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

[ahsanford]

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.

- A

 

[Loswr]

Re: Non-birder brings a 70-200 and a 2x in search of eagles -- hiliarity ensues

Nice shot!

Here's one of my eagle-in-a-pine-tree shots, albeit with a somewhat longer lens (600/4 + 1.4xIII) and on a tripod with a gimbal.

 

[Jack Douglas]

Re: Non-birder brings a 70-200 and a 2x in search of eagles -- hiliarity ensues

If you tackle overly challenging situations the outcome is discouragement so the solution is ... pretty birds that are closer and stationary and impress people with your skill, and you become hooked.

Jack

 

[KeithBreazeal]

Re: Non-birder brings a 70-200 and a 2x in search of eagles -- hiliarity ensues

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.

Eagle Tour Lake Camanche 2017 Bald Eagle 1117 © Keith Breazeal by Keith Breazeal, on Flickr

 

[tomscott]

Re: Non-birder brings a 70-200 and a 2x in search of eagles -- hiliarity ensues

You can do a hell of a lot with this combo. For a long time 70-200 with a 2x was my go to.

Got a great success rate with a 5DMKIII with birds in flight.

For example this whole album

https://flic.kr/s/aHsjZea3L5

Some of my all time favourites with that lens.

The nice thing about the 70-200mm with a 2x is its an internal zoom. Less worry of damage in less than ideal conditions. Most of my work is shot in the rain, had that combo in yellow weather warnings and the camera bodies gave up the lens was absolutely fine.

Puffins with mouthful of sand eels, Cliffside, Inner Farne, Farne Islands by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Even subjects flying toward me, the most difficult for the AF to track.

Puffin, Farne Islands, Seahouses by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Puffins are stupidly fast very hard to track.

Porsche 962, BP Leyton House, Group C, twilight race, Silverstone Classics 2015 by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Alfa Romeo Giulia Sprint GTA, #33, Driven by A. Lawley and T. Smith, Warwick Banks Trophy for Under 2 Litre Touring Cars, Silverstone Classics 2015 by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Williams FW07C, Leyland #37, 1981, driven by C. D'Ansembourg, Legends of Modern F1, Silverstone Classic 2015 by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Shot motorsport with it for 4-5 years with barely any issues. Its IQ is pretty dam good stands up to the 100-400mm MKI I haven't found the AF to be much of an issue. The best bit about it for me is that you can take the converter off and have a 200mm F2.8 lens when the light gets low and when your trackside MM doesn't really mean anything you can shoot without worry with 200mm. Just means instead of taking a 70-200 and 100-400 you get both saves your back.

I do have the 100-400mm MKII now but if I'm honest I wouldn't worry about not having it. I do love that lens tho!

Just practice, monopods aren't really much good in a boat if you have good light handheld is easier as your body can move with the boat.

This was shot on a boat and is super sharp. The swirl near rocks is pretty ferocious too the boat was all over the place.

Grey Seal, Farne Islands, Seahouses, UK by Tom Scott, on Flickr

TBF with some birds you do need as much as possible.

Unfortunately I havent got my fish eagle images to hand but with a 7DMKII and a 100-400 managed to frame them really well.

 

[tomscott]

Re: Non-birder brings a 70-200 and a 2x in search of eagles -- hiliarity ensues

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

 

[lion rock]

Re: Non-birder brings a 70-200 and a 2x in search of eagles -- hiliarity ensues

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

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

 

[Larsskv]

Re: Non-birder brings a 70-200 and a 2x in search of eagles -- hiliarity ensues

A lot of nice pictures in this thread. I’m not a bird photographer, but I got this picture of a white tailed (sea) eagle from a boat this summer. Taken with the 1DXII, 100-400L II and 1.4 III extender:

 

[ahsanford]

Thanks for the guidance and great shots, team! I spent a hot second justifying a 100-400L II purchase in my mind, but I just don't have the birding bug like you folks do.

- A

 

[Macoose]

I was walking the trail on the north bank of Lake Hancock in Lakeland, Fl and this one flew over with a catfish. He settled and began to gut the fish.
I'm glad I had IS.

This is my first posting of an attachment.

Macoose

 

[Deleted member 91053]

Thanks for the guidance and great shots, team! I spent a hot second justifying a 100-400L II purchase in my mind, but I just don't have the birding bug like you folks do.

- A

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

 

[ahsanford]

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

 

[PCM-madison]

Nice photos everone. This was taken near Lake Wisconsin last winter at a spot where Bald Eagles gather due to persistent open water throughout the winter that allows them to hunt when most Wisconsin lakes and rivers are frozen. 7D mark ii + 300mm F2.8 IS ii + 2X iii, ISO 1000, F8, 1/1000.

 

[2n10]

From what you have told us you have the right idea for your needs. When you go on trips with your family just go with environmental shots if you can not get close.

Although every once in a while one can get lucky.

7DII with 100-400 II at 238mm. My 1.4TC III is also attached.

 

[aceflibble]

I spent a hot second justifying a 100-400L II purchase in my mind, but I just don't have the birding bug like you folks do.

If you're interested enough to give it a try but not enough to get the 100-400, I highly recommend the 400mm f/5.6L. It's as sharp-or-slightly-sharper-than the zoom (depending on the copies of each you test; on average they're the same) and the focus (in good light) is just a hair snappier (less glass to shift around). It's also lighter and, most importantly for the indecisive folk, can be bought for less than half the cost of the zoom. With the zoom you'll always be at the 400mm end anyway, so all you're giving up with the prime is IS, which is of dubious value for flying birds (where you'll always want to have the shutter in excess of 1/1000th anyway) and of minimal value for stationary birds. (You never want to let your shutter get too slow as you'll still see plenty of subject movement with such a long lens, and you never know when they might take off and you need to ramp the shutter back up; I use some IS lenses for birds, such as the 500mm f/4 mkII, and honestly I'd say I only get about one stop out of the IS, if that, in real world use.) A final bonus of the 400mm f/5.6L is that it's so old now that the price has completely stabilised; you can buy one used, give it a try, and if you don't like it you can sell it again for exactly what you paid for it, whether that's a week later or a year later.

There's also the 300mm f/4 IS which does give you that IS and is a fraction lighter and cheaper again, while being nicely compatible with extenders; it wouldn't be a huge jump up from the 70-200, but it'd be worth it if you got a good price on one.

You could also try getting a used 7D2 (or even original 7D; they're dirt cheap now), since the higher pixel density means you'll get more detail, and a used body can, in some regions, be cheaper than one of the above lenses second hand, while providing roughly the same improvement in detail. (Or if you've also got the 1.4x extender, the 70-200 with that on a 7D2 will give you better detail and resolving power than the 2x on the 5D3.)

Wildlife sure isn't for everyone, but if you're out and about anyway and if it's pleased you enough to have even attempted it, a small investment like one of these second hand products can be really entertaining at a very reasonable price. I never would have figured myself for a wildlife photographer (my work is in industry archival, aka combination of 'high end' product photography and studio portraits) but I gave it a try once and now here I am putting money aside for the 7D3 and wondering if I can justify getting the 600mm...

 

[tomscott]

Wildlife is certainly a hook. One of my favourite subjects and traveled half way round the world in pursuit of seeing some of these creatures.

 

[AlanF]

Re: Non-birder brings a 70-200 and a 2x in search of eagles -- hiliarity ensues

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.

 

[korf]

I shot this in Hoonah, AK. Was off the ship for the day and did not expect to see any birds so I only my had the 18-135 on my 70D, left the longer lens back on board.

 

[Click]

Nice shot, korf.

...And welcome to CR.

 

[Deleted member 91053]

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

I am at the complete other end of the scale! 80%+ of my photography is with the 800mm F5.6 L IS. We are all different!