« Previous topic | Next topic »  
Reply to topic  
 First unread post  | 9 posts | 
by Vertigo on Thu Sep 03, 2015 4:10 pm
User avatar
Vertigo
Forum Contributor
Posts: 416
Joined: 16 Feb 2012
Location: Rennes, France
Hi,

I now am the happy owner of a 1DX as my one and only bird photography body (I had to sell both my D3S and D810 for that ... please don't argue).

For the moment I use it with the 400/5.6L for fast, close birds in flight such as swallows. Very happy with this combination that is all about speed (AF, fps).

When I need more reach for more distant, less fast moving birds, I can use my 1.4x TC, which yields a 560/8 with pretty good IQ (no better stopped down, tested).
The downside is that AF is restricted to the central point, so no zone AF, etc., and AF reactivity is a step down, too.
Moreover, a common problem with TCs, when a fast bird comes by, I am stuck with the TC mounted, even though I would be better with the bare lens for a short series of shot.
Finally, 560mm as a maximal FL is a bit short also at times.

I wonder if there is a lens that would provide more reach than 400mm, WITH excellent, fully functional AF, WITHOUT compromising the light, excellent handling that I experience with the small 400L (I do everything handholding). A lens with a strong focus on BIF, but with some ability to provide longer reach also when needed.

From my experience I know that this lens should weigh less than 3 kg (Since 2008 I re-sold three 500/4s, either Nikon or Canon, because of that: clumsiness in the field), preferably 2kg. I see 3 options, with each having pros and cons:

- Canon 300/2.8L II with 2x TC.
               Pros: fully functional AF at 600/5.6, IQ on par or better than the 400L.
               Cons: Need to switch TCs for getting back to 420mm, on the heavy side (2.5 kg), pretty expensive.

- Sigma 150-600mm C
              Pros: fully functional AF at 600/6.3, Very practical zoom to switch from 600 to 400 or even 300mm when needed, light, cheap.
              Cons: AF reliability and IQ a step down from option 1 (but to what extent I don't know), AFMA mess (see thread in the digital section)

- Canon 400mm DO II with 1.4x TC
             Pros: same as option 1 except that it is a 560mm and maybe 300g lighter.
             Cons: TC switch again, even pricier than option 1, and a lack of feedback on the potential bokeh issue with specular highlights (I often shoot on shore).

What would be your choice if you were in this situation ? I know some will point the 200-400, but it is a bit over my 3kg limit, and way over my wallet limit ;o)

Thanks for reading,

Manu.
 

by swamp_rattler on Thu Sep 03, 2015 5:41 pm
swamp_rattler
Forum Contributor
Posts: 448
Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Location: Cuyahoga County, Ohio
I've used none of them, but I'm salivating for the 300/2.8 II. I've seen some stellar images with the lens with the 2x III attached, and having an amazing 300/2.8, 420/4, 600/5.6 lens makes it valuable in all sorts of scenarios.
 

by sdaconsulting on Thu Sep 03, 2015 9:00 pm
sdaconsulting
Forum Contributor
Posts: 579
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Location: Moncure, NC
Instead of buying a new lens how about buying a 7D2?

You have the AF of the 1DX and a lot more pixels on target.
Matthew Cromer
 

by Vertigo on Fri Sep 04, 2015 2:25 am
User avatar
Vertigo
Forum Contributor
Posts: 416
Joined: 16 Feb 2012
Location: Rennes, France
sdaconsulting wrote:Instead of buying a new lens how about buying a 7D2?

You have the AF of the 1DX and a lot more pixels on target.
I will have the opportunity to test a 7D2 soon (my girlfreind has one at work), but I have already been down the route of smaller pixels (7D, D810), and I don't think I will be happy with it. At the ISO I use most often (1000-3200) for flight, I prefer to get a clean image out of camera, even if there are less pixels on the bird. Too much noisy pixels is like oversampling; you can get a little more definition than larger, clean pixels, if you spend a lot of time on pp, but I don't have this time anymore.
 

by Vertigo on Fri Sep 04, 2015 2:28 am
User avatar
Vertigo
Forum Contributor
Posts: 416
Joined: 16 Feb 2012
Location: Rennes, France
swamp_rattler wrote:I've used none of them, but I'm salivating for the 300/2.8 II.  I've seen some stellar images with the lens with the 2x III attached, and having an amazing 300/2.8, 420/4, 600/5.6 lens makes it valuable in all sorts of scenarios.
At the moment this is my favourite option also, except for the lack of easy zooming. Would you have a link to those picture at 600mm ?
 

by Neilyb on Fri Sep 04, 2015 3:12 am
User avatar
Neilyb
Forum Contributor
Posts: 2763
Joined: 7 Feb 2008
Location: Munich
Sounds like you need a 200-400 but do not want to admit it :p

Things to consider. AF speed, with a 2X the speed will be slower than a 400 with 1.4x. Bokeh, I was never really happy with Bokeh and the old 300 + 2XTC, unless close enough to the subject.

If you think you will be using it with a TC most of the time anyway surely the 400 is the better option?
 

by Vertigo on Fri Sep 04, 2015 5:26 am
User avatar
Vertigo
Forum Contributor
Posts: 416
Joined: 16 Feb 2012
Location: Rennes, France
Thanks Neil, a pity the 200-400 is not around 2.5kg, it would probably be my go-to option indeed.

Good point about the bokeh. I agree the 300 I + 2x was not that good (sharpness, contrast and bokeh-wise). But the V2 is a different beast, and I have not read or seen reports of bad bokeh with the 2x, do you ?

The DO is tempting but the samples on digital picture make me think that it is a step below the 300 in terms of IQ, especially with TCs (but maybe I am wrong). Not sure about the bokeh also. Wim's samples from the DO (see http://www.pbase.com/wimdel/070809_2015) show that it is a very capable lens, but is it at the level of the 300 ? Wim, are you here ?
 

by WimDel on Fri Sep 04, 2015 9:45 am
WimDel
Forum Contributor
Posts: 6
Joined: 13 Feb 2010
I have had the 300II and used it mostly with the 2x. Sharpness is very good and AF remains good but sometimes a bit too slow for bif. I find the 400 DO II + 1.4x superior on both sharpness and speed. I don’t think this shot of a hobby flying towards me would be possible with the 300II + 2x. Bokeh is another matter, still not convinced about this one. I’m feeling it’s a little bit harsher. But the biggest advantage is you also have a good 800mm!

7D2 400 DO II + 1.4x
Image
Note I don’t make large prints, only mid-sized images (800px) for webdisplay. Also I crop a lot and spend some time in post processing with dpp, LR and CS6.

7D2 400 DO II +2x (2245x1497 crop)
Image
 

by Vertigo on Sat Sep 05, 2015 5:11 pm
User avatar
Vertigo
Forum Contributor
Posts: 416
Joined: 16 Feb 2012
Location: Rennes, France
Thank you Wim, your feedback is precious as few people seem to be using the DOII a lot.

You confirm the 400 x 1.4 is sharper (and faster AF) than the 300 x 2, but your hesitations on bokeh of the DO is interesting, too. I guess we always have to make compromises !
 

Display posts from previous:  Sort by:  
9 posts | 
  

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group