Well stated John. I might add that the 600 is THE lens for places such as Denali National Park where much wild life is visible from the (only) road. After several visits to Denali without a 600, I purchased one and used it, (many times with the 1.4L convertor), on my last visit to the park. It became my most used lens there. Using a 600 without a good sturdy support system and gimballed head is generally a waste of film.
On Wed, 26 Feb 2003 06:29:28 -0800 (PST), John Mustarde wrote: > > On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 22:24:20 -0500, you wrote: > > >> You really only need a 600/4 and 1.4x TC for birdies. > > > A subject of interest to me, so comments interspersed. > > > >A 600/4 monster is pretty useless for many "birdy" > situations. It's > >great on a tripod for shooting birds that are not > moving around much > >and who will sit still long enough for you to set up, > assuming that > >you can get your tripod set up on suitable ground. > (I'm thinking of > >marsh birds or shore birds, perhaps.) > > Weight is the one real drawback to the big lenses, > which include the > 400/2.8, 250-600/5.6, and 600/4. Smaller lenses such as > 300/2.8. > 600/5.6, and even a Nikon 500/4 are not heavy enough to > make weight a > serious limiting factor. > > I've never experienced any difficulty shooting marsh or > shore birds - > but then I don't take the 600 into the water, and often > don't even set > up a tripod. I leave carrying such a lens over water to > the more > adventurous, or those to whom sinking an expensive lens > might be part > of the cost of doing business. > > >However, the lens is not very portable, and it > certainly isn't > >hand-holdable (I can just about hand-hold an A* > 600/5.6 in bright > >light conditions with 400 ASA film). Even a sturdy > monopod would be > >taxed by a 600/4 cannon (that's with a "double-n" - > <g>). If you > >have to walk very far to get to the birdies you'd > better buy an > >army-surplus caisson to help transport it, but forget > it if the > >terrain is rough. > > If anyone is carrying a big lens very far to get bird > photos, they > better be backpacking to a blind, or some other spot > already scouted. > It's no secret that birds flee from human contact. The > birds circle > of fear is proportional to the amount of regular human > contact they > have. In remote locations, there won't be a bird within > twenty yards > of a human crashing through the underbrush. > > > > >Then, I don't picture using such a lens on pelagic > birds from a > >boat. And, I can't picture traipsing through dense > woods to shoot > >birds in the puckerbrush, and thickets, either. (Good > luck to you > >if a bird lands less than 5 meters - about 16.5 feet - > away from > >you.) > > In my part of the birding world (Texas and Florida for > awhile, now > Arizona) birds are abundant at the edge of clearings - > not in dense > woods. Owls and some woodpeckers like the interior a > little, but > usually dense woods are not nearly as good a place to > go birding as > the scrubby transition area between woods and field. > > The best "thicket" birding is from the car, parked on > the shoulder of > a less-traveled road, often right in the city at the > edge of a > development. This is where the really big glass shines > - shooting from > a blind, and a car is an excellent blind. The use of a > car reduces the > drawback of lens weight, and the minimum focus distance > seldom comes > into play. If it does, a 25mm Kenko AF extension tube > helps a lot. > > >Mind you, this is really not any criticism of the > design or the > >optical properties of the F* or FA* 600/4 lenses, but > is just a > >"devil's advocate" rebuttal to the concept that "you > really only > >need a 600/4 and 1.4x TC for birdies". It is probably > a great lens > >for its purposes, but its purposes don't cover a lot > of good birding > >situations. A lot of good bird photography can be > done without "a > >600/4 and 1.4x TC". > > > >Fred > > My comment about needing a 600/4 and TC is a > tongue-in-cheek comment > I've made many times in the past. I hold to it a > little, but it's not > all that defensible. The 600/4 is very heavy, very > expensive, and > requires a host of expensive accessories. One has to > plan to use it - > it is not the lens to keep in the trunk for > spur-of-the-moment > outings. And hand-holding is out of the question except > for an > occasional grunt-and-hope shot. > > I've used my 600/4 in many modes, from tripod setup at > a blind, to a > walk-around lens on a monopod, to a pack-in situation. > I've carried it > on the passenger seat of the car, hooked to a short > monopod, ready to > point through the car window. I've even shot it from > flat on my back, > holding it above my face shooting directly up into a > tree. I've lugged > it as much as eight miles in one day (that was a very > long day), but > normally I limit myself to a two mile round trip. > > But all that weight is a lot easier on the younger > crowd. Now that I > am nearer to a hundred than not, I'm heeding the siren > call of digital > and its 1.5x FOV crop. So I carry a fairly light 300/4 > and 1.4x TC, on > a monopod, and get 315 shots per roll at an effective > focal length of > 630/f5.6 with the fabulous close-focus ability of 1:3 > Macro. Now > that's a walk-around setup for birding! > > -- > John Mustarde > www.photolin.com Ken Waller ________________________________________________ PeoplePC: It's for people. And it's just smart. http://www.peoplepc.com
