# Non-birder brings a 70-200 and a 2x in search of eagles -- hilarity ensues



## ahsanford (Oct 2, 2017)

Every time I fumble with my settings to shoot wildlife, my respect for birders/wildlifers grows.

I was at an extended family getaway in northern Wisconsin, and my father-in-law always reminds me to bring my gear when we go for a boat ride. This year we had some luck and came across three bald eagles in the tree tops.

I was rocking the absurd 70-200 f/2.8L IS II + 2x T/C combo on my 5D3 and did the best I could without a monopod from the boat. At best, the eagles were only 1/5 the vertical height of the frame at 400mm. It was a hot mess to shoot: the lighting was glaring, even with the center AF point and quick shutters my in-focus hit rate was poor, I had the camera set for BiF shutter speeds / ISO when the birds were stationary, etc. 

But I did nab one decent one, though heavily cropped. 

Birding will never be my calling, but I'll continue to hamfistedly suffer through the experience and share it here on CR. 

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 2, 2017)

*Re: Non-birder brings a 70-200 and a 2x in search of eagles -- hiliarity ensues*

Nice shot!

Here's one of my eagle-in-a-pine-tree shots, albeit with a somewhat longer lens (600/4 + 1.4xIII) and on a tripod with a gimbal.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Oct 2, 2017)

*Re: Non-birder brings a 70-200 and a 2x in search of eagles -- hiliarity ensues*

If you tackle overly challenging situations the outcome is discouragement so the solution is ... pretty birds that are closer and stationary and impress people with your skill, and you become hooked. 

Jack


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Oct 2, 2017)

*Re: Non-birder brings a 70-200 and a 2x in search of eagles -- hiliarity ensues*

Shooting Eagles from a boat throws a twist into the game.
I went on an Eagle tour at one of our local lakes. They use a pontoon boat that holds about 20 people and it is tight. That day there was a bit of chop on the water, but not to a level of making people hurl.
After a couple of hours we spotted this one close to the shore. While most people would remain seated under the conditions, I decided to stand to use my "sea legs" to help reduced the rolling motion of the boat. The Ranger was impressed with my rubbery legs as I swayed to and fro. 
My 300 f2.8 with the old 1.4x on the 5D IV wasn't a perfect birding combo, but it's my longest prime. This was the best one from the day. 



Eagle Tour Lake Camanche 2017 Bald Eagle 1117 © Keith Breazeal by Keith Breazeal, on Flickr


----------



## tomscott (Oct 2, 2017)

*Re: Non-birder brings a 70-200 and a 2x in search of eagles -- hiliarity ensues*

You can do a hell of a lot with this combo. For a long time 70-200 with a 2x was my go to.

Got a great success rate with a 5DMKIII with birds in flight.

For example this whole album

https://flic.kr/s/aHsjZea3L5

Some of my all time favourites with that lens.

The nice thing about the 70-200mm with a 2x is its an internal zoom. Less worry of damage in less than ideal conditions. Most of my work is shot in the rain, had that combo in yellow weather warnings and the camera bodies gave up the lens was absolutely fine.



Puffins with mouthful of sand eels, Cliffside, Inner Farne, Farne Islands by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Even subjects flying toward me, the most difficult for the AF to track.



Puffin, Farne Islands, Seahouses by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Puffins are stupidly fast very hard to track.



Porsche 962, BP Leyton House, Group C, twilight race, Silverstone Classics 2015 by Tom Scott, on Flickr



Alfa Romeo Giulia Sprint GTA, #33, Driven by A. Lawley and T. Smith, Warwick Banks Trophy for Under 2 Litre Touring Cars, Silverstone Classics 2015 by Tom Scott, on Flickr



Williams FW07C, Leyland #37, 1981, driven by C. D&#x27;Ansembourg, Legends of Modern F1, Silverstone Classic 2015 by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Shot motorsport with it for 4-5 years with barely any issues. Its IQ is pretty dam good stands up to the 100-400mm MKI I haven't found the AF to be much of an issue. The best bit about it for me is that you can take the converter off and have a 200mm F2.8 lens when the light gets low and when your trackside MM doesn't really mean anything you can shoot without worry with 200mm. Just means instead of taking a 70-200 and 100-400 you get both saves your back.

I do have the 100-400mm MKII now but if I'm honest I wouldn't worry about not having it. I do love that lens tho!

Just practice, monopods aren't really much good in a boat if you have good light handheld is easier as your body can move with the boat.

This was shot on a boat and is super sharp. The swirl near rocks is pretty ferocious too the boat was all over the place.



Grey Seal, Farne Islands, Seahouses, UK by Tom Scott, on Flickr

TBF with some birds you do need as much as possible.

Unfortunately I havent got my fish eagle images to hand but with a 7DMKII and a 100-400 managed to frame them really well.


----------



## tomscott (Oct 2, 2017)

*Re: Non-birder brings a 70-200 and a 2x in search of eagles -- hiliarity ensues*

Here we go dug them out.

Shot all of these from a small boat or Canoe, across Africa.

Chobe National Park, Botswana.



Fish Eagle by Tom Scott, on Flickr



Fish Eagle by Tom Scott, on Flickr

These were shot at Lake Naivasha, Kenya



Fish Eagle by Tom Scott, on Flickr



Fish Eagle by Tom Scott, on Flickr

All shot with 100-400mm 7DMKII and the third one was shot with a 70D and 55-250mm


----------



## lion rock (Oct 2, 2017)

*Re: Non-birder brings a 70-200 and a 2x in search of eagles -- hiliarity ensues*

ahsanford,
It is a joke to shoot birds from a boat with a monopod or a tripod.
The boat rocks with the swell, and you can't adjust fast enough to compensate to aim and focus on your target. I did that once with a rented 200-400 w/ 1.4X. The keep rate was, never mind, too embarrassed to mention.
I did a bit better when I removed the monopod I was using and shot handheld, but the 8 pounds of lens was straining.
A second time I did that, I used, wisely, a lighter 300 f/2.8II. Great lens. Proper weight, proper focal length for handhold shots.
-r




ahsanford said:


> Every time I fumble with my settings to shoot wildlife, my respect for birders/wildlifers grows.
> 
> 
> _I was rocking the absurd 70-200 f/2.8L IS II + 2x T/C combo on my 5D3 and did the best I could without a monopod from the boat._ At best, the eagles were only 1/5 the vertical height of the frame at 400mm. It was a hot mess to shoot: the lighting was glaring, even with the center AF point and quick shutters my in-focus hit rate was poor, I had the camera set for BiF shutter speeds / ISO when the birds were stationary, etc.
> ...


----------



## Larsskv (Oct 2, 2017)

*Re: Non-birder brings a 70-200 and a 2x in search of eagles -- hiliarity ensues*

A lot of nice pictures in this thread. I’m not a bird photographer, but I got this picture of a white tailed (sea) eagle from a boat this summer. Taken with the 1DXII, 100-400L II and 1.4 III extender:


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 2, 2017)

Thanks for the guidance and great shots, team! I spent a hot second justifying a 100-400L II purchase in my mind, but I just don't have the birding bug like you folks do.

- A


----------



## Macoose (Oct 3, 2017)

I was walking the trail on the north bank of Lake Hancock in Lakeland, Fl and this one flew over with a catfish. He settled and began to gut the fish.
I'm glad I had IS.

This is my first posting of an attachment.

Macoose


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Oct 3, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Thanks for the guidance and great shots, team! I spent a hot second justifying a 100-400L II purchase in my mind, but I just don't have the birding bug like you folks do.
> 
> - A



It is all down to YOUR priorities! I sold my 70-200 F2.8 L IS because it just wasn't being used (lovely lens though!). If subjects like birds are not your priority then do not waste your hard earned cash on silly lenses. Just slap on the extender and have some fun.

However if you really want to shoot birds then be prepared to spend some pennies


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 3, 2017)

johnf3f said:


> It is all down to YOUR priorities! I sold my 70-200 F2.8 L IS because it just wasn't being used (lovely lens though!). If subjects like birds are not your priority then do not waste your hard earned cash on silly lenses. Just slap on the extender and have some fun.
> 
> However if you really want to shoot birds then be prepared to spend some pennies



+1. In the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II vs. f/4L IS decision I went through 5 or so years ago, I got the f/2.8L IS II to allow 2x T/C use because back then f/8 wasn't supported on my 5D3 at that time (if memory serves). 

So I argued the extra spend/weight for the f/2.8 unlocked better opportunities to:


Shoot action / sports / closer wildlife (zoo dwellers, wild rodents, small birds, etc.) / portraiture
Allow 2x use _to let this be the longest FL lens I'll ever need to buy*_
For better resale (I always think f/2.8 zooms are in higher demand)

*In no uncertain terms, the second one above was critical in my buying decision -- I rented both and thought the IQ was similar (at matched apertures). So I talked myself into buying one Ferrari-level lens (and a Honda extender) to avoid eventually buying _two_ Audi-level lenses (the 70-200 f/4L IS and the 100-400L Mark I at that time). 

I haven't regretted the decision. I live in the 16-50mm (FF) space for the overwhelming majority of what I shoot. When I need it, though, the non-teleconvertered f/2.8L IS II is a comically effective instrument to use -- it's just so satisfying and immediate in its return on investment. The AF is brilliantly fast and shots just pop. And the 2x comes out maybe twice a year for that unreasonably long ask. Perfect.

- A


----------



## PCM-madison (Oct 3, 2017)

Nice photos everone. This was taken near Lake Wisconsin last winter at a spot where Bald Eagles gather due to persistent open water throughout the winter that allows them to hunt when most Wisconsin lakes and rivers are frozen. 7D mark ii + 300mm F2.8 IS ii + 2X iii, ISO 1000, F8, 1/1000.


----------



## 2n10 (Oct 3, 2017)

From what you have told us you have the right idea for your needs. When you go on trips with your family just go with environmental shots if you can not get close.

Although every once in a while one can get lucky.

7DII with 100-400 II at 238mm. My 1.4TC III is also attached.


----------



## aceflibble (Oct 3, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> I spent a hot second justifying a 100-400L II purchase in my mind, but I just don't have the birding bug like you folks do.


If you're interested enough to give it a try but not enough to get the 100-400, I highly recommend the 400mm f/5.6L. It's as sharp-or-slightly-sharper-than the zoom (depending on the copies of each you test; on average they're the same) and the focus (in good light) is just a hair snappier (less glass to shift around). It's also lighter and, most importantly for the indecisive folk, can be bought for less than half the cost of the zoom. With the zoom you'll always be at the 400mm end anyway, so all you're giving up with the prime is IS, which is of dubious value for flying birds (where you'll always want to have the shutter in excess of 1/1000th anyway) and of minimal value for stationary birds. (You never want to let your shutter get too slow as you'll still see plenty of subject movement with such a long lens, and you never know when they might take off and you need to ramp the shutter back up; I use some IS lenses for birds, such as the 500mm f/4 mkII, and honestly I'd say I only get about one stop out of the IS, if that, in real world use.) A final bonus of the 400mm f/5.6L is that it's so old now that the price has completely stabilised; you can buy one used, give it a try, and if you don't like it you can sell it again for exactly what you paid for it, whether that's a week later or a year later. 

There's also the 300mm f/4 IS which _does_ give you that IS and is a fraction lighter and cheaper again, while being nicely compatible with extenders; it wouldn't be a huge jump up from the 70-200, but it'd be worth it if you got a good price on one.

You could also try getting a used 7D2 (or even original 7D; they're dirt cheap now), since the higher pixel density means you'll get more detail, and a used body can, in some regions, be cheaper than one of the above lenses second hand, while providing roughly the same improvement in detail. (Or if you've also got the 1.4x extender, the 70-200 with that on a 7D2 will give you better detail and resolving power than the 2x on the 5D3.)

Wildlife sure isn't for everyone, but if you're out and about anyway and if it's pleased you enough to have even attempted it, a small investment like one of these second hand products can be really entertaining at a very reasonable price. I never would have figured myself for a wildlife photographer (my work is in industry archival, aka combination of 'high end' product photography and studio portraits) but I gave it a try once and now here I am putting money aside for the 7D3 and wondering if I can justify getting the 600mm...


----------



## tomscott (Oct 3, 2017)

Wildlife is certainly a hook. One of my favourite subjects and traveled half way round the world in pursuit of seeing some of these creatures.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 3, 2017)

*Re: Non-birder brings a 70-200 and a 2x in search of eagles -- hiliarity ensues*



KeithBreazeal said:


> Shooting Eagles from a boat throws a twist into the game.
> I went on an Eagle tour at one of our local lakes. They use a pontoon boat that holds about 20 people and it is tight. That day there was a bit of chop on the water, but not to a level of making people hurl.
> After a couple of hours we spotted this one close to the shore. While most people would remain seated under the conditions, I decided to stand to use my "sea legs" to help reduced the rolling motion of the boat. The Ranger was impressed with my rubbery legs as I swayed to and fro.
> My 300 f2.8 with the old 1.4x on the 5D IV wasn't a perfect birding combo, but it's my longest prime. This was the best one from the day.



The 300/2.8 + 1.4x is a very fine combo, about the same as the 400mm DO II. Here's a crested serpent eagle from my 400mm on a 5DIV, also taken from a small boat. I quite like using just 400mm.


----------



## korf (Oct 3, 2017)

I shot this in Hoonah, AK. Was off the ship for the day and did not expect to see any birds so I only my had the 18-135 on my 70D, left the longer lens back on board.


----------



## Click (Oct 3, 2017)

Nice shot, korf.

...And welcome to CR.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Oct 3, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> johnf3f said:
> 
> 
> > It is all down to YOUR priorities! I sold my 70-200 F2.8 L IS because it just wasn't being used (lovely lens though!). If subjects like birds are not your priority then do not waste your hard earned cash on silly lenses. Just slap on the extender and have some fun.
> ...



I am at the complete other end of the scale! 80%+ of my photography is with the 800mm F5.6 L IS. We are all different!


----------



## Maximilian (Oct 4, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> ... I was rocking the absurd 70-200 f/2.8L IS II + 2x T/C combo on my 5D3 and did the best I could ...


Honestly, that's another of those "the best camera is the one in your hand" stories.
As others pointed out it is a usable combo for action or BIF although you've got get used to it. 
At least you got some keepers and that's what it's all about. 
Thumbs up!


----------



## serendipidy (Oct 5, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Every time I fumble with my settings to shoot wildlife, my respect for birders/wildlifers grows.
> 
> I was at an extended family getaway in northern Wisconsin, and my father-in-law always reminds me to bring my gear when we go for a boat ride. This year we had some luck and came across three bald eagles in the tree tops.
> 
> ...



Well done under those trying circumstances!


----------



## serendipidy (Oct 5, 2017)

*Re: Non-birder brings a 70-200 and a 2x in search of eagles -- hiliarity ensues*



neuroanatomist said:


> Nice shot!
> 
> Here's one of my eagle-in-a-pine-tree shots, albeit with a somewhat longer lens (600/4 + 1.4xIII) and on a tripod with a gimbal.



Great capture, Neuro!


----------



## serendipidy (Oct 5, 2017)

*Re: Non-birder brings a 70-200 and a 2x in search of eagles -- hiliarity ensues*



tomscott said:


> Here we go dug them out.
> 
> Shot all of these from a small boat or Canoe, across Africa.
> 
> ...



Beautiful photos, Tom!


----------



## serendipidy (Oct 5, 2017)

Macoose said:


> I was walking the trail on the north bank of Lake Hancock in Lakeland, Fl and this one flew over with a catfish. He settled and began to gut the fish.
> I'm glad I had IS.
> 
> This is my first posting of an attachment.
> ...



Wow! Keep posting! 8)


----------



## serendipidy (Oct 5, 2017)

*Re: Non-birder brings a 70-200 and a 2x in search of eagles -- hiliarity ensues*



AlanF said:


> KeithBreazeal said:
> 
> 
> > Shooting Eagles from a boat throws a twist into the game.
> ...



Really nice one, Alan!


----------



## serendipidy (Oct 5, 2017)

Click said:


> Nice shot, korf.
> 
> ...And welcome to CR.



+1


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 5, 2017)

serendipidy said:


> Here is a recent shot of a rare Hawaii baby Eagle taken with an iPhone ;D



Wow, nailing an eagle with a WA prime is just plain showing off. ;D

- A


----------



## Gman (Oct 17, 2017)

(10-15-2017) Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge (near Cambridge, MD) with 5DM4, 600mm f4 II, 2X III extender.


----------



## Jopa (Oct 17, 2017)

*Re: Non-birder brings a 70-200 and a 2x in search of eagles -- hiliarity ensues*



tomscott said:


> You can do a hell of a lot with this combo. For a long time 70-200 with a 2x was my go to.



Awesome photos. Apparently I need to sell all my gear and just keep the 70-200!


----------



## Click (Oct 17, 2017)

Gman said:


> (10-15-2017) Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge (near Cambridge, MD) with 5DM4, 600mm f4 II, 2X III extender.



Lovely shot. 8) Nicely done, Gman.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Oct 18, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> johnf3f said:
> 
> 
> > It is all down to YOUR priorities! I sold my 70-200 F2.8 L IS because it just wasn't being used (lovely lens though!). If subjects like birds are not your priority then do not waste your hard earned cash on silly lenses. Just slap on the extender and have some fun.
> ...



On paper the f4 vs the f2.8 looks like a simple debate of specs vs cost and size. But in reality I find that they are very different lenses for very different tasks. Although there is only one stop between them, I find that I take the f4 lens to cover very different things than I do the f2.8. I find the f4 is far more versatile, lighter and easier to handle. It's less obtrusive and I kind of treat it as my common or travel telephoto lens. I use the f2.8 when I need something more specific and brighter. So I find the f4 gets more use and a go to lens. The f2.8 is used when I need it's specific talents. 

I've used the f2.8 II LIS many time with a 1.4x and 2X tc. It's good to vary good depending on the circumstances. It's focus is faster and more accurate than expected, it's IS is excellent and it's more than sharp enough. I also find that a 1.4x on the F4 IS to be really good too, although it's not as good as the 70-300 LIS.


----------



## scyrene (Oct 18, 2017)

*Re: Non-birder brings a 70-200 and a 2x in search of eagles -- hiliarity ensues*



lion rock said:


> ahsanford,
> It is a joke to shoot birds from a boat with a monopod or a tripod.
> The boat rocks with the swell, and you can't adjust fast enough to compensate to aim and focus on your target. I did that once with a rented 200-400 w/ 1.4X. The keep rate was, never mind, too embarrassed to mention.
> I did a bit better when I removed the monopod I was using and shot handheld, but the 8 pounds of lens was straining.
> ...



I shot with my 500L from a boat once, handheld, but there were so many birds (a couple of hundred thousand gannets) that it didn't really matter if I wobbled 

Incidentally, I agree with Tom that the 70-200 2.8(plus extender) is a good combination for BIF, as it's nice and light, so you can swing round easily - the 500 is far too large to do that comfortably.


----------



## nc0b (Oct 22, 2017)

I went through this drill of trying to find a single lens solution plus TC, and it didn't work for me. I also wasn't going to spend $6K or more on a big white, as I am 70 years old and just shoot for fun. For any indoor venues I always go with the 70-200mm f/2.8 II, usually with a 6D, but I just shot a 50th reunion which also included the 5DsR. 70-200 II and 5DsR at ISO 6400, f/3.2, 1/250 @ 200mm produced a head and shoulders shot where you can count the eyebrows hairs, but with admittedly a little noise on the teeth when pixel peeping. At any normal image size, the noise is invisible. 

For a while I used the f/2.8 zoom with a 2X TC III for wildlife and perched birds, but for BIF it was a bust if AF got lost in the sky. Later I purchased the 400mm f/5.6 and that is my birding lens period. I now also have the 100-400mm II, and I wish it had a 10m focus limit in addition to 3m. It doesn't, and it can also get lost in the sky and focus down to MFD, at which point you are done. 

As far as the 70-200mm f/4 vs. f/2.8 I consider them completely different lenses for different venues. When I was on Easter Island and Machu Picchu, I was shooting outdoors so the 24-105 f/4 IS and 70-200 f/4 IS were completely adequate as far as maximum aperture. There was no point in dealing with the weight and size of the f/2.8 zoom.

For BIF IS isn't particularly helpful since I need a shutter speed of 1/1000 or faster. For more general wildlife the 2X TC on the 70-200 is OK, but once I started using the 400 f/5.6 I sold the 2X TC III. Now for more general wildlife I go with the 100-400mm II all the time. I rarely use the 1.4X TC III, but it works quite well on the 70-200 f/4 and the 300mm f/4 IS. I am not going to sell the 1.4X TC, but it is my least used piece of equipment.


----------

