Birding 11 Days with the 600mm

[Deleted member 91053]

I have a question for the 500+ guys - how many of you shoot bare glass (i.e. with no extenders?). I was reviewing Art Morris' blog posts the other day and noticed that he almost always has an extender (usually the 2x!) on his 600mm. I realize he has a style that requires close shots, but it mirrored my experience with the 800mm. It just didn't seem long enough - or should I say it was too long for stuff that was close to mid-distance but not long enough for nesting eagles and such.

With my 300 F2.8 - 40% bare lens
60% 2 x extender
With my 800 F5.6 - 95% bare lens
1.4 Extender for emergencies only.
I have not yet found much use for my 1.4 extender on my 300 mm lenses - I seem to need the bare lens or all the reach I can get!

 

[Jack Douglas]

"I have not yet found much use for my 1.4 extender on my 300 mm lenses - I seem to need the bare lens or all the reach I can get!"

I guess it depends if you shoot other than birds, say larger mamals. Then it depends how wild they are or how much effort you're willing to put into stalking them. Since I've mainly been shoting birds and often smaller ones, I was always reluctant to head out without 300 X2 and typically felt short changed if I used X1.4. Only when I know I can get close to a bird do I use 300. Now, for bugs or butterflies, 300 or 420 with 36mm extension is very handy! In fact I'm thrilled with that.

Sometimes moose will come so close that even 300 is too much but not too often. Case in point, sitting in brambles squirming around trying to frame this guy with 300 X2. Uncropped

6D 300 X2 400th F5.6 ISO 2500

Jack

 

[Greatland]

I really haven't taken enough pictures under all conditions with my 200-400 to really get a comparable read with my 600 II.....The 600 II is great with the 1.4 extender but softens just ever so slightly with the 2x extender. My 200-400 with the extender switched to 1.4 is pretty damned sharp....I think it compares very favorably with my 600 w/o an extender but like I said I need a little more time with it...I will get that this Summer in Katmai I am sure.

 

[revup67]

I have a question for the 500+ guys - how many of you shoot bare glass (i.e. with no extenders?). I was reviewing Art Morris' blog posts the other day and noticed that he almost always has an extender (usually the 2x!) on his 600mm. I realize he has a style that requires close shots, but it mirrored my experience with the 800mm. It just didn't seem long enough - or should I say it was too long for stuff that was close to mid-distance but not long enough for nesting eagles and such

500mm F4 IS II without extender 20% of the time
500mm F4 IS II with 1.4 extender 65% of the time
400mm F5.6 without extender 10% of the time
400mm F5.6 with extender 5% of the time

I've been in situations where the 500 with the 1.4 is simply too much. if I've got the time and the bird is less likely to take off such as with the Turkey Vulture head shot I'll disengage the extender and shoot the 500mmm straight away. The 400 is quite sharp about half the weight and great for longer distance hikes (entire day) though when attaching the 1.4 III you only get center AF points (5 to be exact - cross shaped) or single point. On the 500mm all AF selections are available.

 

[East Wind Photography]

I have a question for the 500+ guys - how many of you shoot bare glass (i.e. with no extenders?). I was reviewing Art Morris' blog posts the other day and noticed that he almost always has an extender (usually the 2x!) on his 600mm. I realize he has a style that requires close shots, but it mirrored my experience with the 800mm. It just didn't seem long enough - or should I say it was too long for stuff that was close to mid-distance but not long enough for nesting eagles and such.

5diii
600 no extender = 95%
600 with 1.4iii = 5%
600 with 2xiii = 0%

5diii
300 no extender = 50%(sports mostly)
300 with 1.4iii = 40% (Sports mostly)
300 with 2xiii = 10%(birds on walkabout but bright sun only like on a beach)

The bottom line is that I do not find that adding the 2X buys a lot. I often find I can crop the 5diii and get better IQ. If the subject is too far away that you need the 2X then you probably should try something else. I speak for at least what I shoot most, large to medium size birds and sports looking for the highest IQ possible to minimize post efforts.

 

[Steve]

I have not yet found much use for my 1.4 extender on my 300 mm lenses - I seem to need the bare lens or all the reach I can get!

I use the 1.4x in hides a lot. Passerines usually need as much magnification as possible and you can only set the hide so close to the attractor. The 300 + 1.4x in a hide set just outside of MFD gives me just enough space to crop for composition while still giving maximum magnification for feather detail.

The bottom line is that I do not find that adding the 2X buys a lot. I often find I can crop the 5diii and get better IQ. If the subject is too far away that you need the 2X then you probably should try something else. I speak for at least what I shoot most, large to medium size birds and sports looking for the highest IQ possible to minimize post efforts.

It buys a lot of magnification. I use the 2x on my 300 for shorebirds, even when they come in closer than my MFD. I can completely fill the frame with the 2x. Sometimes I can even get uncropped, full resolution head shots, which is pretty cool.

 

[Jack Douglas]

Good points Steve. It kind of depends what subjects you can get your blind really close to. If really close then an extension tube plus extender can be even better.

Pichu 6D 300 36mm ext. 640th F3.2 ISO 4000

Jack

 

[revup67]

Keeping the flow

here's a Vermilion Male and Female Flycatcher taken with the 500mm II and 1.4 III today 3.8.14 - both were seen together and most unlikely visitors for our county

Male

Vermilion Flycatcher (male) (13413) eBird Rarity by Revup67, on Flickr

Female

Vermilion Flycatcher (female) (13401) eBird Rarity by Revup67, on Flickr

 

[Jack Douglas]

Very nice revup67, but please tell them to get up here in short order!

Jack

 

[9VIII]

ETA: ??? The post above me disappeared while I was typing. It basically just complained about IS on the Tamron lens, maybe mods took it down?
Ah, I see users can remove their own posts. Must have been having second thoughts.


It's funny how the more I read about products from other manufacturers the more I realize how good Canon products actually are. From the different IS modes to being able to shoot with a full buffer, sometimes reading about other manufacturers just turns into a list of problems that Canon doesn't have.