish an image??I have lots of shots published with a 100-300 ordinary Canon zoom.If you shot some not so unusual and it's acceptable,they will publish!You should know that better than anyone.Besides,most,if not all,pictures that are taken with long lens plus 2x converter,at f/8,look BORING AS HELL.Why??Cause they show birds stoped!They cant show NO ACTION,cause the low shutter speed.They show birds that looks almost dead.It's the pictures I refuse to take,since my kind of photography is,one more time,more for the ARTISTIC side.I dont make a living shooting,so I can select what I want to take and what not.You,and other professionals,shot everything that apears in front of you. Another thing,Canon DO give equipment to contracted photographers..not always..but they do.I KNOW that.
<<As for sharpness, the Lepp quote about easily picking out images made with the 2X TC were pre-IS supertelephoto remarks>>
George Lepp said that 4 MONTHS ago,so you are wrong again on this one.And I STILL afirm my opinion that a 2x in ANY lens makes the images much less sharp.Thats the phisics resulting from the 2x/lens combo.
<<What IS does is allow you to make sharp images routinely at shutter speeds as slow as 1/30 of a second with the 2X TC WHEN THE BIRD PAUSES FOR AN INSTANT>>
Again,the results are BORING PHOTOGRAPHS!!Thats why I REFUSE to use a 2x,besides lack of sharpness.
<<For a 600/4 this means at least a 4 series Gitzo or equivalent and at least a B1 ball head (maybe a B1G)" is far from the whole story. First off, I now recommend only the Wimberley head with the big lenses. Secondly, there is a lot more to getting sharp images than utilizing a big tripod and sturdy ball head.>>
SEE?The hype again.For those that doesn't know.Arthur Morris used to recomend the 3xxx series sometime ago(yes,with the "old" 600) and the B1.
<<As for Martin DeFavero, the only partially civil thing that I can say in response to his comments is: "Please come to Indian Lake and bring your loupe and all the razor sharp images that you have made with your old 600 and the 2X and/or with stacked TCs with you." He will be traveling light. As for Martin's derogatory remark's suggesting that "maybe it's Bob's eyes" then I guess that I, and all of the photo editors that use my work, are blind also. Jess Lee speaks of "degraded images with the 2X as compared to (sic: those made with) the 1.4X" and then tells you about a two-page advertising spread that he made with the 600 IS/2X TC combo at 1/15th of a second (WITHOUT LOCKING THE TRIPOD HEAD!) Will someone please tell me what part of the Twilight Zone I am in? As for the King Cobra head, it's a good thing that he didn't lock down that head, it has the worst creep that I've ever seen in any tripod head: when you begin to tighten it, the lens points down and down and down. You've got to frame the image with your subject barely in the frame to end up with the composition that you want. And, the Sidekick-style design is totally absurd for big lenses. (Again, see my comments in the archived Bulletins.) If you read this far, thanks for hearing me out. Best and great picture making to all. Arthur Morris/BIRDS AS ART >>
Please,no agressions!My Italian blood is hotter than yours,I bet! <g> NO MATTER what you say,Arthur,you will NEVER see me with any IS long telephoto lens,I guarantee you.Like I said before,That's NOT the pictures I want to take,I can ASSURE you.I really DON'T need IS in a 500-600 lens.Lot's of people don't need either!Thats true,believe me!
Another thing,why you keep banging EVERY SINGLE Kirk product?I have been notice that,you know.Bad experience or you are beeing suported now by Wimberley?For what I know and have used,Kirk makes some VERY good products,and LOTS of professionals use Kirk too.What you will say,that Kirk pays them??
What is worse of all,is to see photographers like yourself,come to the public EVERY YEAR and say" Hey,trow your lenses away,now Canon has a better tool that will make your shots sharper and your life easier!!And you will be able to compete with me on the field".Honestly,Arthur,that a bunch of BULL.I NEVER will be victim of any type of hype,or will agree with those that suported it.I consider you an excellent photographer,but honestly speaking,I liked your old work better.Maybe is cause now you are more professional than you ever been and doesnt have the time to put more art in your work?I loved the way you used your 800 5.6,and in my opinion,the pictures you took before was WAY better than what you do today...AND...WITHOUT IS!That's my point!
At that time,I considerated you one of the best photographers in the world.Maybe cause you didn't have to worry too much about equipment,or about what Canon does or did. Thats prove one thing to me...Too much Technology sometimes is bad for the ART...
-- Martin DeFavero, October 22, 2000
Regarding the following quote:"...my 600 4.0 non-IS is more than enough for the pictures I like to take,and I NEVER felt that I missed a shoot cause the lack of IS." -- Martin DeFavero, October 17, 2000
With all due respect, are you a nature photographer? Because based on my experience (which is considerably less than yours in general), I just can't believe that anyone who uses a 600/4 for nature photography would make such a statement. Using any tripod which is possible to carry for any distance from the car, e.g. Gitzo 1548, I find that shots at less than about 1/80 have a high probability of being unsharp using a 600/4 without IS. IS *does* help substantially with this, and personally I have missed many shots with my non IS 600/4 that I know I would have made with an IS one (I own many IS lenses and have tried out a friend's 600/4 IS with much envy!). In fact, in my photography there are very few occasions where I am *not* worried about camera shake with a 600/4 because I frequently shoot at dawn and dusk with slow film out in the field where a bigger tripod (bigger than 1548) is simply not an option.
-- Lanier Benkard, October 22, 2000
This is fun, now things are really heating up on photo.net. Maybe you gentlemen should all go into politics where you can debate endlessly over useless issues.I have very limited experience with the IS technology. The only such lens I got is the 28-135 zoom, which I am about to sell because its not getting any use (IMO a crappy lens). From what I have read; some of the biggest names in wildlife photography praise the IS technology. George Lepp, Art Wolfe and Arthur Morris all do, but then I believe they have all appeared in Canon ads (correct me if I'm wrong). As far as I know Bob Royse is not connected with Canon and neither is Galen Rowell (a Nikon user) which gave the IS a good review in OP magazine. So I have to take the words of these distinguished gentlemen that IS works until I try it for myself, but do I care if it works or not? Not really.
It's just another tool. A means to an end but not an end in itself. The discussion about IS seems to revolve around the added sharpness it brings and I think the sharpness part of photography is overrated. There is a lot more to it then getting a sharp shot.
I have a lot of published images made with a 300/2.8 (the non IS one) and a 2xTC that have gotten remarks how sharp they are but only after getting comments on the content. To the untrained eye (and to photo editors since they are using my images) such a lens combination yields very acceptable results, but content is far superior to sharpness.
Great nature photographs are made when the photographer, consciously or unconsciously, connects emotionally with the nature around him and creates the content that transfers onto film. The technology is just a tool, and in the case of photography, such an overrated tool.
There will always be new technology that we are made to believe will make our lives better and easier. I suspect the next hype will be when Canon releases the OP lenses, and there will be more in the future. What I have observed is that people which chase after the latest technology seem to reap nothing but more suffering as they become slaves to the technology. We do not need all the stuff that we make ourselves believe that we need. We need food, shelter and clothes, all the other crap are man made needs. What is this life really all about anyway? I would like to believe that it 's about becoming a more content, happy, self-sustained and aware human being and technology can not contribute to that.
When technology surpasses our humanity we are in trouble. Sadly, that is where we are today.
-- Daniel Bergmann, October 22, 2000
I think it is quite unfortunate that this thread has become a very emotional debate and people started to insult one another.Back to Norbert's original question, he specifies that he doens't shoot birds much. Therefore, adding a 2x to a 600mm doesn't apply to his particular case, and the shorter and lighter 500mm seems to be a better choice to him. Having IS is simply a plus. I am glad that is finally his choice.
By the way, when IS first came out a year ago, naturally I was skeptical about it. I had a chance to watch some of Arthur Morris' slides taken with his then new 600mm IS with a 2x TC and some even with stacked 2x and 1.4x TCs. At least among the ones he showed me, they look sharp enough to me under my 10x loupe. Since I don't use Canon, I don't have personal experience with those equipment.
Finally, as a moderator, I very much would like to delete some of the personal attacks in this thread. Again, please be civil.
-- Shun Cheung, October 22, 2000
Arthur,you don't need to worry about that.I dont pretend to become a professional photographer,and besides,I don't have a 600 IS,so how can I take better pictures than you?Now serious,you still one of the best nature photographers that I ever saw,besides your coments....
Randy:Im a Canon user and loyal to Canon.
It is so dificult for people to understand about other photographers NEEDS?Gosh,can't I be happy with my non-IS,old,crappy,surpassed 600 lens? I don't need IS for the pictures I like to take.Yes,I'm a nature photographer,that likes to use my 600 naked most of times to be able to shoot some nature "action" with faster shutter speeds!And no IS technology wil help me here.That's it.I could buy 3,4,5 600 IS lenses,but I don't need!Im done with this thread.Thanks to all and sorry if I ofended anyone....
-- Martin DeFavero, October 22, 2000
I've been quietly following this thread for some time now, but after reading Arthur's comments (as well as Martin's rather bizarre retorts), I feel compelled to add my humble opinion as to the question of how useful IS technology is in day-to-day "work"...I can't yet afford one of Canon's image stabilized "big glass" lenses, but I have been fortunate enough to own the modest 300/4 IS and the EOS 1.4x extender for several years (I traded in my 400/5.6L for the 300 IS); based on my experience with only this one image stabilized lens, I will say that the efficacy, power, and ingenuity of IS technology was immediately apparent to me after viewing my first roll of slide film taken through this lens. In fact, I do believe I was one of the first Photo.netters who had the balls to report that I was quite frequently obtaining SHARP images with the "420mm/5.6L IS" (300 X 1.4 = 420) at shutter speeds as slow as 1/30 sec., and on occasion, even 1/15 sec. I went "on record" to suggest that Canon's claim of an additional two stops of "hand-hold-ability" with L series IS lenses seemed VERY conservative... Subsequently, a number of other community members responded by suggesting that I might just be full of bullshit. [Indeed, although I certainly don't expect him to recall it, I actually e-mailed Arthur Morris about my above mentioned findings in 1998, and his e-mailed response to me about this particular part of my correspondence was a single word: "Great!" (Or was it, "Fantastic!")?. Arthur may not have had any such intentions in mind when he offered this response, but it struck me as being a rather snub and patronizing reply that strongly suggested skepticism, incredulity, and dismissal on his part. I mention this instance mainly because it suggests that Arthur is a Canon contract photographer who thinks for himself].
At any rate, back in '98, I was "foolish" enough to suggest that the 420mm/5.6L IS rig could easily capture sharp, hand-held shots at shutter speeds as slow as 1/15 sec. (How many stops would this be below ~1/420 sec.??). Last year, Bob Royse visited me at my apartment in north Columbus, and I projected for him a number of my aviary bird slides shot on Velvia rated at 100 ISO (thanks, Arthur!), and taken with the 420/5.6L IS rig, many of which were exposed at VERY slow shutter speeds. Bob Royse is an accomplished birder and bird photographer, and he seemed to like my humble slides, especially my Indigo Bunting images. But, I do believe that at the time, Bob was also somewhat skeptical about my claim that many of my shots were captured at such slow shutter speeds]. Well, it's now the year 2000, and bird photographers such as Arthur Morris (and Bob Royse) are lately reporting that they're routinely nailing SHARP images with big glass IS lenses and teleconvertors, at focal lengths of 1200mm or more (by combining teleconvertors), with shutter speeds in the vicinity of 1/45 sec.! (Gee, just how many stops below ~1/1200 sec. are we talking HERE??).
-- kurt heintzelman, October 22, 2000
I think that this is starting to look like the equivalent of "road rage" on the net!!!Come on guys ....would you speak this way face to face with a fellow photographer in the field?????
Enough said. I have the 300mm F4 IS and the 300mm F2.8 IS lens and am looking forward to getting a 600mm F4 IS in the near future to replace my non IS 600mm. The IS is a great feature and does indeed work well!!. This, however, does not mean that the non IS lenses are second rate. I just think that IS gives the user more freedom in certain situations to hand hold or use a light bean bag for support. IS will certaily help me shooting from a car window on a 600mm and will allow me to use my Gitzo 1340 + Arca B1 instead of my Gitzo 500 + Arca B2 when weight is an issue (when isn't it).
I've grown to love IS but doesn't mean I can't do without it. For those who don't yet have IS and can't afford it, wait a bit and maybe the prices will drop or the new Diffractive Optics may make things a lot more affordable. Untill then there is no reason why you can't enjoy what you have....I've seen a LOT of VERY good wildlife shots taken with old Canon and Nikon manual focus lenses!!!!!
-- Clive Culverwell, October 23, 2000
To Kurt, My "Fantastic" response to your e-mail was sent with sincerity. I receive several hundred e-mails a month and try as hard as anyone to answer each and every one graciously, but I am often brief. I did not doubt you or your results for a second. Best, Arthur Morris/BIRDS AS ART
-- Arthur Morris BIRDS AS ART, October 23, 2000
Martin, unless I am wrong (OCT 19 post), you state that you have had 28 pictures published in National Geographic,and 5 covers on Time Magazine" On OCT 22, you wrote: "Arthur,you don't need to worry about that. I dont pretend to become a professional photographer." Which one is true?
-- Arthur Morris BIRDS AS ART, October 23, 2000
DOUBLE-CRESTED CORMORANT/JBWR, Q-NY
Hi Again Martin, I do applogize......for making so many boring, un-artistic images recently. I promise to tell all the thousands of folks who come to my slide programs annually to stop ooohing and aaaahing each time that I put a new picture up. I have attached a recent boring, un-artistic image made with the Canon 600mm IS lens, the EF 2X TC, and the EOS 1v body. Best, Arthur Morris/BIRDS AS ART
-- Arthur Morris BIRDS AS ART, October 23, 2000
This thread will soon be edited. Just a warning in case you wonder where your comments have gone. While much of the information is useful, the tone of some of the posts is less than desirable. After due reflection, I'd guess that even some of those making the comments might not wish them to live in the archives forever.
-- Bob Atkins, October 23, 2000
<<Martin, unless I am wrong (OCT 19 post), you state that you have had 28 pictures published in National Geographic,and 5 covers on Time Magazine" On OCT 22, you wrote: "Arthur,you don't need to worry about that. I dont pretend to become a professional photographer." Which one is true? >>Both are true.I have NO intention to become a professional photographer.Again,who told you I need to be a professional to have a picture published on Time or National Geographic? I DO have 5 covers on Time Magazine,2 in Italy,1 in Brasil,1 in Argentina and 1 in USA.
By the way,the image you showed don't impress me.Maybe your pupils,but not me.I can do better than that..this si your best efort to an artistic image?
By the way,that proves NOTHING about your TACK sharp 2x converter theory,sorry Mr.Arthur......
Next time bring something better and you MAY impress me
-- Martin DeFavero, October 23, 2000
Just today I found this test review by Fritz Pölking, a famous wildlife photographer from Germany, who has published many books on wildlife photography. On his site he makes a comparison on sharpness with and without IS and compares it to mirror lock up. Very thourough and interesting to read. Sharpness testPersonally I would go for IS if I had the choice and could af€‰r it.^#ut I will still keep using my old and trusted Canon FD manual focus equipment.
-- Hans Martens, October 23, 2000
To Bob Atkins:Feel free to edit,delete etc any coment I did here.I expressed my honest and sincere opinions,and sorry if I ofended anyone.To Mr.Morris:The 10 best photographers that I know,9 are NOT professionals,maybe thats why they are SO good.They have NO compromisse with nothing.
Im tired to see opinions of sold out photographers like yourself,that kiss Canon butt everyday.That kind of opinions means NOTHING for me. You were a better photographer when you didn't care too much about technology.From what I see from your last work,you are becoming ordinary like any other pro that lives thinking about technology,and can't express feelings anymore.Besides,if you want to improve and keep up with this new generation of young photographers,you should try to keep your BIG ego a little down.
I sure prefer to live as an advanced hobbyst,not a pro,and be as creative as my mind think,without worry if this shot will sell or not. Besides,I earn as a Art Director for an ADD company much more than I would earn with photography,so I don't mind not becoming a pro... I prefer NO compromisse photography. The results are much more apealing.
By the way,you didnt asnwered lots of my questions that I posted above...maybe cause you know you cant prove me wrong.
-- Martin DeFavero, October 23, 2000
Thanks for the clarification, Arthur. Best Regards.
-- kurt heintzelman, October 23, 2000
Dear Martin, Here are some of the answers you requested plus a few additional comments and questions:"Relax,Artie...You don't need to prove nothing to people, nobody needs. I make $$$$$ anually too,and I do not consider myself better than nobody.I work at an BIG advertising agency,so I know EVERYTHING about marketing,about how to do marketing and how people DO marketing."
Do you work in the USA?
<Yes,everybody knows about that.Usually,Big companys like Canon choose people like you to show euphoric opinions about new prodcuts from time to time.That's helps Canon sell their product.Thats what I work with it."ADVERTISING".BELIEVE me people when I say that.Canon and Nikon NEEDS those professionals to good mouth their products.ITS MUCH CHEAPER FOR THEM,than to expend lots of money with add in magazines,TV spots,outdoors etc etc."
That is a totally ridiculous statement. Canon's camera division spends tens of millions of dollars on advertising annually, if not in a single month.
Next time I see Canon comercial,I will want to see you say that about the F5."
I say it on line, in articles, and at seminars. Of course Canon is not going to put it in an advertisement.
<<First off, it is an absolute fact that good photographers make good images with whatever equipment they have in their hands>>
Wow,you still have nice things to say!<g>
Yes, still in spite of your ignorance and obvious jealousy.
Like I said before,IS helps,BUT NOT in the pictures that me,and other ARTISTIC photographers like to shot.
Pardon me while I bow down and kiss your feet.
Besides,most,if not all,pictures that are taken with long lens plus 2x converter,at f/8,look BORING AS HELL.
That is a totally ridiculous statement. Longer focal lengths achieve with TCs allow photographers to take advantage of opportunities that are beyond the reach of their lenses alone, BUT DO NOT AFFECT THEIR ARTISTIC VISION.
Why??Cause they show birds stoped!
You SHURE SPEL WEL Martin.
They cant show NO ACTION,cause the low shutter speed.
With Provia F 100 or 400, they certainly can. And since when do images need to show action or behavior to qualify as being artistic. Oh, I forgot that you wrote the book on what is artistic and what is not.
I dont make a living shooting,so I can select what I want to take and what not.You,and other professionals,shot everything that apears in front of you.
And you know that how?
Another thing,Canon DO give equipment to contracted photographers..not always..but they do.I KNOW that.
Yes, they do sometimes.
<<As for sharpness, the Lepp quote about easily picking out images made with the 2X TC were pre-IS supertelephoto remarks>>
George Lepp said that 4 MONTHS ago,so you are wrong again on this one.And I STILL afirm my opinion that a 2x in ANY lens makes the images much less sharp.Thats the phisics
Is that like physics?
resulting from the 2x/lens combo.
If the prime lens is exceptionally sharp and the photographer's technique is perfect, exceptional sharpness is possible with IS or with mirror lock.
<<What IS does is allow you to make sharp images routinely at shutter speeds as slow as 1/30 of a second with the 2X TC WHEN THE BIRD PAUSES FOR AN INSTANT>>
Again,the results are BORING PHOTOGRAPHS!
Boring according to you.
For a 600/4 this means at least a 4 series Gitzo or equivalent and at least a B1 ball head (maybe a B1G)" is far from the whole story. First off, I now recommend only the Wimberley head with the big lenses. Secondly, there is a lot more to getting sharp images than utilizing a big tripod and sturdy ball head.>>
SEE?The hype again.
I tell people about the equipment that I use. You want to call it hype, that is fine with me.
or those that doesn't know.Arthur Morris used to recomend the 3xxx series sometime ago(yes,with the "old" 600) and the B1.
That is incorrect, I did however, at one time, recommend that set-up with the old FD 800mm.
Please,no agressions!My Italian blood is hotter than yours,I bet!
I agree. It must be that your high body temperature has affected your brain function.
<g> NO MATTER what you say,Arthur,you will NEVER see me with any IS long telephoto lens,I guarantee you.
Thank you for that assurance. You had me worried.
Like I said before,That's NOT the pictures I want to take,I can ASSURE you.I really DON'T need IS in a 500-600 lens.Lot's of people don't need either!Thats true,believe me!
I never said anything different.
Another thing,why you keep banging EVERY SINGLE Kirk product?
I try them out. If they work well, I say they are good. If not, I say so and give my reasons. Is that hard for you to understand?
I have been notice that,you know.
I know.
Bad experience or you are beeing suported now by Wimberley?
I became a Wimberley dealer several months ago, but I hated the Kirk ball head long, long before that.
For what I know and have used,Kirk makes some VERY good products,and LOTS of professionals use Kirk too.What you will say,that Kirk pays them??
I do not know.
What is worse of all,is to see photographers like yourself,come to the public EVERY YEAR and say" Hey,trow your lenses away,now Canon has a better tool that will make your shots sharper and your life easier!!
I never ever once said that. I tell people what I think of the equipment and share my images with them. I have never told anyone what lens to buy unless they asked for my opinion. And many do.
And you will be able to compete with me on the field".
What field?
Honestly,Arthur,that a bunch of BULL.I NEVER will be victim of any type of hype,or will agree with those that suported it.I consider you an excellent photographer,but honestly speaking,I liked your old work better.
Here you are really, really, showing your ignorance. Where have you seen "my newer work"? No where. Less than 2% of a photographers favorite work is published. Have you been to any of my recent slide programs? You are simply blowing smoke. Very few of my images made with IS lenses and 2X and stacked TCs have been published, so how do you know what they look like?
Maybe is cause now you are more professional than you ever been and doesnt have the time to put more art in your work?
That is your pathetic opinion, shared only by you and Paal, whereever he may be. (Wherever it is, I hope that you wind up there soon.)
I loved the way you used your 800 5.6,and in my opinion,the pictures you took before was WAY better than what you do today...
Again, you have no idea as to what I am doing today.
AND...WITHOUT IS!That's my point!
As bizarre as it may be......
At that time,I considerated you one of the best photographers in the world.
And now I got stupid and blind.
Maybe cause you didn't have to worry too much about equipment,or about what Canon does or did. Thats prove one thing to me...Too much Technology sometimes is bad for the ART
And you, Martin, know all about art in bird photography. Good for you. Thanks for sharing.
Both are true.I have NO intention to become a professional photographer.Again,who told you I need to be a professional to have a picture published on Time or National Geographic? I DO have 5 covers on Time Magazine,2 in Italy,1 in Brasil,1 in Argentina and 1 in USA.
And 28 National Geographic images. And you are NOT a professional. Are you kidding? How many people do you think believe that both of those statements are true?
By the way,the image you showed don't impress me.
Oh, my. You've ruined my day.
Maybe your pupils,but not me.I can do better than that..this si your best efort to an artistic image?
Si, it is. If you can do better than that, why don't you put up one of your bird images so that I can tell you how artistic it is? Put up or shut up.
To Bob Atkins:Feel free to edit,delete etc any coment I did here.I expressed my honest and sincere opinions,and sorry if I ofended anyone.
Oh don't worry about my feelings, Martin. It's not every day that I have someone tell me that my work is boring and un-artistic.
To Mr.Morris:The 10 best photographers that I know,9 are NOT professionals,maybe thats why they are SO good.
And I'll bet that they just love their days jobs working at McDonald's.
They have NO compromisse with nothing.
Neither do I.
Im tired to see opinions of sold out photographers like yourself,that kiss Canon butt everyday.
By stating publicly that the Nikon F-5 is the world's best? Is that kissing butt? And criticizing Canon freely in print, on line, on my web site, and at seminars and workshops? Does that mean kissing butt to you?
That kind of opinions means NOTHING for me. You were a better photographer when you didn't care too much about technology.From what I see from your last work,you are becoming ordinary like any other pro that lives thinking about technology,and can't express feelings anymore.
Again, you have not seen my recent work, and, everyone is entitled to a baseless opinion, no matter how pathetic.
Besides,if you want to improve and keep up with this new generation of young photographers,you should try to keep your BIG ego a little down.
I am-ego driven; many in the business are. But I try not to be arrogant (or show off my ignorance). And yes, there are many wonderfully talented bird photographers around. And virtually all of them are striving to be me.
I sure prefer to live as an advanced hobbyst,not a pro,and be as creative as my mind think,without worry if this shot will sell or not.
I have never once made a photogrpah of a bird becasue I thought it would sell. I press the button when what I see in the viewfinder plaeses me, and I hope that the results may inspire others with their beauty.
Besides,I earn as a Art Director for an ADD company
Do they SUBTRACT also??
much more than I would earn with photography,
Martin. Stop insulting yourself. That doesn't say much about your photography.
so I don't mind not becoming a pro...
Yeah, traveling around the country to wonderful places filled with birds, and receiving international recognition while making more money than I could ever have dreamed of sure is a drag. But sometimes you do have to deal with morons.
I prefer NO compromisse photography. The results are much more apealing.
As I said, let's see some of your appealing bird images.
By the way,you didnt asnwered lots of my questions that I posted above...maybe cause you know you cant prove me wrong.
Martin, I've tried. But I am sure that I have wasted my time. I have run into only one other person im my career as insulting, as ignorant, as hurtful, and as obviously jealous as you. And that was also on photo.net.......
Martin, on OCT 22 you posted--in a note to me: "Now serious,you still one of the best nature photographers that I ever saw,besides your coments...."
Thanks for the compliment, Martin, but do make up your mind one way or the other.
I do wish you the best,
Arthur Morris/BIRDS AS ART (but not according to Martin)
-- Arthur Morris BIRDS AS ART, October 23, 2000
So Bob, where's the editing you promised? This thread is offensive and totally out of control.
-- Gary Anthes, October 24, 2000