Show your Bird Portraits

AaronT

EOS RP
CR Pro
Jan 5, 2013
260
551
Still getting a feel for the 100-500L. It's clearly the best long zoom I've used. I believe it matches the 100-400L--sharpness, clarity, color rendition--and gives you an additional 100mm to boot in an extremely compact package. My hit rate for BIF shots has also improved.

It was a bit of an overcast day with intermittent rain showers. That actually established a mood that I don't normally capture.

Here is the majestic ahinga. It can often look goofy when it spreads it wing and points its beak to the sky, but this pose highlights its beauty.
View attachment 192828


I normally don't shoot small birds, so this was different for me. Here is a yellow warbler being rather attentive.
View attachment 192818

This one's more relaxed.
View attachment 192817

Here is a male common yellow throat. I love the black mask on his face.
View attachment 192813

Cardinals are probably my most-shot bird, but mostly in my backyard. This wet one is one of my few shots in the wild.
View attachment 192809

I employed a slightly different processing method with this great blue. I'm trying to decide if I like it.
View attachment 192826

Snowy egrets are fairly common here, but I really like the background.
View attachment 192823

A couple more cavorting around in the trees.
View attachment 192825

I normally avoid vultures, but these black vultures are moving through the area, and they are more interesting looking than the more common turkey vultures in the area.
View attachment 192824
Great shots!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Billybob

AlanF

Hands. Face. Space.
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
7,237
6,795
Brown Noddy on a Pelican, Galapagos. Would the R5 be confused? And the Brown Noddy flying. The good old 5DSR and 100-400mm II is not bad for BIF. It's slow fps actually makes it a lot easier to select shots at the end of the day - I am taking far too many short fast burst and racking up too many with my newer bodies.
3Q7A5375-DxO_brown_noddy_tern_on_pelican_small.jpg
3Q7A5404-DxO_brown_noddy_flying.jpg
 

usern4cr

EOS RP
CR Pro
Sep 2, 2018
448
417
Kentucky, USA
My first shot with EOS R and RF 100-500mm + RF 1.4 extender.
700mm, f/10, 1/200sec, ISO160.
Great Blue Heron.
View attachment 193108
That's a beautiful shot, bhf3737. Out of curiosity, how do you find the sharpness and contrast of an image (at the pixel level) with the 1.4x TC and 100-500 vs the 800mm f11 (assuming you have one?). I'll have both the 100-500(when it ever comes in) and 800 and wonder if I should ignore getting the 1.4x TC or not?
 

bhf3737

---
CR Pro
Sep 9, 2015
582
985
Calgary, Canada
www.flickr.com
That's a beautiful shot, bhf3737. Out of curiosity, how do you find the sharpness and contrast of an image (at the pixel level) with the 1.4x TC and 100-500 vs the 800mm f11 (assuming you have one?). I'll have both the 100-500(when it ever comes in) and 800 and wonder if I should ignore getting the 1.4x TC or not?
Thanks. I wish I had both lenses to check side by side. The RF 800 was rental and although the picture quality (contrast and sharpness) was good, I cannot say which one is better at pixel level. For me, RF 800 was limiting from minimum focus distance perspective. Trying to find a small bird on a close by tree and then finding out that you cannot AF was frustrating. RF 100-500 does not have that disadvantage and even with the EX 1.4 extender, it can focus on very close and very far away subjects. But RF 100-500 + EX 1.4 has its disadvantage either. It only allows using EX from 300mm and leaves lens barrel extended and there is nothing to lock it in place. I don't want to risk leaving the lens in the bag with barrel extended. I am thinking of returning the extender and get RF 800mm instead which costs almost the same.
 
  • Like
Reactions: usern4cr and AlanF

AlanF

Hands. Face. Space.
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
7,237
6,795
Thanks. I wish I had both lenses to check side by side. The RF 800 was rental and although the picture quality (contrast and sharpness) was good, I cannot say which one is better at pixel level. For me, RF 800 was limiting from minimum focus distance perspective. Trying to find a small bird on a close by tree and then finding out that you cannot AF was frustrating. RF 100-500 does not have that disadvantage and even with the EX 1.4 extender, it can focus on very close and very far away subjects. But RF 100-500 + EX 1.4 has its disadvantage either. It only allows using EX from 300mm and leaves lens barrel extended and there is nothing to lock it in place. I don't want to risk leaving the lens in the bag with barrel extended. I am thinking of returning the extender and get RF 800mm instead which costs almost the same.
Having to travel with both the rather long 800mm and the 100-500mm seems rather burdensome. From what I can see from staring at Canon’s data, the TDP site and the odd posting on the net, the 800 seems to be about the same as the 100-400mm II + 2xTC for IQ, I used to go on safari and bird watching holidays with the 400mm DO II + 2xTC on the 5DIV but gave that up in favour of the zoom. I’ll stick with the 100-400mm II + 2xTC If I need 800mm.
 

Jack Douglas

CR for the Humour
Apr 10, 2013
6,644
2,006
Alberta, Canada
Having to travel with both the rather long 800mm and the 100-500mm seems rather burdensome. From what I can see from staring at Canon’s data, the TDP site and the odd posting on the net, the 800 seems to be about the same as the 100-400mm II + 2xTC for IQ, I used to go on safari and bird watching holidays with the 400mm DO II + 2xTC on the 5DIV but gave that up in favour of the zoom. I’ll stick with the 100-400mm II + 2xTC If I need 800mm.
Sure, but now you have AF at 800. I marvel at how Canon has come roaring back with the R5. It's been "fun" seeing all the attacks on the camera while I've been just dying to get my hands on it. Saving my pennies and about half way there.

I must say about the 400, especially at 800, it is rather heavy but my biggest frustration is not being able to zoom out quickly in various scenarios such as a moose showing up when I'm shooting birds. What is your opinion now that you're gaining experience with the R5 about having the 100-500? It seems to me the restriction on FL range with extenders would be a major frustration but in your case you're having to deal with an adapter. OTOH having 1000 might be quite nice on occasion.

Jack
 
  • Like
Reactions: bhf3737

AlanF

Hands. Face. Space.
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
7,237
6,795
Sure, but now you have AF at 800. I marvel at how Canon has come roaring back with the R5. It's been "fun" seeing all the attacks on the camera while I've been just dying to get my hands on it. Saving my pennies and about half way there.

I must say about the 400, especially at 800, it is rather heavy but my biggest frustration is not being able to zoom out quickly in various scenarios such as a moose showing up when I'm shooting birds. What is your opinion now that you're gaining experience with the R5 about having the 100-500? It seems to me the restriction on FL range with extenders would be a major frustration but in your case you're having to deal with an adapter. OTOH having 1000 might be quite nice on occasion.

Jack
We are spoilt for choice. The 100-500mm is a cracking lens. But, so is the old 100-400mm II. As I have a copy that is tack sharp from edge-to-edge and the pair of TCs to go with it, I have suppressed my GAS and am very happy with the handling and results with my existing lenses. I can even shoot hand held with the 2xTC on the 100-400mm at 1/100-200s with pixel level sharpness. There's not going to be much difference in resolution between a 1000mm at f/14 and 800mm at f/11 with the high resolution R5 sensor because you are getting into serious diffraction limitation where the resolution-limiting factor is the diameter of the front lens, and both lenses have the same diameter.

The adapter is no bother. Personally, I prefer to have the adapter and an EF TC that allows the lens to have a focal length over the whole range and retract fully, than an RF TC that restricts the shortest focal length to 420mm at 1.4x and 600mm at 2x and makes the partly retracted lens on the long side.
 

usern4cr

EOS RP
CR Pro
Sep 2, 2018
448
417
Kentucky, USA
Thanks. I wish I had both lenses to check side by side. The RF 800 was rental and although the picture quality (contrast and sharpness) was good, I cannot say which one is better at pixel level. For me, RF 800 was limiting from minimum focus distance perspective. Trying to find a small bird on a close by tree and then finding out that you cannot AF was frustrating. RF 100-500 does not have that disadvantage and even with the EX 1.4 extender, it can focus on very close and very far away subjects. But RF 100-500 + EX 1.4 has its disadvantage either. It only allows using EX from 300mm and leaves lens barrel extended and there is nothing to lock it in place. I don't want to risk leaving the lens in the bag with barrel extended. I am thinking of returning the extender and get RF 800mm instead which costs almost the same.
I have taken photos with the R5 and RF 800mm f11 lens, and it can AF just fine with it. :)

When I look at the front DO element, I'm amazed that at first glance it looks like a normal smooth lens. Only when I look closely at it with a strong light reflected off its surface can I notice the very slight edges of the tiny DO "rings" in it. It's amazing that the DO technology of the huge original lighthouse lenses can be shrunk and mass produced to give such good IQ. I know that it can't possibly have the same high quality contrast as a normal high quality lens due to those edges, but the overall IQ is amazing considering what the old lighthouse lenses looked like! :oops: