Recommendation 70-200/2.8+2x vs 100-400 f/4-5.6L ?

[smirkypants]

I don't know why you all think you need a super long lens to take pictures of birds. This is just at 50mm!! 8) 8) 8)

 

[Marsu42]

I don't know why you all think you need a super long lens to take pictures of birds. This is just at 50mm!!

Now, apart from the good ol' picture contest: A pigeon doesn't qualify as your prototypical bird, I could shoot that 1:1 at macro distance. Btw, if you were using a crop body the shot was taken at 80mm. And nobody said you can *only* take bird shots w/ a superlong tele, but the "hit rate" is better because there is the rumour that real wild animals (i.e. not city pigeons) do frighten sometimes ... in addition, there is a difference between shooting *any* bird near you and looking for a *specific* rare one.

 

[briansquibb]

I don't know why you all think you need a super long lens to take pictures of birds. This is just at 50mm!! 8) 8) 8)

I am amazed you got such a steady picture without IS ;D ;D ;D ;D

 

[Marsu42]

0
I am amazed you got such a steady picture without IS ;D ;D ;D ;D

I know this from my non-is macro: just take a couple of pictures and select the sharpest one - as long as the object doesn't fly away, that's no problem at all.

 

[smirkypants]

in addition, there is a difference between shooting *any* bird near you and looking for a *specific* rare one.

These lovely creatures aren't rare?

 

[sublime LightWorks]

Like others, I wish someone that has the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II and the 2x rev III extender would chime in.....maybe I'll take one for the team and be that person instead. ;D

If I do, I'll have to devise a set of tests to do a proper comparison, with input from folks here....BUT NOT YET!!! I have to examine budget first as I just added the Elinchrom 74" Octabank to my weapons.

I'll post a new thread if I order the 2x to garner input for a test setup and a location where all can get the RAWs for evaluation.

-Bob

Done.

Although not a scientific test, when I got my 70-200 Mk2 and both Mk3 Extenders over a year ago, I rented a 100-400mm to do some field level comparisons.

Basically the tests consisted of two shooters shooting wildlife/surf shots using a 5D and a 5D2, switching back and forth between the 70-200 Mk2/1.4x Mk3, 70-200 Mk2/2.0x, and the 100-400mm on both bodies. Using LR3 to view RAW images, it was readily apparent which ones were taken with the 70-200/extenders vs the 100-400mm. The 100-400mm simply didn't have the same sharpness or image quality. It wasn't much of a surprise given the price difference, but it was interesting to see the difference in the images. Until the 200-400mm hits the shelves, I'll be sticking with my 70-200mm and using the Extenders when required.

Cheers,

Scott

Thank you sir....very much appreciated.

 

[bigblue1ca]

I don't know why you all think you need a super long lens to take pictures of birds. This is just at 50mm!! 8) 8) 8)

;D But, for a picture of a pigeon I really like the light and colours.

 

[Marsu42]

Hi all,

I got my 70-300L a few days ago am report back with my experiences as promised. Generally, I'm very happy and would like to apologize for stirring up so much dust. But: better safe than sorry, esp. if a price it as the far end of one's budget.

I compared it with test shots at min. focal distance to my copy of a 100mm macro (non-L) which imho is as sharp as it gets on this 18MP sensor because I can count the pixels when using f6.3-f7.1. This 70-300L is just as sharp and much sharper at open aperture. Looking at my "real life" shots, I can only concur to this observation - if I can see every feather of a bird in detail, that's enough for me. Even the af is spot-on without afam on my 60D body, but that might be easier w/ f4 than w/ f2.8. It does show some CAs at high contrast borders and open aperture, but these are easily corrected by software.

Before anyone freaks out: The 200-300 range does not make that much difference and I would be tempted if anyone would swap this for a 70-200/2.8is2+1.4ex or 300/2.8 for free - but that's not likely to happen . My other impressions:

* The lens is still balanced w/ my 60D, but I guess a 7D might even be a little better. Because of the short lens size, the weight is near the body so it creates little torsion. If a lens gets any longer and/or heavier I would insist on getting paid for this. Even after one day out my right arm feels a little longer - and considering this mass, it might work as a self defense weapon when being attacked by a wild boar.

* This might come as a surprise to some: I like the reversed af/zoom rings better, because I can override the af at the point where my middle finger is on top of the lens anyway. I don't see how I'd accidentally defocus it with my current technique. Arguably, the zoom ring is not reachable with the lens hood on reverse, and zooming requires hand movement - but I generally crop the pictures afterwards anyway, so setting a zoom length and then using it like a semi-prime is just up my alley.

* This won't be a surprise to most: The build quality and IS is stellar, and while I would generally prefer an internal zoom like the 70-200 lenses this 70-300 is so short that it still fits in my bike bag I'm always carrying around. It is not a "shoot moving objects in the dark" lens, but it does what I'd expect from a red ring: it has top performance at open aperture. So if an objects is stationary for a moment, it works even for wildlife at lower light as long as the dof of f4-f5.6 is not too thin.

My positive conclusion: I still don't own a big white lens, it's a big grey lens ... and for aps-c and my preferences, the size-weight-iq-af-zoomfactor-buildquality-price combination and tradeoff is just right. If I ever need a faster lens with less dof, I'll get a really fast f2 or less prime with the money I saved from skipping the 70-200is2.

 

[Edwin Herdman]

Also, birds generally aren't low-light situations, so f/5.6 at that range would seem to me not to pose any problems.

That's not what I see when I shoot birds. Small ones love to hide in bushes and tangles of branches. Then there's the matter of shooting during the interesting "magic hours" after sunrise or before sunset. Even in daylight, though, you might find yourself wanting more than f/5.6 for stopping action.

To the OP, I would consider the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 OS. I have it with an EF Extender 2X III, but if you could get away with using just the Extender 1.4X the results would be even better. It's an amazing lens without the extender, too, of course.

 

[KeithR]

That's not what I see when I shoot birds. Small ones love to hide in bushes and tangles of branches. Then there's the matter of shooting during the interesting "magic hours" after sunrise or before sunset. Even in daylight, though, you might find yourself wanting more than f/5.6 for stopping action.

Yep, with you all the way there, Edwin.

To the OP, I would consider the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 OS. I have it with an EF Extender 2X III, but if you could get away with using just the Extender 1.4X the results would be even better. It's an amazing lens without the extender, too, of course.

I'm now using the Siggy + TCs (having moved up from an excellent Canon 100-400m) and it's a stunning lens.

 

[KeithR]

Just went into my garden and took this. Dont think a 100-400 would get close to this 8) 1d4, 400 f/2.8 + 2x

Ahem...

http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/020112/desert_wheatear_newbiggin_8a.jpg
http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/151011/black_headed_gull_marden_2a.jpg
http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/Bridlington_September_2011/turnstone_bridlington_2a.jpg
http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/Bridlington_September_2011/knot_bridlington_2.jpg
http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/Bridlington_September_2011/carrion_crow_bridlington_1a.jpg
http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/Bridlington_September_2011/gannet_bempton_1.jpg
http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/Bridlington_September_2011/herring_gull_bempton_1.jpg
http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/Bridlington_September_2011/tree_sparrow_bempton%20_1.jpg
http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/Bridlington_September_2011/tree_sparrow_bempton_7.jpg

All with the 7D and 100-400mm. Some - like the Carrion crow, including a 1.4x TC.

And on this:

I could have shot a larger bird to prove the point - those birds I took were 2 inches long

Blue tits are actually a massive 4 1/2 inches long.

Now these Goldcrests, they're only 3 1/2 inches long - smallest UK bird, and much more hyperactive than Blue tits - and the 100-400mm + 7D did just fine, as always...

http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/101010/goldcrest_st_marys_7b.jpg
http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/101010/goldcrest_st_marys_12.jpg
http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/101010/goldcrest_st_marys_1.jpg
http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/101010/goldcrest_st_marys_4.jpg
http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/101010/goldcrest_st_marys_3.jpg
http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/101010/goldcrest_st_marys_2.jpg

1600 ISO, too.

Oh, and - purely subjectively of course - I think that any of the examples in this post (and I've got thousands and thousands more) are better than your Blue tit shot in sharpness, detail and IQ terms. The Exif is in all of them, and you'll see that they're pretty much all at f/6.3 or f/5.6 - no stopping right down to squeeze some sharpness out of the lens - and are all handheld at 400mm, or 560mm for the ones with a TC.

I'll say it gain: the quality of the end result isn't predicated on how much money you spend on the kit...

 

[Marsu42]

All with the 7D and 100-400mm. Some - like the Carrion crow, including a 1.4x TC. I'll say it gain: the quality of the end result isn't predicated on how much money you spend on the kit...

Question: I've got the 70-300L which is up to 5,6 too, and am thinking about getting a TC (the Kenko one). The af on your 7D doesn't work with the TC on the 100-400 either, correct? What's your experience with manual focus, does it ruin many shots? Apart from my macro shots, the last time I used mf on a tele was in the analog times when I had a focusing screen in the camera...

And: +1 for your comment on the money-shot relation. It's great if people with the appropriate budget get top gear, and in difficult circumstances it is the only way to get good shots. However, I think it is important that it is known that gear in the medium price range might produce the same results in your average everyday shots. That might prevent people with less bucks to spend to save some and not be driven into buying only the best - If I wanted that advice I'd simply visit my local photo store.

PS: Nice bird shots, actually they look a lot like mine with the 70-300L whose iq seems to be like your 100-400L ... but of course my tele range w/o TC requires a lot more crawling towards the subject

 

[KeithR]

The af on your 7D doesn't work with the TC on the 100-400 either, correct?

Actually, it does work , Marsu - tape the pins and use off-centre AF points, and it's really pretty good for a workaround - this (a football team mascot) is 560mm handheld at 1/50 and 3200 ISO.

 

[briansquibb]

I'll say it gain: the quality of the end result isn't predicated on how much money you spend on the kit...

So you decided to have a go at me because I have more expensive kit? You dont know what kit I have or what I have spent on it so it is a stupid remark to make

If I had thought this was going to be a photo competition I would have take a bit more care - hand held 400 f/2.8 +2x using sRaw will never win a competition. I have used the 100-400 and 7D so know its IQ limitations - I guess that is why it isn't the favourite for top BIF shooters

I think you will find the blue tit is the smallest common bird in an average English garden. But I am sure you know that. Hardly a massive bird though is it? - body about 2-1/2 inches which is the measurement I use for DOF calculations.

 

[Marsu42]

So you decided to have a go at me because I have more expensive kit?

Your remark wasn't meant for me, but that is the reason why I never post pictures - you can get good pictures out of every gear, but of course you can only get the best pictures in difficult situations from top gear. If I had the money, I'd get fast primes this instant - the reason I'm occasionally posting some advice is because I'd like tell people from my experience what gear to get with a limited budget.

The af on your 7D doesn't work with the TC on the 100-400 either, correct?

Actually, it does work , Marsu - tape the pins and use off-centre AF points, and it's really pretty good for a workaround - this (a football team mascot) is 560mm handheld at 1/50 and 3200 ISO.

Thanks for the link! I guess taping the pins also kills the additional exif data that is provided by the tc? Or does it even remove all exif data from the lens?

 

[Flake]

Unfortunately fast glass means extra weight so you have to decide on your compromise & what is most important to you, you can have one or the other, but not both.

If you want speed then the Sigma 120 - 300mm f/2.8 EX OS is difficult to beat, especially as no one else makes a zoom like it. With a 1.4X it becomes a 170 - 420mm f/4 similar to the focal length of the Canon 200 - 400 f/4 but a fraction of the price, or with a 2X TC it becomes a 240 - 600mm f/5.6 this is the cheapest way to get to 600mm & still retain autofocus, images are still of a commercial quality with this set up. Second hand lenses can be had at quite a saving.

Then there's the superb & under rated Sigma 100 - 300mm F/4 EX no OS on this one but it's a real performer and because it's not well known second hand prices are really attractive. It will take a 1.4X TC and then becomes a 140 - 420mm F/5.6 a 2X will not autofocus. Weight is pretty good at 1.44Kg This lens rated a highly reccomended at Photozone.

Or there's the 50 - 500mm F/4.5 - 6.3 'Bigma' a huge zoom range with decent image quality, but it is slow. Avoid the 150 - 500mm version which is not well regarded.

Canons L lenses are of course very nice and the obvious choice, but they are expensive and other options are worth consideration.

 

[KeithR]

So you decided to have a go at me because I have more expensive kit?

No, I'm having a go at you always banging on about your self-evident belief that photographers - and the quality of their results - are intrinsically defined by how much their gear cost.

I'm not remotely impressed by people who expect to be taken seriously simply because they've got expensive kit - the pictures do the talking...

 

[KeithR]

If you want speed then the Sigma 120 - 300mm f/2.8 EX OS is difficult to beat, especially as no one else makes a zoom like it. With a 1.4X it becomes a 170 - 420mm f/4 similar to the focal length of the Canon 200 - 400 f/4 but a fraction of the price, or with a 2X TC it becomes a 240 - 600mm f/5.6 this is the cheapest way to get to 600mm & still retain autofocus, images are still of a commercial quality with this set up.

Absolutely - that's the lens/TC combo I'm using now, and it's superb. I'll happily put the IQ I'm getting from that lens and the 7D up against any camera/lens out there.

 

[briansquibb]

So you decided to have a go at me because I have more expensive kit?

No, I'm having a go at you always banging on about your self-evident belief that photographers - and the quality of their results - are intrinsically defined by how much their gear cost.

I'm not remotely impressed by people who expect to be taken seriously simply because they've got expensive kit - the pictures do the talking...

Perhaps it would have been best if you had left it to your pictures to do the talking

 

[FarQinell]

I once tried a Canon 1.4X converter on the Canon 70-200mm f4 IS (which matches the f2.8 in sharpness - obviously from f4!) and the results were not especially good!

Basically putting a bog standard TC between your zoom - even a good one - and your camera is not going to work very well.

Even very good TCs will only give decent results if used with top quality prime lenses where secondary spectrum is fully suppressed.

So if you want 400 on a zoom its definitely the 100-400mm L lens that you will need - its only slightly less sharp than the 400/5.6 which itself is a very sharp lens.