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!

 

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

 

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
http://www.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: http://www.clarkvision.com

Roger

 

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.

 

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

 

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......

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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






Rita

 

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.

 

The AF on the AF-S II Nikkor is much faster than Canon's 500. I'm also
amazed that Canon's $5,500 500/4L costs so much less than the $7,200 500/4
Nikkor. The Nikkor doesn't even have VR. It seems B&H can't keep either on
in stock for very long.

<http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/234175-USA/Nikon_2131_Telephoto_AF_S_Nikkor_500mm.html>

Cheaper glass?




Rita

 

Reply to message from "Pete D" <> (Sat, 23 Jun 2007 14:
36:12) about "Re: Nikon v Canon 500mm?":

There is also benefits when using alternate support such as monopods,
beanbag supports, etc. or under adverse conditions such as high wind.



James E. Akiyama <> Mon, 25 Jun 2007 12:01:25 -
0700

=== Posted with Qusnetsoft NewsReader 3.3

----- Original Message -----
From: "Pete D" <> Sent: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 14:36:12
Subject: Re: Nikon v Canon 500mm?


...

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.

 

I posted this in another response, but see that it only went
to rec.photo.technique.nature, so I'm not sure if you saw it:

=============
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:
http://www.clarkvision.com/gallerie...reasted.roller.c01.24.2007.JZ3F1500b-700.html

500 mm f/4 L IS lens + 1.4x TC 1/100 second at ISO 400:
http://www.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.
========== end repeat post ===========

Why I think Nikon has been losing wildlife and sports
photographers to Canon (in order):

1) IS lenses in super telephoto,
2) faster bodies (1D Mark II and now III),
3) full frame bodies (5d, 1Ds Mark II),
4) low noise digital sensors.

Besides the IS reducing vibration, IS helps
keep a super telephoto on target, so the autofocus
point stays on the subject better, increasing
autofocus accuracy. Imaging shaking moving the
focus point around, which means the range to the
subject can vary causing focus wander and thus
poorer accuracy. IS helps minimize that problem.
(I can see this in action when tracking birds.)

Nikon, however, has responded with some great lenses,
like their equivalent to Canon's 100-400 L IS
(forget what exactly its called) is an f/4 VR
and reportedly very sharp.

So while IS helps in some situations and extends
the ability to get the shot to more difficult
lighting situations, Nikon can still deliver
superb images in many other situations, and
with lenses get better images than Canon (like the
telephoto zoom cited above). So in wide range
of conditions, one camera will probably do better than
the other, while in another condition it will be reversed.

So you must decide whether for the type of imaging you
do, you would on the average be better with
one manufacturer or the other. If that means
you want the fastest AF camera with the fastest
frame rate with IS super telephoto, there is
currently only one option (costing over $10,000).
That advantage could change tomorrow.
And it doesn't mean you can't get great photos under
many conditions with another manufacturer.

Nor do you need top equipment to get a great shot.
My wife says this is the greatest bird picture:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bird/web/c01.14.2003.img_5113.egret-flight.f-600.html
and it placed in Nature's Best photography contest,
and it was taken with a lowly D60, which was known
to be slow at autofocus. With a 1D Mark II, I've
yet to get something I consider similar, even though
I've tried (perhaps luck has a lot to do with it).

Roger

 

Superb shots. I can certainly see the value of VR/IS.

I have been to Venice rookery several times over the years (from
Europe) and also got many great shots. You almost can't miss there!

I do wish, like many others, that Nikon would bring out a VR 500mm
lens.

Most of my shots are taken either from the car with a bean bag or
handheld. Only yesterday I was 'shooting' a peregrine falcon in flight
near its nest site (the young were well fledged and scattered about
the cliff ledges and looking curiously at me. It's a city centre site
and they are well used to traffic and people) and no way would the
lens autofocus. I had to try and follow her manually, resulting in an
awful lot of out of focus shots. When she did perch I had to use a 2x
converter and again no AF. Very frustrating!

A Canon 1D Mark II and 500 mm f/4 L IS plus converters do seem very
tempting except that I have so much Nikon gear collected over the past
40 years.

Richard.

 

I suspect you aren't just limited by autofocus, but by frame rate. A high
frame rate is essential to get the peak of the action, whether for sports or
wildlife. I use a Canon 600 f/4 L IS on a Canon EOS 1v, sometimes with a
1.4x or even 2x (AF is maintained). (BTW, this camera uses a bit of
celluloid inside it, which reacts to the light. It is then sloshed through
some nasty chemicals, revealing a picture. Some of you old-timers may
remember it: It's called "film").

I've been watching the digital revolution from afar, waiting for the time
when a camera (I only consider Canon, because I have all the lenses) would
actually be good enough. I think that time has finally come, with the Canon
Mark III. It's the first digital that has a frame rate that I consider
sufficient for wildlife: 9-10 frames per second (depending on focus
setting), just like my 1v. The peak of action may only last 0.1 sec., so
shooting at 3-4 fps will likely miss it. You still might get a nice shot,
but, for example, the eagle's mouth will only be open a sliver, as opposed
to all the way in a dramatic moment.

Of course, AF tracking isn't always perfect, especially with teleconverters.
That's where technique comes in, being able to maintain view of the subject.
I use a Wimberly head, which is needed for a 13-bound lens. I also use a
Canon 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS, but images are not as sharp as with the 600.

 

["Followup-To:" header set to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems.]

The machinegun approach to duck hunting. If you fire enough
bullets, aeh, frames, something's gonna get hit.

I was under the mistaken belief that the critical moment was
mostly captured by anticipating it. But now that you mention it,
why don't we all take up film cameras with 24 images/second?
Or even better, high speed cameras with 5000 images/second?
That way, we'd be sure not to miss anything ...

I'll not say that a high frame rate and a deep buffer won't
help, but it's not the end of all troubles.

-Wolfgang