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

[Isaac Grant]

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/120553232@N02/15548798790/in/photostream/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/120553232@N02/15611898254/in/photostream/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/120553232@N02/15502558944/

 

[Freddie]

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]

Re: 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.

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]

Re: 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.

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.

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]

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/120553232@N02/15548798790/in/photostream/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/120553232@N02/15611898254/in/photostream/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/120553232@N02/15502558944/

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]

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]

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]

...............
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]

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]

...............
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?

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]

...............
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?

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.

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]

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]

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]

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/120553232@N02/15548798790/in/photostream/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/120553232@N02/15611898254/in/photostream/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/120553232@N02/15502558944/

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.

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]

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/120553232@N02/15973395680/

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/120553232@N02/16158513981/

More of the same at 483mm

https://www.flickr.com/photos/120553232@N02/15504986943/

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/120553232@N02/15289297313/

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/120553232@N02/15633895391/in/photostream/

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

 

[AlanF]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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.