# canon 7D2 with 100-400 ii lens with 1.4 Extender for birds



## Stavrosbbb (Jan 14, 2015)

I love this combination for bird photography. It is light to carry and has reach. I would appreciate others experiences with this killer combo. Attach 2 bird photos, very little crop.


----------



## weixing (Jan 14, 2015)

Hi,
Just wonder at 300mm with the 1.4x teleconverter (420mm F7.1), can 7D2 select other AF points other than the center point for focusing??

Have a nice day.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 14, 2015)

My experience is that there is no significant advantage of using the 1.4xTC with the 100-400 II on the 7DII (but it does better on the 5DIII). The loss of IQ from the TC combined with an extra stop of noise gives it hardly any advantage over the bare lens plus a slight loss of AF and restriction to one focus square at f/8. Here are some shots of the centre of an iso12233 chart done with the bare lens on the 7DII compared with the 1.4xTC added and also the bare lens upscaled 1.4x using Photoshop. When colour is involved, as with bird plumage etc, the TC will fare worse because of any CA added.

ps - you can see the loss of IQ on adding the TC on the TDP site
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=2&LensComp=972&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

The 7DII works brilliantly with very sharp lenses but the smaller pixels are more sensitive to softening of the lens whereas the FF is more resilient.


----------



## Lee Jay (Jan 14, 2015)

Alan, you need to shoot your targets from far enough away that the resolution limit is somewhere in the range of your target. In both of these shots, the resolution limit is beyond the high-end of your target so nothing can be determined.


----------



## Lee Jay (Jan 14, 2015)

Okay, doing this myself using TDP tests:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=3&LensComp=972&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=2

It looks to me like the bare system, at f/8, has a resolution of about 30 on the chart (it's about 30 at f/5.6 too).

It also looks to me like the 1.4x TC system, at f/8, has a resolution of about 28 on the chart.

But that's at the same framing. To compensate we have to multiple the 28 by 1.4. 28 * 1.4 = 39.2.

To determine the increase, just take the ratio: 39.2 / 30 = 1.31.

So, it looks to me from those images like the 1.4x TC adds about 31% more real resolving power to the system.

If you prefer a different set of number than my 28 and 30 from the above sample images, you can do your own math.


----------



## Isaac Grant (Jan 14, 2015)

This combination interests me the most for bird photography. I currently have the 7d2. I own the 400 5.6 but shoot most of the time with the Tamron 150-600mm. I really want to see good real world comparisons between the two. Meaning the canon + 1.4 x @ 560 vs the Tamron @ 600mm or 552mm (that is where it goes to on the zoom). Both at f8. I find the Tamron to be very sharp as long as you are stopped down to f8.

Also I would love to know from your experience what are the short comings of only having 5 autofocus points to shoot with when you have the 1.4x attached. That seems to be a major advantage of the Tamron. I can shoot in full zone for BIF as well as having all focus points available to use for perched birds. Helps to frame the image a great deal. For instance I can keep the bird where I want it but change the focus point left or right as the bird moves around. This is not an option with only the center 5 points.

Have not downsized the images for this site so here are links to two shots with the Tamron at 552mm (as close to the 560 of the Canon as I can get). Focus point on the eye. Bird framed how I wanted it.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/16072639807/in/photostream/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/16251182645/in/photostream/


----------



## Lee Jay (Jan 14, 2015)

Isaac Grant said:


> This combination interests me the most for bird photography. I currently have the 7d2. I own the 400 5.6 but shoot most of the time with the Tamron 150-600mm. I really want to see good real world comparisons between the two. Meaning the canon + 1.4 x @ 560 vs the Tamron @ 600mm or 552mm (that is where it goes to on the zoom). Both at f8.



Not real-world, and not on a crop body, but it looks like the 100-400L II + 1.4x at f/8 just crushes the Tamron at 600mm and f/8.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=2&LensComp=929&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0


----------



## takesome1 (Jan 14, 2015)

AlanF said:


> My experience is that there is no significant advantage of using the 1.4xTC with the 100-400 II on the 7DII (but it does better on the 5DIII). The loss of IQ from the TC combined with an extra stop of noise gives it hardly any advantage over the bare lens plus a slight loss of AF and restriction to one focus square at f/8. Here are some shots of the centre of an iso12233 chart done with the bare lens on the 7DII compared with the 1.4xTC added and also the bare lens upscaled 1.4x using Photoshop. When colour is involved, as with bird plumage etc, the TC will fare worse because of any CA added.
> 
> ps - you can see the loss of IQ on adding the TC on the TDP site
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=2&LensComp=972&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0
> ...



I can see the advantage of the 1.4x and the 7D II on my 500mm F/4. I agree with your last sentence.

So if I understand you correctly it would be your opinion that the new 100-400mm may be that threshold that you would see an advantage? Possibly you have to go to the big white primes to see an advantage?


You mention the 5D III, really a logical comparison would be the cropped picture of the 5D II cropped vs the 7D II on a naked lens -or- the 5D III with a 1.4x cropped against a 7D II naked. Both shot from the same distance.


By the way, the OP's pics are not bad using an extender.


----------



## Isaac Grant (Jan 14, 2015)

I have seen that. But results are on a full frame, not a crop. Think the results will be much closer on the 7d2. I have not seen anything yet posted with this combo that crushes the Tamron. I fully expect the Canon should be better but I would love to see photos of birds that prove it and not just charts.


----------



## Freddie (Jan 14, 2015)

It works rather well for me. Unfortunately, I cannot compare it to any other brand of lens.


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 14, 2015)

Freddie said:


> It works rather well for me. Unfortunately, I cannot compare it to any other brand of lens.


Great shot, Freddie! That looks like a potent combination to me. From the MTF and test charts, it looks like Canon really worked hard to optimize the 100-400 II for the 1.4x III. Your shot certainly shows off the potential when those are combined with the 7DII.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 14, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> Alan, you need to shoot your targets from far enough away that the resolution limit is somewhere in the range of your target. In both of these shots, the resolution limit is beyond the high-end of your target so nothing can be determined.



I was 25 metres away, with a good size target. You can look at the sharpness of the numbers and the curves in the same way as you do for images on TDP. The 1.4xTC is ever so slightly better. Here is the small print on a Focal Target at the same distance - the 1.4xTC is slightly better, but the gain is hardly worth the hassle of holding a longer lens steady at a narrower aperture. (Top = 400mm, middle = 400mm upscaled 1.4x in PS, bottom = 400 + 1.4xTC). I have tried the lens with and without the TC on birds and get a much better keeper rate without the TC. On the 5DIII, the 1.4xTC is great.


----------



## Lee Jay (Jan 14, 2015)

That isn't slightly better, that's dramatically better.

Shoot a target like this one and see which lines of text are readable.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 14, 2015)

Lee
I have the camera(s), I have the lens, I have the extender, and I have no axe to grind. To me, it is not worth using the 1.4xTC on the 100-400mm II and the 7DII. If I was taking a picture of the monochrome moon using a tripod, I would use the extender. But, for general bird photography, no. Though I do use it with the 5DIII. 

I am waiting for DxO to do a full test of the lens - whatever anyone says about the site when comparing Nikons with Canons, they do a good job of comparing Canon lenses on different bodies. Here is a comparison of the Tamron 150-600mm on the 5DIII and 70D. Whereas the Tamron is good at f/8 at all focal lengths on the 5DIII, it becomes weak at above 400mm on the 70D (just click on the charts to magnify them). I think similar tests with the 100-400mm II ± extenders will be the same.

http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Tamron-SP-150-600mm-F-5-63-Di-VC-USD-Model-A011-Canon-on-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-versus-Tamron-SP-150-600mm-F-5-63-Di-VC-USD-Model-A011-Canon-on-Canon-EOS-70D___1263_795_1263_895


----------



## Lee Jay (Jan 14, 2015)

AlanF said:


> I am waiting for DxO to do a full test of the lens - whatever anyone says about the site when comparing Nikons with Canons, they do a good job of comparing Canon lenses on different bodies.



No they don't. And worse, if you don't know how to interpret their results, you'll actually come to exactly the wrong conclusions.


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 14, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > I am waiting for DxO to do a full test of the lens - whatever anyone says about the site when comparing Nikons with Canons, they do a good job of comparing Canon lenses on different bodies.
> ...


Why don't they? Their measurements are as precise as any other site's, and there is only one rule to using their site: *Ignore the Score*


----------



## Lee Jay (Jan 14, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...



Because they only do system tests, not lens tests. System tests are shot through an AA filter, thus they don't represent the capabilities of the lens.


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 14, 2015)

I got my 1.4x iii in just today, while I was walking out the door on a lunch break to take a picture of an owl skulking around some bluebirds who were feeding on rose hips. Nice timing. 

I found that the 1.4x added a great deal of resolution when things were exposed slightly to the right. It just does so much better in general, the 7d2 that is, when exposed to the right. I was taking 6400 iso shots of birds in the brambles, and was very appreciative of the 1.4x. The tests above are likely to go one way or another entirely on this arbitrary factor: how it was exposed. I agree that it looks from the image above that the 1.4x was doing a decent job, but I don't think the potential is revealed, as they all look a little dark to me, especially the 1.4x version. Alan, thank you for putting those images out there to discuss. I hope to have time sometime to do my own test, and I'll post images here, using an object 50-100 yards out, with bright exposure. I think the difference will be stark, but I'll keep an open mind. 

Yes, it was annoying to have only one focus point, and yes, it was slower to focus, and sometimes hunted. But for birds on brambles, it worked fine. For a bird in flight, I'd - of course - much rather have the bare lens. 

I owned the Tamron 150-600, and my copy only started to approach the image quality of the 100-400 ii if I kept the focal length at or below 500mm, stopped down to f8. The one advantage to the Tammy was, as stated above, the access to all of the focus points from 400-500 fl. But it was pretty slow to focus and hunted in anything but pretty good light. Was a stop or two behind on IS as well. In general, if fast AF is a real need, then the Tamron isn't your bag. 

My current strategy: 
In great light with relatively still objects, use the 100-400ii with 1.4x
With fast moving objects, or in OK light, use the bare 100-400ii and crop
In poor light, use the 70-200 f/2.8 and crop a lot

So focal length becomes the variable sacrificed with waning light.


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 14, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...


Not to be argumentative, but Alan said, "they do a good job of comparing Canon lenses on different bodies." I think that's an accurate statement, and that's what my comment was about.


----------



## Lee Jay (Jan 14, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > mackguyver said:
> ...



Because they're all tested through AA filters, on sharper lenses they are nothing but tests of the AA filter.


----------



## Isaac Grant (Jan 15, 2015)

I owned the Tamron 150-600, and my copy only started to approach the image quality of the 100-400 ii if I kept the focal length at or below 500mm, stopped down to f8. The one advantage to the Tammy was, as stated above, the access to all of the focus points from 400-500 fl. But it was pretty slow to focus and hunted in anything but pretty good light. Was a stop or two behind on IS as well. In general, if fast AF is a real need, then the Tamron isn't your bag. 

Thanks for the response. So just so I understand does that mean that you did direct comparisons of the 100-400ii and the Tamron? You then got rid of the Tamron based on your findings? Do you have any shots that directly compare? Sorry if I misunderstood what you said.

Also did you see the shots I posted of the juncos at 552mm? I don't find them soft, but maybe my screen is no good . Please let me know what you think and I don't mind criticism.

I want to buy the Canon, have money in hand and am waiting on hard proof that it is better than the Tamron. I just have not seen it yet.

Here are a few others with the Tamron at 500 or higher for as close to a direct comparison as I can get.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/15548798790/in/photostream/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/15611898254/in/photostream/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/15502558944/


----------



## Freddie (Jan 15, 2015)

*Exposing to the right.*

In the limited time I've had the 7D MK II, I find, as was brought up earlier in the discussion, that exposing to the right (sometimes heavily) is essential to getting the optimum image quality out of this camera.
There's an interesting article on a similar note here: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/the_optimum_digital_exposure.shtml
I am also very interested in the capabilities of the various 150-600 zooms because I have a few friends who are asking about them. I'm not currently in the market for one but I am keenly interested in how they are doing. They are a wonderful bargain and could answer the age-old question, "What should I buy for birding and not spend a fortune?" Up until now, the 400 f/5.6 was always the easiest answer with the 100-400, version 1 a close second. Now, there may be some new answers and I would be happy to see the new zooms do well. If they can compete with the new 100-400, we may have some interesting times ahead.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 15, 2015)

*Re: Exposing to the right.*



Freddie said:


> In the limited time I've had the 7D MK II, I find, as was brought up earlier in the discussion, that exposing to the right (sometimes heavily) is essential to getting the optimum image quality out of this camera.
> There's an interesting article on a similar note here: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/the_optimum_digital_exposure.shtml
> I am also very interested in the capabilities of the various 150-600 zooms because I have a few friends who are asking about them. I'm not currently in the market for one but I am keenly interested in how they are doing. They are a wonderful bargain and could answer the age-old question, "What should I buy for birding and not spend a fortune?" Up until now, the 400 f/5.6 was always the easiest answer with the 100-400, version 1 a close second. Now, there may be some new answers and I would be happy to see the new zooms do well. If they can compete with the new 100-400, we may have some interesting times ahead.



And that article is pretty easy to illustrate to not be the best way to get optimal results, particularly if you are interested in colours. http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=23461.msg458367#msg458367

As a very general rule of thumb - Under exposure-bad, metered exposure-better, gentle ETTR-best, extreme ETTR-bad.


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 15, 2015)

*Re: Exposing to the right.*



privatebydesign said:


> Freddie said:
> 
> 
> > In the limited time I've had the 7D MK II, I find, as was brought up earlier in the discussion, that exposing to the right (sometimes heavily) is essential to getting the optimum image quality out of this camera.
> ...


I found that article a little bizarre, too, and it seemed like more a sales pitch than anything of value. I agree completely with the gentle ETTR approach.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 15, 2015)

Isaac Grant said:


> I owned the Tamron 150-600, and my copy only started to approach the image quality of the 100-400 ii if I kept the focal length at or below 500mm, stopped down to f8. The one advantage to the Tammy was, as stated above, the access to all of the focus points from 400-500 fl. But it was pretty slow to focus and hunted in anything but pretty good light. Was a stop or two behind on IS as well. In general, if fast AF is a real need, then the Tamron isn't your bag.
> 
> Thanks for the response. So just so I understand does that mean that you did direct comparisons of the 100-400ii and the Tamron? You then got rid of the Tamron based on your findings? Do you have any shots that directly compare? Sorry if I misunderstood what you said.
> 
> ...



Isaac
Here are some of my tests. I tested the 100-400mm II vs Tamron and 300mm f/2.8 IIonly on the 5DIII. But, I have some comparisons with the 300mm f/2.8 II plus extenders on the 70D. Thee tests are at the limits of resolution on the centre of a badly printed iso12233 chart, fairly close up. They are shown as unsharpened jpegs from RAW and also sharpened at 0.9 px 100% USM.

a, 5DIII
At 400mm, the focus breathing of the 100-400mm II is significant at the shorter distance and the Tamron at 400mm gives an image that is slightly better resolved because of its longer focal length. However, the 100-400 mm at 560mm with 1.4xTC gives very goo resolution, better than the Tamron at f/8 and 600mm. The quality is comparable with the 300mm f/2.8 plus TCs.
b, 70D
The Tamron has deteriorated somewhat vs the sharper 300 series.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 15, 2015)

The choice between the 100-400mm II and the Tamron 150-600mm is not clear cut, but depends on your own preferences and circumstances. The Tamron is a cracking good lens at 400mm and pretty good at 600mm and f/8. It is less than half the price of the Canon. What decided me to to sell the Tamron was primarily the Canon is a much smaller and slightly lighter package, which suits me for travel (and is now being used by my wife). The Canon on the 5DIII with a 1.4xTC is better than the Tamron at 600mm, and has better IS and AF as well. The 100-400mm without a TC on the 7DII is at least as good as the Tamron at 600mm on the 5DIII. Having said all that, the Tamron on FF is still an excellent and affordable choice for 600mm, but probably better used at 400mm and below on crop.

Regarding BIF and focal length, 400mm on crop and 600mm on FF are good compromises between reach and field of view. It is difficult to keep up with fast flying birds, and 560-600mm on crop is too narrow a field for me, with my older and slower reflexes.


----------



## NancyP (Jan 15, 2015)

Enough with the kit. That's a splendid owl photo set, stavrosbbb. Which owl is it? I am only familiar with Eastern Screech, Barn, Great Horned, and Barred Owls.


----------



## candyman (Jan 15, 2015)

AlanF said:


> ...............
> The Tamron has deteriorated somewhat vs the sharper 300 series.




What a lens - the 300 f/2.8 II! 
Still, I see you added the zoom (100-400II) to your collection. Is that because of the zoom? What is the benefit for you in the field?


----------



## Jane (Jan 15, 2015)

I love the combination of the 7DII, 1.4III and 100-400 MK II for walking around birding. I have said this several times in this forum and have posted shots taken with this combo in Bird Portraits and BIF threads.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 15, 2015)

candyman said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > ...............
> ...



The intentions was and still is to have a much lighter and smaller telephoto lens of high quality for when I go travelling abroad or want to have a less conspicuous camera/lens. I assumed that I would still use the incredible 300/2.8 + 2xTC for my usual birding near to home. The unexpected bonus has been that my wife has fallen for the 7DII/100-400mm II and we now go out together with my carrying the 5DIII/300x2 and her the zoom. The zoom capability is a bonus. I think taking both cameras and lenses on a safari would be perfect combination.


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 15, 2015)

AlanF said:


> candyman said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...


I was kind of wondering the same thing and that makes sense. As I shoot alone, and have the 70-200 f/2.8 II and extenders), I couldn't justify the purpose for myself. The 7DII would probably make more sense, but I still lust over the 800mm. I should never have borrowed it from Canon


----------



## Plainsman (Jan 15, 2015)

Jane said:


> I love the combination of the 7DII, 1.4III and 100-400 MK II for walking around birding. I have said this several times in this forum and have posted shots taken with this combo in Bird Portraits and BIF threads.



With a 1.4TC you need to stop down min half a stop to recover some of the loss of definition inevitable with a TC - so that will be give you a 560/9.5 at best.

Now with all due respect that is hardly a good combo for walking around birding unless you bring a tripod with you.

PS A Tamron 150-600 @600/8 would be better and a lot cheaper - and avoids separating the camera from the lens to install the TC!


----------



## AlanF (Jan 15, 2015)

Sorry this isn't the 7DII, but here are birds in flight taken with the 100-400mm + 1.4xTC III at f/8 on the 5DIII. They are all 100% crops (1 pixel - 1 pixel from original) with minimal processing. I am quite happy using just the single point focus at f/8. The lens focusses fast and well, and I find the 560mm on FF about right for me. (I don't take only iso12233 charts.) These are at least as good as what I took with the Tamron also at f/8, and I think the AF is better on the 100-400. Leaving the TC on the 100-400 gives 140-560, which is close to the range of the Tamron.


----------



## Isaac Grant (Jan 16, 2015)

AlanF said:


> Isaac Grant said:
> 
> 
> > I owned the Tamron 150-600, and my copy only started to approach the image quality of the 100-400 ii if I kept the focal length at or below 500mm, stopped down to f8. The one advantage to the Tammy was, as stated above, the access to all of the focus points from 400-500 fl. But it was pretty slow to focus and hunted in anything but pretty good light. Was a stop or two behind on IS as well. In general, if fast AF is a real need, then the Tamron isn't your bag.
> ...



Really cool information. Thanks so much for posting. As expected the Tamron is far worse than the 300 2.8 and worse as well than the 400 + 1.4x. This I totally expect. But this is info from a chart. I am looking for bird shots that back these results up. Specifically shots at 560mm with the Canon that mirror these test results ie. sharper than the Tamron at 600mm. I see those shots and I order the Canon immediately. As I mentioned, I have the cash waiting to do something with.

I am looking for the best walk around lens to use while birding. I am not as concerned with the cost as I am with the flexibility and getting as sharp of shots as possible while maintaining portability. It seems that the Tamron is by far the best bang for the buck, but by the charts is not the sharpest.


----------



## Isaac Grant (Jan 16, 2015)

Just for a comparison of shots with the 7d2 and the Tamron. I generally don't concentrate too much on BIF. Most situations where I get decent shots the bird simply flies past me and usually I do not have the camera set correctly.

Here is one of those. Was photographing a sitting Snowy Owl when another one came flying past me fast and very close. Just looked up and snapped the shots. All I had time to do was take the IS off of the lens (not good for panning with the Tamron which is a big advantage to the Canon). Shot is at 600mm and is not super sharp. But that is certainly user error and due to a too slow shutter speed.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/15973395680/

This one is a bit sharper at 483mm but again I was not ready for the shot. Dog walker flushed the bird as I was walking on the beach so did not have proper SS and ISO set for BIF. And yes that is the Freedom Tower it is flying past...

https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/16158513981/

More of the same at 483mm

https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/15504986943/

For this one I was photographing a Grackle and this Pelican came flying past. Again not ready and did not have proper settings.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/15289297313/

And here is one just before I got rid of my 70d @ 600mm. Bird flew over my house when I was not ready for it...

https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/15633895391/in/photostream/

One of these days I need to go out and specifically try and shoot BIF so I can have good comparisons...


----------



## AlanF (Jan 16, 2015)

Isaac, they are beautiful shots - well done. Unfortunately, there has been nothing near me recently of real interest or sufficiently close. If you can fill much of the frame, then all of these lenses will give spectacular results. The better the lens, the smaller the subject you can get good photos of.


----------



## Isaac Grant (Jan 16, 2015)

AlanF said:


> Isaac, they are beautiful shots - well done. Unfortunately, there has been nothing near me recently of real interest or sufficiently close. If you can fill much of the frame, then all of these lenses will give spectacular results. The better the lens, the smaller the subject you can get good photos of.



Thanks for the kind words, but can't say I totally agree. I think given faster shutter speeds I certainly could have done better. I am a hard critic on my shots I guess. I am really hoping that the Canon 100-400 +1.4x will get even better results. Given the chart performance there is no reason that it should not. Just as an aside, most of my shots where cropped at least 30% so they were not frame filling shots. But you point is totally understood.


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 16, 2015)

Isaac, that happens to all of us so don't feel bad. Here's a river otter shot at, *f/11*, 1/500s and *ISO 16,000* with my 300 f/2.8 II that I took a few weeks back:






And another with my 400 f/5.6 of a great blue heron at *f/11*, again, oops!:





I'm not sure they would have been the greatest shots, but the wrong settings sure didn't help. Also, these are just two shots from hundreds, not counting the shots I've missed altogether. There was the time I stood right under a bald eagle photographing some dead branches. The time I stopped to change lenses less than 3 feet away from a fawn, and the list goes on... That's wildlife photography my friend. 50% skill, 50% preparation, and 99% luck


----------



## Stavrosbbb (Jan 16, 2015)

Jane, The Owl is a Northern Pigmy Owl taken just outside of Calgary Canada.
My birding setup as above is light and I can hike though snow, hills and climb over logs in our forests without a problem. I only handset, preferring the compromise of mobility versus absolute best IQ.
The new Sigma 150-600mm sport looks like it may be a contender for birding but is much heavier. For my birding reach at reasonable cost and weight is paramount.


----------



## Isaac Grant (Jan 16, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> Isaac, that happens to all of us so don't feel bad. Here's a river otter shot at, *f/11*, 1/500s and *ISO 16,000* with my 300 f/2.8 II that I took a few weeks back:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So true brother. So ture. 

As an aside, I was out this morning before work trying to photograph some Purple Sandpipers (but they were not there so had no luck with that) in very windy conditions. I settled for some geese and ducks just to keep me occupied. I would say that in a strong wind, another negative to the Tamron is that it is a very large lens when fully extended. There is a lot of real estate to for the wind to grab hold of and push around. That would be another advantage to a smaller and lighter Canon as well.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 16, 2015)

This review concurs with what I have been arguing.

http://kentjarrett.com/tag/canon-100-400-is-mark-ii/

"I was asked after I did this test to also shoot the Canon 7D mark ii with the 100-400 mark ii with the teleconverter. I found this setup to be very shaky as I tried to track and shoot Eagles free hand. This combo needs to be shot from the tripod,"


----------



## AlanF (Jan 18, 2015)

I am going to eat some of my words. Yesterday, at the end of some miserable attempts to photograph birds at a reserve, I stopped off at the visitor centre where you could see a Swarovski target that had been placed for an exhibition and had been left behind, a 100 or so metres away. Here is a shot of the target with 420mm on the 5DIII, to get a feel for the scene. Next, is an unsharpened crop from RAW of the target with the 100-400mm on the 7DII at 400mm f/5.6 (the crop is close to 400 px wide at 100%). Below that is at f/8 and 560mm (about 560 px wide). At the bottom it's at 800mm f/11 using live view (close to 800 px wide). On going from 400mm to 500mm, there is a little improvement in resolution. But, on going to 800mm, it becomes much clearer and you can even read the numbers in the circle. I was so flabbergasted on getting home, that I checked my focus just in case live view was better than AF - it wasn't. It is just that you need to get to 800mm to resolve the fine details, and below that they are merged (below the Nyqvist limit). 

So, the 100-400mm II takes the 2xTCIII very well, and the 7DII focusses really well in live view at f/11. I can't wait to photo the moon with the 7DII/800mm, and I am drooling at the thought of a 400 DO II with a 2xTC!


----------



## DominoDude (Jan 18, 2015)

AlanF said:


> I am going to eat some of my words. Yesterday, at the end of some miserable attempts to photograph birds at a reserve, I stopped off at the visitor centre where you could see a Swarovski target that had been placed for an exhibition and had been left behind, a 100 or so metres away. Here is a shot of the target with 420mm on the 5DIII, to get a feel for the scene. Next, is an unsharpened crop from RAW of the target with the 100-400mm on the 7DII at 400mm f/5.6 (the crop is close to 400 px wide at 100%). Below that is at f/8 and 560mm (about 560 px wide). At the bottom it's at 800mm f/11 using live view (close to 800 px wide). On going from 400mm to 500mm, there is a little improvement in resolution. But, on going to 800mm, it becomes much clearer and you can even read the numbers in the circle. I was so flabbergasted on getting home, that I checked my focus just in case live view was better than AF - it wasn't. It is just that you need to get to 800mm to resolve the fine details, and below that they are merged (below the Nyqvist limit).
> 
> So, the 100-400mm II takes the 2xTCIII very well, and the 7DII focusses really well in live view at f/11. I can't wait to photo the moon with the 7DII/800mm, and I am drooling at the thought of a 400 DO II with a 2xTC!



Very impressive, Alan!
If the lens/TC-combo and the EXIF is reporting correctly, it acquired focus at a distance between 550-655m. Soon enough I might need to put that lens on a future Want-list.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 18, 2015)

I identified the island and the visitors centre on Google Earth, got their co-ordinates and calculate the distance to be 243 m. From that and the size of the image, I calculate the target was 1m x 1.3m. The lines in the lettering are only a couple of pixels wide with the 800mm lens.


----------



## HankMD (Jan 18, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> Isaac Grant said:
> 
> 
> > This combination interests me the most for bird photography. I currently have the 7d2. I own the 400 5.6 but shoot most of the time with the Tamron 150-600mm. I really want to see good real world comparisons between the two. Meaning the canon + 1.4 x @ 560 vs the Tamron @ 600mm or 552mm (that is where it goes to on the zoom). Both at f8.
> ...



Your link has the Tamron disadvantaged at f/6.3. Change that to f/8 and I can see the Tamron crushing the Canon+TC, in the center anyway. (Not that I wouldn't want a 100-400L II to play with.)


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 18, 2015)

HankMD said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Isaac Grant said:
> ...



Er, hardly crushing, and what happens to the other 90% of the frame? The Canon still bests the Tamron by a large margin.

But, I hate when people ask for something specific, like a real world comparison from a crop camera, and a bench test from a ff camera is linked, what is the point? There is a massive difference between the vast majority of real world images and bench tests, especially when you take light levels and contrast into account.


----------



## DominoDude (Jan 18, 2015)

AlanF said:


> I identified the island and the visitors centre on Google Earth, got their co-ordinates and calculate the distance to be 243 m. From that and the size of the image, I calculate the target was 1m x 1.3m. The lines in the lettering are only a couple of pixels wide with the 800mm lens.



Oops, that's some difference. I trust you and Google more in this case; those numbers comes out a little bit more real and trustworthy compared to the EXIF.


----------



## Isaac Grant (Jan 19, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> HankMD said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



I have had the Tamron since early April and taken many photos with it. I can tell you that the Tamron is much sharper at f8 than it is at f6.3. Comparisons should be made with the Canon at f8 @560mm and the Tamron at f8 at 600mm (or whatever it actually is or zoomed out a bit to 552mm). Then I think you would be much closer to a real comparison. 

Also I totally agree that tests on a chart with controlled conditions do not necessarily translate to photos of moving birds in the wild. 

As a bit more of an example of what the Tamron can do, here are a few shots from this weekend. None have great composition or angles but all have pretty good details.

552mm @ f8
https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/16313827502/in/photostream/

500mm @f8
https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/16128780247/in/photostream/

500mm @f8
https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/16314703485/in/photostream/

600mm @f8
https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/16127224298/


----------



## AlanF (Jan 28, 2015)

AlanF said:


> I am going to eat some of my words. Yesterday, at the end of some miserable attempts to photograph birds at a reserve, I stopped off at the visitor centre where you could see a Swarovski target that had been placed for an exhibition and had been left behind, a 100 or so metres away. Here is a shot of the target with 420mm on the 5DIII, to get a feel for the scene. Next, is an unsharpened crop from RAW of the target with the 100-400mm on the 7DII at 400mm f/5.6 (the crop is close to 400 px wide at 100%). Below that is at f/8 and 560mm (about 560 px wide). At the bottom it's at 800mm f/11 using live view (close to 800 px wide). On going from 400mm to 500mm, there is a little improvement in resolution. But, on going to 800mm, it becomes much clearer and you can even read the numbers in the circle. I was so flabbergasted on getting home, that I checked my focus just in case live view was better than AF - it wasn't. It is just that you need to get to 800mm to resolve the fine details, and below that they are merged (below the Nyqvist limit).
> 
> So, the 100-400mm II takes the 2xTCIII very well, and the 7DII focusses really well in live view at f/11. I can't wait to photo the moon with the 7DII/800mm, and I am drooling at the thought of a 400 DO II with a 2xTC!



The first relatively clear night. It was still hazy, but I tried out the 7DII + 2xTCIII + 100-400 II. I processed in DxO, PRIME with clearview to help remove the haze. The performance was creditable, and compared not too badly with a shot with the 300mm/2.8 + 2xTC (below).


----------



## AlanF (Aug 3, 2015)

A full 6 months on I have gone through a nearly 180 deg change in opinion. In good light and with improved technique, the 7DII + 100-400mm II + 1.4xTC is my favourite combination for small birds at a distance.


----------



## dslrdummy (Aug 14, 2015)

AlanF said:


> A full 6 months on I have gone through a nearly 180 deg change in opinion. In good light and with improved technique, the 7DII + 100-400mm II + 1.4xTC is my favourite combination for small birds at a distance.


Really appreciate your posts and insights AlanF. I must say that after a winter of photographing Aussie sports with the 7Dii and 300 f/2.8 ii with and without the 1.4xii, I much prefer to go without the extender and crop as required in post. The light is just not good enough for the sharpness I crave at 1/2000s and it seems to struggle in AI servo.
I am about to take the plunge on the 100-400 ii for a trip to Zambia and am hoping to be able to replicate your results with the 1.4 extender. Weight restrictions probably mean I will have to leave the 70-200 f/2.8 ii at home. Hopefully the 300ii and 100-400 with extenders will do the trick.


----------

