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

[AlanF]

This review concurs with what I have been arguing.

http://kentjarrett.com/tag/canon-100-400-is-mark-ii/

"I was asked after I did this test to also shoot the Canon 7D mark ii with the 100-400 mark ii with the teleconverter. I found this setup to be very shaky as I tried to track and shoot Eagles free hand. This combo needs to be shot from the tripod,"

 

[AlanF]

I am going to eat some of my words. Yesterday, at the end of some miserable attempts to photograph birds at a reserve, I stopped off at the visitor centre where you could see a Swarovski target that had been placed for an exhibition and had been left behind, a 100 or so metres away. Here is a shot of the target with 420mm on the 5DIII, to get a feel for the scene. Next, is an unsharpened crop from RAW of the target with the 100-400mm on the 7DII at 400mm f/5.6 (the crop is close to 400 px wide at 100%). Below that is at f/8 and 560mm (about 560 px wide). At the bottom it's at 800mm f/11 using live view (close to 800 px wide). On going from 400mm to 500mm, there is a little improvement in resolution. But, on going to 800mm, it becomes much clearer and you can even read the numbers in the circle. I was so flabbergasted on getting home, that I checked my focus just in case live view was better than AF - it wasn't. It is just that you need to get to 800mm to resolve the fine details, and below that they are merged (below the Nyqvist limit).

So, the 100-400mm II takes the 2xTCIII very well, and the 7DII focusses really well in live view at f/11. I can't wait to photo the moon with the 7DII/800mm, and I am drooling at the thought of a 400 DO II with a 2xTC!

 

[DominoDude]

I am going to eat some of my words. Yesterday, at the end of some miserable attempts to photograph birds at a reserve, I stopped off at the visitor centre where you could see a Swarovski target that had been placed for an exhibition and had been left behind, a 100 or so metres away. Here is a shot of the target with 420mm on the 5DIII, to get a feel for the scene. Next, is an unsharpened crop from RAW of the target with the 100-400mm on the 7DII at 400mm f/5.6 (the crop is close to 400 px wide at 100%). Below that is at f/8 and 560mm (about 560 px wide). At the bottom it's at 800mm f/11 using live view (close to 800 px wide). On going from 400mm to 500mm, there is a little improvement in resolution. But, on going to 800mm, it becomes much clearer and you can even read the numbers in the circle. I was so flabbergasted on getting home, that I checked my focus just in case live view was better than AF - it wasn't. It is just that you need to get to 800mm to resolve the fine details, and below that they are merged (below the Nyqvist limit).

So, the 100-400mm II takes the 2xTCIII very well, and the 7DII focusses really well in live view at f/11. I can't wait to photo the moon with the 7DII/800mm, and I am drooling at the thought of a 400 DO II with a 2xTC!

Very impressive, Alan!
If the lens/TC-combo and the EXIF is reporting correctly, it acquired focus at a distance between 550-655m. Soon enough I might need to put that lens on a future Want-list.

 

[AlanF]

I identified the island and the visitors centre on Google Earth, got their co-ordinates and calculate the distance to be 243 m. From that and the size of the image, I calculate the target was 1m x 1.3m. The lines in the lettering are only a couple of pixels wide with the 800mm lens.

 

[HankMD]

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

Your link has the Tamron disadvantaged at f/6.3. Change that to f/8 and I can see the Tamron crushing the Canon+TC, in the center anyway. (Not that I wouldn't want a 100-400L II to play with.)

 

[privatebydesign]

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

Your link has the Tamron disadvantaged at f/6.3. Change that to f/8 and I can see the Tamron crushing the Canon+TC, in the center anyway. (Not that I wouldn't want a 100-400L II to play with.)

Er, hardly crushing, and what happens to the other 90% of the frame? The Canon still bests the Tamron by a large margin.

But, I hate when people ask for something specific, like a real world comparison from a crop camera, and a bench test from a ff camera is linked, what is the point? There is a massive difference between the vast majority of real world images and bench tests, especially when you take light levels and contrast into account.

 

[DominoDude]

I identified the island and the visitors centre on Google Earth, got their co-ordinates and calculate the distance to be 243 m. From that and the size of the image, I calculate the target was 1m x 1.3m. The lines in the lettering are only a couple of pixels wide with the 800mm lens.

Oops, that's some difference. I trust you and Google more in this case; those numbers comes out a little bit more real and trustworthy compared to the EXIF.

 

[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.

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

Your link has the Tamron disadvantaged at f/6.3. Change that to f/8 and I can see the Tamron crushing the Canon+TC, in the center anyway. (Not that I wouldn't want a 100-400L II to play with.)

Er, hardly crushing, and what happens to the other 90% of the frame? The Canon still bests the Tamron by a large margin.

But, I hate when people ask for something specific, like a real world comparison from a crop camera, and a bench test from a ff camera is linked, what is the point? There is a massive difference between the vast majority of real world images and bench tests, especially when you take light levels and contrast into account.

I have had the Tamron since early April and taken many photos with it. I can tell you that the Tamron is much sharper at f8 than it is at f6.3. Comparisons should be made with the Canon at f8 @560mm and the Tamron at f8 at 600mm (or whatever it actually is or zoomed out a bit to 552mm). Then I think you would be much closer to a real comparison.

Also I totally agree that tests on a chart with controlled conditions do not necessarily translate to photos of moving birds in the wild.

As a bit more of an example of what the Tamron can do, here are a few shots from this weekend. None have great composition or angles but all have pretty good details.

552mm @ f8
https://www.flickr.com/photos/120553232@N02/16313827502/in/photostream/

500mm @f8
https://www.flickr.com/photos/120553232@N02/16128780247/in/photostream/

500mm @f8
https://www.flickr.com/photos/120553232@N02/16314703485/in/photostream/

600mm @f8
https://www.flickr.com/photos/120553232@N02/16127224298/

 

[AlanF]

I am going to eat some of my words. Yesterday, at the end of some miserable attempts to photograph birds at a reserve, I stopped off at the visitor centre where you could see a Swarovski target that had been placed for an exhibition and had been left behind, a 100 or so metres away. Here is a shot of the target with 420mm on the 5DIII, to get a feel for the scene. Next, is an unsharpened crop from RAW of the target with the 100-400mm on the 7DII at 400mm f/5.6 (the crop is close to 400 px wide at 100%). Below that is at f/8 and 560mm (about 560 px wide). At the bottom it's at 800mm f/11 using live view (close to 800 px wide). On going from 400mm to 500mm, there is a little improvement in resolution. But, on going to 800mm, it becomes much clearer and you can even read the numbers in the circle. I was so flabbergasted on getting home, that I checked my focus just in case live view was better than AF - it wasn't. It is just that you need to get to 800mm to resolve the fine details, and below that they are merged (below the Nyqvist limit).

So, the 100-400mm II takes the 2xTCIII very well, and the 7DII focusses really well in live view at f/11. I can't wait to photo the moon with the 7DII/800mm, and I am drooling at the thought of a 400 DO II with a 2xTC!

The first relatively clear night. It was still hazy, but I tried out the 7DII + 2xTCIII + 100-400 II. I processed in DxO, PRIME with clearview to help remove the haze. The performance was creditable, and compared not too badly with a shot with the 300mm/2.8 + 2xTC (below).

 

[AlanF]

A full 6 months on I have gone through a nearly 180 deg change in opinion. In good light and with improved technique, the 7DII + 100-400mm II + 1.4xTC is my favourite combination for small birds at a distance.

 

[dslrdummy]

A full 6 months on I have gone through a nearly 180 deg change in opinion. In good light and with improved technique, the 7DII + 100-400mm II + 1.4xTC is my favourite combination for small birds at a distance.

Really appreciate your posts and insights AlanF. I must say that after a winter of photographing Aussie sports with the 7Dii and 300 f/2.8 ii with and without the 1.4xii, I much prefer to go without the extender and crop as required in post. The light is just not good enough for the sharpness I crave at 1/2000s and it seems to struggle in AI servo.
I am about to take the plunge on the 100-400 ii for a trip to Zambia and am hoping to be able to replicate your results with the 1.4 extender. Weight restrictions probably mean I will have to leave the 70-200 f/2.8 ii at home. Hopefully the 300ii and 100-400 with extenders will do the trick.