# 6D and BIF



## chrysoberyl (Nov 18, 2014)

I have a 6D + 70-200f/2.8 II + 2X III TC. As discussed elsewhere, AF is not very good. Do I change the body or the lens? Regarding lenses, I would like to be at 560-600mm with converter. So I see three options: Sigma 120-300 + 2X III TC, Sigma 150-600 or Canon 100-400 II + 1.4X III TC. But the Canon 100-400 II + 1.4X III TC will not AF on a 6D.

So what move is recommended for BIF?

And on another note, what is GAS?

Thanks.


----------



## meywd (Nov 18, 2014)

Gear Acquisition Syndrome 

As for the body, depending on your budget and low light needs:


7D II
5D III
1D X


----------



## Cosmicbug (Nov 18, 2014)

I'd change the body for a 7Dmk2.
As its for BIF..
I'd go for the 100-400mk2 with the 1.4xIII..(assuming this proves to be a sharp and fast AF combo).


----------



## candc (Nov 18, 2014)

A lighter lens is really nice for bif. The tamron 150-600 works good on a 70d or 7dii. Sigma 120-300 and 1.4xiii is really great but also heavy and expensive. Everyone is thinking the new canon 100-400 is going to e really good. For my use 400 on a crop body is generally enough for bif. I usually set the tamron at 400 or less because the af is faster.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Nov 18, 2014)

@ all - thanks very much! What I am reading is change body and lens. I really like the sharpness, but the 6D AF is just not that good, correct? What is the actual crop factor - 1.2 or so for 7D II? And the 5D III is not as sharp as the 6D?

@ Meywd - Noted re GAS. I have it almost constantly. Don't know why; I hardly have time to use what I have.


----------



## UlfG (Nov 18, 2014)

I find the AF on 6D to be very good, and I have used it for BIF with no problems (although I normally use my 7D for birds). The drawback, as I see it, is the lower fps and small picture buffer. I have put up a couple of 6D bird photos on my Flickr page; here are a couple of BIF shots:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/ulfgotthardsson/13965144259/sizes/l
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ulfgotthardsson/14151978094/sizes/l/

They were shot in low Swedish winter/spring light with ISO 3200 (the Goldeneye) and ISO 6400 (the gull). And they are cropped.


----------



## jrista (Nov 18, 2014)

For BIF, I would say AF system is the most important thing, followed by frame rate. Having the right focal length helps as well...it can be very tough to frame birds in flight with a small frame.


I would recommend the 7D II and 70-200mm f/2.8 as a start. That will get you around a 315mm effective focal length (the 7D II sensor is slightly larger than past Canon APS-C sensors, maybe around 1.55x crop or so), which IMO is very nice for BIF. You could probably slap on a 1.4x TC for maybe around 435-440mm effective focal length, however your losing that stop of light. 


Having a FAST lens is also important for BIF, you want as much light a you can get, for two reasons. First, it allows you to take full advantage of the f/2.8 dual cross-type AF point. In lower light, this can be huge for BIF. Second, it improves your SNR for each shot, allowing you to avoid having to REALLY crank up the ISO to get the necessary shutter speed. With a cropped sensor, even the 7D II, you want that extra light. (It might not be quite as important with a 5D III, which would be my second body recommendation.) 


The other benefit with a fast prime is you can use a 1.4x TC, and not drop yourself into f/8 territory. While it is possible to do BIF at f/8, it is extremely difficult. Even with AF point expansion (so five or nine points around the center point), your chances of actually locking onto your subject quickly enough to actually get the shot at f/8 are very low. You really don't want to be doing BIF slower than f/5.6, and even then, it's going to be tough. You want f/4 or f/2.8 for BIF. 


Finally, frame rate is important. I wouldn't say it is the most important thing for BIF, but after AF, it is probably the next most important. Getting the right wing position and head position relative to the body for a really great BIF shot requires a higher frame rate. The 10fps of the 7D II is going to be a real bonus here. You could get away with it with the 5D III...however having used the 7D for years myself, I really do feel the drop in frame rate with the 5D III (and it's only 2fps, vs. the 4fps difference relative to the 7D II) and BIF. I largely stick to perching and wading songbirds and shorebirds/waders with the 5D III, because it is pretty tough to get just that right pose with the slower frame rate. 


If you do get the 5D III, my top recommended lens for BIF would be the 300mm f/2.8 L II, with and without the 1.4x TC III. I think the 420mm f/4 aperture with the 5D III is pretty great for BIF (I've rented that lens twice now, and I really like it...probably the next lens I intend to purchase from Canon, as it's actually great for wildlife, BIF w/ the 5D III, and astrophotography.) Going longer than ~420mm on FF (or effective focal length on APS-C) often presents issues keeping the bird in the frame, and nicely composed within the frame....I've tried BIF with my 600mm f/4 L II, and it is usually very difficult unless the bird is quite far away. About the only BIF I do these days is fairly distant hawks circling overhead, and then, they are usually often too far away even for the 600. Once I get the 300/2.8, I'll probably get back to doing BIF more, as the wider field just makes it so much easier. 


Anyway, those are my recommendations. I'd say 7D II + 70-200 f/2.8 L II is my first, and 5D III + 300 f/2.8 L II + 1.4x TC is my second.


----------



## FEBS (Nov 18, 2014)

chrysoberyl said:


> @ all - thanks very much! What I am reading is change body and lens. I really like the sharpness, but the 6D AF is just not that good, correct? What is the actual crop factor - 1.2 or so for 7D II? And the 5D III is not as sharp as the 6D?
> 
> @ Meywd - Noted re GAS. I have it almost constantly. Don't know why; I hardly have time to use what I have.



The 5D3 is from IQ equal to the 6D. From AF the 5D3 is much better. The AF of the 7D2 might give a few small advantages, above the 5D3. The big difference between the 7D2 and the 5D3 is the fact that the 7D2 is a APS-C sensor and the 5D3 a FF. So, the 7D2 will have a 1.6 crop factor, but the 5D3 has a better IQ (not that the IQ of the 7D2 is not OK). For BIF a 6D is the wrong camera. Both 7D2 and 5D3 do have there advantages. Hard to tell which is best. In low light the 5D3 will do better. If there is sufficient light, then the 7D2 will have a deeper reach. I own both cameras, but it's hard to tell you which one you need to buy. It also depends on your budget, and there the 7D2 has a big advantage.


----------



## FEBS (Nov 18, 2014)

jrista said:


> the 7D II sensor is slightly larger than past Canon APS-C sensors, maybe around 1.55x crop or so



Where did you get that info? 

According my information it's a APS-C sensor, just as the other APS-C sensors of Canon. So the crop is also 1.6. The 7D2 has indeed more pixels (20mp) but that has no influence on the crop factor. It might only give you some more detail when you want to crop your photo in PP.


----------



## candc (Nov 18, 2014)

I think he 70d and 7dii sensors are 22.5 mm wide. Most ff sensors are 36mm wide. 36/22.5= 1.6.

35mm film width/22.5= 1.5555

7d sensor is 22.3 mm wide


----------



## jrista (Nov 18, 2014)

FEBS said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > the 7D II sensor is slightly larger than past Canon APS-C sensors, maybe around 1.55x crop or so
> ...




Well, last I knew, the 18mp APS-C was 22.2x14.8mm in size. I thought the new sensor was around 23.5x15.5mm, but I guess I was wrong about that (I may have crossed lines between patents, as I've been looking through all the Canon sensor technology patents lately). I just took a look at DPR, and they are listing _all _Canon APS-C sensors at the same size, 22.4x15.0mm (which is slightly larger, but not that much)...however I do not believe that is correct for the older APS-C sensors. I am pretty certain the original 7D is 22.2x14.8, and I was also pretty certain DPR stated that in the past as well...not sure why the data has changed. Based on these numbers, I guess it still is ~1.6x crop...in exact terms, the old 18mp sensor was a ~1.65x crop, where as the new is a ~1.62x crop. A 23.5x15.5mm sensor has a 1.56x crop ratio.


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 18, 2014)

chrysoberyl said:


> I have a 6D + 70-200f/2.8 II + 2X III TC. As discussed elsewhere, AF is not very good. Do I change the body or the lens?



I imagine the 6d for bif to be probably the worst case scenario: no outer cross points, only all or one af point selectable, old-school 5d2-style tracking firmware not optimized for this application. The 6d can do ok for movement on one dof pane, but as soon as something's moving towards or away from/to you the keeper rate sinks to rock bottom esp. on low-contrast objects.

You should have a look at the 7d2, using your lens with the tc glued on is not the best choice (af speed is slower, iq is worse) - and a crop camera as a "built-in" 1.6x tc. If you're shooting in good light you'll be fine, esp. if you're not a pro competing with other "best iq only" photogs.


----------



## AprilForever (Nov 18, 2014)

BIF is a large part of my work. You will want:

7D MK II. Then, if you can swing the money, a 500 f4 would be perfect for you. It will do great with the 70-200 you alread have, and will work great with the TC. If money is an issue, you will be fine with the 500 f4 mk I. Also, I would advise you to spend a lot of time in study and in practice. BIF is the hardest general field of photography. Failing a 500 F4, a 300 2.8 will work great for you. Also, about fast fstop... I usually shoot a f7.1 on my 7D with a 300 2.8 with 2x TC. I like my results.

study birdsasart-blog.com Also, featheredphotography.com. Glennbartley,com is good too.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Nov 18, 2014)

Thanks to all! Now it is clear why I suck so badly at BIF. Clearly my next step is a 7D II. After that, a fast lens (as clearly advised by jrista and strongly implied by AprilForever). And practice. Thanks again.


----------



## jrista (Nov 18, 2014)

chrysoberyl said:


> Thanks to all! Now it is clear why I suck so badly at BIF. Clearly my next step is a 7D II. After that, a fast lens (as clearly advised by jrista and strongly implied by AprilForever). And practice. Thanks again.




BIF is not easy. Not by a long shot. I've been doing bird photography for a few years now, and BIF is definitely my weak spot. I've kind of stopped practicing, as I just don't have the lenses for it. A FAST lens is a big plus, so I really think the 70-200 f/2.8 is going to be a good lens to have, with or without a 1.4x TC. If you have the money, the 300 f/2.8 is great. I am not sure about the 500/4 on a 7D II (that's an effective ~810mm focal length...that's really long, makes for a pretty narrow FoV...I have a hard enough time with BIF at 600mm on the FF, let alone 800mm+). I think a 500/4 on a FF would be ok...it still seems a little long to me, especially if you do not already have good BIF skills (if you had good BIF skills, I think it would be excellent, you'll get a lot more detail...but learning on it would be tough, just keeping the bird in the frame would be tough with a 7D II.)


----------



## chrysoberyl (Nov 18, 2014)

Well, jrista, you have hit upon the biggest factor with me - skill/practice. It took me many shots to get this one. Now that I know the body, I can begin obsessing about a fast lens. The Sigma 120-300 intrigues me, as it is the upper limit right now in affordability.


----------



## tayassu (Nov 19, 2014)

You don't need that long lenses for BIF, I'm perfectly fine with 300mm on my 7D.

For me, important factors for a good BIF lens are: relatively lightweight, zoom, equiv. ~500+ mm, weathersealed and of course good tracking. 
In your case, I would go for the 7DII and the bare 100-400 II. For an area of photography where reliable AF is crucial, I would not rely on a third party lens, despite loving them for anything else.


----------



## FEBS (Nov 19, 2014)

I you go for 7D2, then the 300/2.8 is the lens to go for BIF. That lens is sharp and focuses fast. On a crop it will give you 480mm equivalent. Weight of the combo is no issue, you don't need a tripod.


----------



## mnclayshooter (Nov 19, 2014)

Fully acknowledging the 6D's AF performance compared to more capable bodies... I carry two 6D's and haven't had the woes that some claim here on this forum. While I don't shoot a lot of BIF, I have been able to accomplish this task with my 6D and also woefully under-acclaimed 100-400L. (inserting a little sarcasm - sorry). I'll surely admit your success rate will likely be higher with a camera designed for this type of AF... Also, based on my empirical study of posted galleries here and elsewhere... the number of people out trying to capture fast moving birds at night must be an incredibly high number (also-sorry for the sarcasm). 

As far as my use of the 6D's center AF point... I also am a clay pigeon shooter as well as a hunter... I shoot a shotgun 9 months out of the year at regional, national and world-level events... it's possibly that my ability to move the camera to track a subject offsets the 6D's ability to AF/track??? Just throwing an olive branch to those who make claims of the 6D's lack of worth. 

That said - if you're not 100% sure about switching to 7DII at the current prices, I'm sure you can find a 7D around used for a VERY good price and possibly even more reasonable as we start into the black-friday week etc. 


Sorry - I woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning... literally... the underside of it.


----------



## jrista (Nov 19, 2014)

Sarcasm aside, I wouldn't say anyone shoots birds at "night." I've shot some Night Herons "at night"...as in it was quite dark, late twilight, not post-sunset but "night":







Not in flight, though...that's pretty much a miserable failure at night regardless of the gear.  

Birds are often quite active during crepuscular hours, where the light can be many orders of magnitude lower than during full daytime. Some of the most dramatic BIF shots I've seen come from these hours...so having a fast lens and good AF system that can handle it (if BIF is a primary goal...that's what we are talking about here, BIF as a primary form of photography, not something done occasionally) is very important.

In great light, just about any camera will do, and just about any f/5.6 lens will do as well. However, if you don't want to be fighting against the gear in non-ideal circumstances, I think you have to be realistic about what kind of equipment you *need*, vs. what kind of equipment you _can get away with_. I think you can get away with a 6D and 100-400mm, for sure. Even the 100-400mm Mk I. I cannot recommend that combination if you want to actually really DO bird in flight photography as a primary thing. If BIF is a primary form of photography for someone, I feel it is my responsibility to steer them away from the "get away with it" gear, and towards the "nail it every time" gear. 

In all seriousness.  No sarcasm here. (I guess I woke up on the right side of the bed...oh, right....I didn't wake up at all, guess that's one benefit of insomnia, no side of the bed to worry about, period! ???


----------



## wsmith96 (Nov 19, 2014)

I also agree that switching to a 7D MkII would be a great start. You may find the crop factor might keep your 70-200 relevant for what you are wanting to do. If not, then you can trade it out for the new 100-400.

Good luck!


----------



## mnclayshooter (Nov 19, 2014)

jrista said:


> Sarcasm aside, I wouldn't say anyone shoots birds at "night." I've shot some Night Herons "at night"...as in it was quite dark, late twilight, not post-sunset but "night":
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thanks Jrista. I hope you know I wasn't taking any intentional jabs at anyone in particular. Just that it seems that some cameras/lenses take what I think is an unfair blow on this site because they aren't the best of the best. Just sometimes frustrated with the notion/emotion on this site (and others) that if you don't have the very best of the best gear, you've wasted your money . 

I agree, the 6D isn't for birding enthusiasts.


----------



## meywd (Nov 19, 2014)

jrista said:


> Sarcasm aside, I wouldn't say anyone shoots birds at "night." I've shot some Night Herons "at night"...as in it was quite dark, late twilight, not post-sunset but "night":
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Great shot Jon, yeah i agree, a 600D can shot birds, and the 6D is not worse than the 600D, but tracking birds is really hard, and as with everything in life, if you have better skill you will not need the best gear to achieve your targets, but again the gear helps, or pros wont need the 1D X, or astros the 6D, btw if you need C# devs please do tell


----------



## ftico (Nov 19, 2014)

Hi, my two cents:

- the large aperture definitely have a bonus for BIF (as it was said, they allow you to keep lower ISO, and thus have better IQ), but also make the focus more problematic. If the bird is fast moving, it is HARD to lock and maintain perfect focus on the eye or the body... if on top of that you have to crop (and you typically do), that will highlight the possible focus problems. Some pros suggest to use f7.1-8 when possible (That is definitely the case in full daylight).

- The ideal IQ of the camera lens combo is not the IQ you will get -- Again, AF matters most.

- AF speed and accuracy of the camera is part of the deal; AF speed of the lens is another; Good technique is paramount - especially compensating for the background light.

I started with a 70-300 and a T2i; I moved to a 400 5.6L and the T2i; now I use the 400 f5.6L and a 70D. The lens change was the most relevant to the increasing my success rate: the AF speed and accuracy was on another planet. The second most relevant thing was properly deciding the appropriate AF area vs. center point and the tuning of AI servo (in the 70D). 

I almost always use f5.6, but sometimes I wish I used f8, especially for large birds or small birds that are very close. A slight movement of the bird or AF inaccuracy will more likely keep the target in decent focus.

Regarding my lens: optical quality and AF speed are great, especially with the limited 8.5m-infinity setting. It is NOT easy to learn to frame a fast bird on a 400mm on a crop! The stabilization would be useless for the typical 1/1000 minimal speed required, so I do not miss it that much, but it would be of some help in maintaining the bird in a good area of the frame (tried the 100-400 of a friend). I would definitely recommend either one for BIF.

Regarding the camera: I find that for BIF, Av, preselecting a good iso, center-weighed metering, exposure compensation +1, center zone AF gives me good results. Priority on focus and locking to the target.

Hope this helps!

(attached example -- AF correctly selected the closest bird; heavily cropped)


----------



## jrista (Nov 19, 2014)

ftico said:


> Hi, my two cents:
> 
> - the large aperture definitely have a bonus for BIF (as it was said, they allow you to keep lower ISO, and thus have better IQ), but also make the focus more problematic. If the bird is fast moving, it is HARD to lock and maintain perfect focus on the eye or the body... if on top of that you have to crop (and you typically do), that will highlight the possible focus problems. Some pros suggest to use f7.1-8 when possible (That is definitely the case in full daylight).




There is maximum aperture as used at AF time, and there is selected aperture as used at exposure time. These are not always the same. You want a fast lens for AF purposes when doing BIF...however, that does not mean you have to always SELECT the max aperture. You can stop down as necessary to get the kind of DOF and sharpness you want. 


That does not negate the value of using a fast lens for BIF, though...AF is *ALWAYS *performed at maximum aperture. AF is less accurate and slower with slower maximum apertures, it is most accurate and fastest with faster maximum apertures (at least, it is the way Canon designs their AF systems...not sure about other brands.) So, an f/2.8 lens is NOT a detractor when it comes to AF, and f/5.6 is NOT a benefit when it comes to AF. It is exactly the other way around.


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 19, 2014)

jrista said:


> AF is less accurate and slower with slower maximum apertures, it is *most accurate* and *fastest* with faster maximum apertures (at least, it is the way Canon designs their AF systems...not sure about other brands.)



... speed: Are you sure this is valid with all lens/body combinations? I faintly remember reading that with some af variants, a slower lens results in at least on par af speed because the camera doesn't bother with reading only the f2.8 af lines in the first place. I don't want to built urban legends here (though it is a rumor site ), and I can be absolutely wrong remembering this.

... accuracy: I imagine this is valid for lower light situations, i.e. a faster lens results in more light to work with for the af system. But in bright daylight, why would a non-cross f5.6 line of my 6d be more accurate with my 100L (af @f2.8, shot @f4) than my 70-300L (shot & af @f4)?


----------



## meywd (Nov 19, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > AF is less accurate and slower with slower maximum apertures, it is *most accurate* and *fastest* with faster maximum apertures (at least, it is the way Canon designs their AF systems...not sure about other brands.)
> ...



wouldn't AF tracking be more accurate and faster @ f/2.8 simply because there are more active AF points, although i am not sure if that's what Jon meant.


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 19, 2014)

meywd said:


> wouldn't AF tracking be more accurate and faster @ f/2.8 simply because there are more active AF points, although i am not sure if that's what Jon meant.



I'm sure what he wrote is correct for a lot of camera/lens combination, I just wonder if it can be generalized for all of them. For example my 6d has only one (non-cross, thanks, Canon) f2.8 af point, the rest is f5.6 - so no can do select more af points


----------



## jrista (Nov 20, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > AF is less accurate and slower with slower maximum apertures, it is *most accurate* and *fastest* with faster maximum apertures (at least, it is the way Canon designs their AF systems...not sure about other brands.)
> ...




The center point on the 7D II is an f/2.8 sensitive dual cross type. Even though all the points are f/5.6 cross type, you only get the high precision benefit of that center point if your using an f/2.8 or faster lens. 




Marsu42 said:


> ... accuracy: I imagine this is valid for lower light situations, i.e. a faster lens results in more light to work with for the af system. But in bright daylight, why would a non-cross f5.6 line of my 6d be more accurate with my 100L (af @f2.8, shot @f4) than my 70-300L (shot & af @f4)?




It should be faster. The firmware should know when you are using an f/2.8 lens, and it should give you the optimal performance for that faster aperture. My 100mm f/2.8 focuses faster than my 600 f/4 L II on the 5D III.


----------



## ftico (Nov 20, 2014)

jrista said:


> There is maximum aperture as used at AF time, and there is selected aperture as used at exposure time. These are not always the same. You want a fast lens for AF purposes when doing BIF...however, that does not mean you have to always SELECT the max aperture. You can stop down as necessary to get the kind of DOF and sharpness you want.
> 
> 
> That does not negate the value of using a fast lens for BIF, though...AF is *ALWAYS *performed at maximum aperture. AF is less accurate and slower with slower maximum apertures, it is most accurate and fastest with faster maximum apertures (at least, it is the way Canon designs their AF systems...not sure about other brands.) So, an f/2.8 lens is NOT a detractor when it comes to AF, and f/5.6 is NOT a benefit when it comes to AF. It is exactly the other way around.



Thanks for the remark... I totally agree. I guess care should have been more careful about discussing maximum aperture and aperture used for the exposure (relevant I guess for your second point regarding IQ). 

Yet, for the sake of discussion, I would like to add a couple of extra thoughts:

- for narrower maximum aperture lenses, the focal lenght/weight ratio is going to be higher, making it easier to handhold (well, at least for long period of times). And, at least for me, a BIF lens is typically handheld; 

- same, of course, goes for the focal lenght/cost ratio: you may be able to get both a longer lens and a better AF system camera with your budget. You would lose the extra reported advantage on the 2.8 cross points (I have never tried a 2.8 supertele, but I trust the pros), but get a more balanced combo.

- with the exclusion of the 400 2.8 (which I would not call handholdable), I do not think any 2.8 lens is long enough for typical BIF, even on a crop (unless you shoot herons, or have a great spot with a suitable blind, etc).
So maybe the potential 2.8 advantage would be diminished by forcing use to use teleconverters;

- of course, other conditions being the same, a brighter lens will allow you to shoot earlier in the morning and later in the evening... and usually those are really good times.

So if you can afford it and hold it, definitely go for the fastest tele you can have (possibly at least 400mm)!!!


----------



## chrysoberyl (Nov 21, 2014)

This thread seems to be winding down, so thanks again! The 7D II is the next body for me. The next lens...well, as advised, I'll see how I like the 70-200/2.8 II with the 7D II and then decide.

Here's one more BIF from my 6D + 70-200/2.8 II.


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 21, 2014)

chrysoberyl said:


> This thread seems to be winding down, so thanks again! The 7D II is the next body for me. The next lens...well, as advised, I'll see how I like the 70-200/2.8 II with the 7D II and then decide.



Reasonable decision, I hope it works out - but this excellent gear surely will be a lot of fun to shoot with.



chrysoberyl said:


> Here's one more BIF from my 6D + 70-200/2.8 II.



I wouldn't say this is "bif", even though there are flying birds in it. You don't need any tracking at all for this and can simply focus, recompose and snap away with high speed drive. For *this* a 6d does indeed work ok.


----------



## jrista (Nov 22, 2014)

chrysoberyl said:


> This thread seems to be winding down, so thanks again! The 7D II is the next body for me. The next lens...well, as advised, I'll see how I like the 70-200/2.8 II with the 7D II and then decide.
> 
> Here's one more BIF from my 6D + 70-200/2.8 II.




I think the 7D II + 70-200/2.8 II is a good choice. I think you should add the 1.4x and 2x TC III as well if you do not already have them...you will want 400mm reach at times, and that is still f/5.6, which is decent (not to mention 280mm f/4, which is going to be excellent.)


----------



## jthomson (Nov 22, 2014)

jrista said:


> chrysoberyl said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks to all! Now it is clear why I suck so badly at BIF. Clearly my next step is a 7D II. After that, a fast lens (as clearly advised by jrista and strongly implied by AprilForever). And practice. Thanks again.
> ...


The 70-200 f2.8 is a lousy lens for BIF. It is way too short. Same with the bare 300mm f2.8. The 300mm f2.8 with the 1.4x will work but it is starting to get heavy.
The premiere lens for learning BIF is the 400 mm f5.6L. It is has the needed reach, especially on a crop camera, is fast focusing and is light weight. Once you have practiced you can move up to the heavier 500mm f4L or the 600mm f4L that you see the serious bird photographers shooting handheld.
Funny thing, I've never heard a bird photographer claim that a lens was too long, too heavy or to long a MFD, yes, but otherwise the longer the better.


----------



## lux (Nov 22, 2014)

I have used 6D with 300 2.8 on monopod for BIF and done "ok" though it felt like my lack of practice was a larger factor than the gear. That being said I am upgrading my back up camera from 2ti to a 70D (will give me some more reach, better AF and much better video than what I have now) I will be interested to see what I'll be able to do with the 70D 2xiii and 300 2.8. The eagles haven't landed here yet but they are coming.


----------



## jrista (Nov 23, 2014)

jthomson said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > chrysoberyl said:
> ...




The 70-200 f/2.8 can be used with the 1.4x and 2x TCs for longer reach (although the 2x might cost you some AF speed). As for the longer the better, for still birds, I agree. For birds in flight, I think 400mm is probably about as long as you want to go as a novice, unless you have some serious tracking skill, and the ability to hand-hold a large, heavy lens for a long time. Most of the pros that I know of use the 200-400 L lens these days for BIF, as it's an ideal combination of weight, speed, and focal length. I don't know many who use the 600...you can really magnify the bird, but keeping it in frame can be tough. At greater distances where the bird is small enough to keep in the frame with such a narrow FoV, you very frequently pick up atmospheric effects...pros often recommend AGAINST the 600 for BIF for that reason.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Nov 24, 2014)

If you can afford a second body then buy the Canon 7d MKII but I would retain the Canon 6d. I take alot of Landscape photographs and the 6d is perfect lighter than the 5d MKIII (while being almost as well built) and better iQ than my 7d. I also find the GPS and wi-fi very useful in the Canon line-up I think the 6d is the best landscape camera.


----------



## Sabaki (Nov 24, 2014)

Birds in flight is one of my favourite genres, even though I can't say I'm great at it. 

I have seen some SUPERB BIF images and for handheld, the 300 f/2.8 mkii, 400 f/5.6 and the 100-400 are the lenses usually partnered with a 7D classic, 70D or the 7Dii now. 

Yes, birders with the 200-400 or big whites do shoot handheld but I find that they "beanbag" or use a tripod more. 

Birds in flight has a few criteria for me: sharpness, frame fill and intimacy. 

Sharpness is self explanatory but intimacy with your subject is important as if you don't fill a sufficient portion of your frame with the bird, it lacks that WOWS factor. 

7Dii and a 400 f/5.6 or better still, 300mm f/2.8 with x2 TC would be my recommendations. Start with bigger birds, learn to track and then move onto slower ones


----------

