Bubbahotep
Well-known member
I'm really curious as to whether the 600mm pf has better backgrounds than the 500mm pf. What is your experience?
Better background blur: 600mm pf vs. 500mm pf
- Thread starter Bubbahotep
- Start date
If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).
I have some comparisons here (it'll start at the background comps)
TCzPhotos
Member
I have recently traded my 500pf for the 600pf. So far, the 600pf looks better. The 500pf seemed to struggle with straight lines in the back ground, the 600pf doesn't seem as bad. I need to get into some tall grass or tree branches to really know for sure. I have also been practicing getting a more distant background which will contribute to the improvement.
Calson
Well-known member
A big advantage of a lens that is light enough to use off the tripod is that one can move about horizontally or get higher or close to the ground to change the subject's background. It does require the photographer to take note of the background before taking the shot and this is a learned skill.
Jeff Ascough the renowned British wedding photographer made the observation that he looks for a great background at a venue and then waits for something to happen. Cartier-Bresson did the same with his street photography where he waited for people to enter the frame and position themselves for the images he had conceived in his head. When I got the 500mm PF that I could use with a tripod it was for me a real game changer as I moved around a great deal more and changed the shooting height 20x as much as when I owned the 600mm f/4 lens.
With a camera mounted the 600mm f/4 TC weighs more than 10 lbs and for me that requires using a tripod all the time. I have many ways to deal with backgrounds, especially for wildlife, both when shooting and later in post production. I do not passively put the lens and camera on a tripod and photograph a subject with no awareness of the background and no effort to avoid ones that detract or compete with the subject for the viewer's attention. When a nicely blurred background that has hot spots the bokeh is meaningless.
Jeff Ascough the renowned British wedding photographer made the observation that he looks for a great background at a venue and then waits for something to happen. Cartier-Bresson did the same with his street photography where he waited for people to enter the frame and position themselves for the images he had conceived in his head. When I got the 500mm PF that I could use with a tripod it was for me a real game changer as I moved around a great deal more and changed the shooting height 20x as much as when I owned the 600mm f/4 lens.
With a camera mounted the 600mm f/4 TC weighs more than 10 lbs and for me that requires using a tripod all the time. I have many ways to deal with backgrounds, especially for wildlife, both when shooting and later in post production. I do not passively put the lens and camera on a tripod and photograph a subject with no awareness of the background and no effort to avoid ones that detract or compete with the subject for the viewer's attention. When a nicely blurred background that has hot spots the bokeh is meaningless.
Bubbahotep
Well-known member
Thanks, Steve. I'm trying to figure out the 600mm's value proposition. I guess the only slight downside other than cost is the minimum focal distance (3m for the 500mm vs. 4m for the 600mm).
Bubbahotep
Well-known member
This is a compelling illustration of why portability is important.
This is the struggle for me. With animal photography, my desire to document a certain action is important and often outweighs creating aesthetically pleasing images. That said, photography is relatively new for me so I suspect that the aesthetics will play a bigger role in my wildlife photography as I spend more time with the hobby.