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

Maximilian

The dark side - I've been there
CR Pro
Nov 7, 2013
5,664
8,492
Germany
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!
 
Upvote 0
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.

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. :p

- A

Well done under those trying circumstances! :)
 
Upvote 0
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.

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

Beautiful photos, Tom! :)
 
Upvote 0
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.
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.

Really nice one, Alan!
 
Upvote 0
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.

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

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.
 
Upvote 0
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.
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.

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


- A

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 :D

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.

 
Upvote 0

nc0b

5DsR
Dec 3, 2013
255
11
76
Colorado
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.
 

Attachments

  • 2560-TES-c1a2.jpg
    2560-TES-c1a2.jpg
    4.1 MB · Views: 118
Upvote 0