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

[Stavrosbbb]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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/120553232@N02/16072639807/in/photostream/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/120553232@N02/16251182645/in/photostream/

 

[Lee Jay]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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

 

[mackguyver]

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]

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]

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

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

 

[AlanF]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

Why don't they?

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]]

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]

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.

Why don't they?

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.

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]

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.

Why don't they?

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.

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.

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