Two Cameras and Two Lenses for bird photography so what combination?

[russellsnr]

Hi, Two cameras, one FF the other crop, two lenses, 100-400mm I S and 400mm fixed none I S, 1.4 or 2x converter will NOT work on the FF body with these lenses I beleive (All Canon) so what lens would you use on what body for bird photography and why? Thankyou Russ.

[Tronhard]

Hi Russell:

Actually it would help a lot more if you gave the exact specs of the all the lenses and bodies - for example what versions of the tele-converter are you considering? There are two 100-400 lenses, and three 1.4 tele-converters, and we haven't even started on the potential bodies for compatibility with the tele-converters.

For what it's worth I use the Canon 100-400MkII lens with the Canon 1.4MkIII tele-converter on the 7DII or 80D body and it gives me excellent results but the auto-focus and auto-exposure don't work with other crop bodies that I have. Considering the FoV, that combination gives me a one Equivalent to that of a 224-896mm lens on a FF body but the max aperture suffers - at which point IS is rather necessary and it's a bit of a howitzer. So I would put the 400 non-IS on the FF body and get the much improved aperture and the weight would be way lower.

Or you could sell one of the lenses and get the excellent Sigma150-600mm F/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary lens, which I also have and also gives great results.

Here is an image, as shot (i.e. no processing) of a (rather scruffy) heron at approximately 150m, hand held. It was taken with the Canon 7DII, using the 100-400 at 400mm with the 1.4 TC. (the EXIF data doesn't report on the crop factor effect of course so it says 560mm). Even looking at it at full magnification in the lightbox on this site, it's nowhere near as sharp as the original, which is a pretty large image.

[russellsnr]

Hi Russell:

Actually it would help a lot more if you gave the exact specs of the all the lenses and bodies - for example what versions of the tele-converter you considering? There are two 100-400 lenses, and three 1.4 tele-converters, and we haven't even started on the potential bodies for compatibility with the tele-converters.

For what it's worth I use the Canon 100-400MkII lens with the Canon 1.4MkIII tele-converter on the 7DII or 80D body and it gives me excellent results but the auto-focus and auto-exposure don't work with other crop bodies that I have. Considering the FoV, that combination gives me a one Equivalent to that of a 224-896mm lens on a FF body - at which point IS is rather necessary and it's a bit of a howitzer. So I would put the 400 non-IS on the FF body and get the much improved aperture and the weight would be way lower.

Or you could sell one of the lenses and get the excellent Sigma150-600mm F/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary lens, which I also have and also gives great results.

Here is an image, as shot (i.e. no processing) of a heron at approximately 150m, hand held. It was taken with the Canon 7DII, using the 100-400 at 400mm with the 1.4 TC. (the EXIF data doesn't report on the crop factor effect of course). Even looking at it at full magnification on this site, it's nowhere near as sharp as the original, which is a pretty large image.

Hi, Thankyou for your reply. I have a Canon 6D (not the ll) and Canon 70Dand beleive that TC's will not work with them, unfourtunatly I am not in a position to fork out for new equipment so I have to duck and dive and I already have the Canon 400mm and have just bought second hand the original 100-400mm Canon, again not the MK ll. Why did I buy the 100-400mm when I already had the 400mm? because sometimes birds are close and to be able to draw back a little from 400mm I thought would help also trying to find BIF sometimes is a little tricky so to be able to zoom out, find the bird and zoom in again thought woud be a good option. The Canon 100-400mm was also cheaper than the Sigma 150-600mm. In the dream world I would love a 1DX mk ll and the 100-400mm mk ll but then the wife wakes me up again thankyou for your reply. Russ.

[Tronhard]

Hi Russ:

I know what you mean about the economics and sympathize with you! I had the 100-400MkI and it was a good lens - admittedly not AS good as the MkII but it did OK. I absolutely know what you mean about the benefits of zooming out - I have only two prime lenses in my collection (waiting for the comments on that now... ), but it's a balance between speed, weight, and convenience. Unless the 6D actually works better than the 70D with the tele-converter I would stand by my suggestion, just know you will have a lot more limitations to work with in either case.

Just to add to your challenge... if you sold BOTH lenses and TC you could get the Sigma - which is a great lens and would simplify your challenges. The mount is EF so you can use it on the FF or crop body - on which you will have an equivalent FoV of 224-960mm, yet on the FF you could zoom out to 160mm - It has at least 4 stops of IS and while not as weather resistant as the sports version it weighs about half as much.

[William W]

. . . so what lens would you use on what body for bird photography and why? Thankyou Russ.

I'd plonk the 100 to 400L IS on the 70D and the 400/5.6L on the 6D and take both.

Why? -

1. By your definitions there are only two possible combinations.
2. I reckon the equivalent FoV 160 to 640mm would be the most useful combination to have.
3. I reckon a second camera and second lens is always good to have and even more useful if it is close by, loaded and ready to go.

WW

[rpcrowe]

I sold my 300mm f/4L IS and 400mm f/5.6L lenses to fund my EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS ii lens and have not looked back...

I would use only my 7Dii with the above lens for any birding. I really can't conceive needing anything wider that the equivalent 180mm that the 7Dii and the 100-400 II allow me. With birds and sometimes shooting aircraft, the 640mm equivalent with that combination is only adequate. I can use the Canon 1.4x Mark-3 TC and maintain auto focus with that combination.

I have never tried comparing the AF with the 1.4x TC added and the auto-focus with the bare lens. However, generally:

1. The bare lens is long enough - considering the crop factor
and
2. I only use the TC when I absolutely have to

However, having the TC available with the 7Dii and 100-400 ii lens combination is handy.

There have been times, such as when I was shooting the Blue Angels practice from the end of their runway at El Centro, California that the 300mm lens was actually too long on the 7Dii. The second time I shot the Blue Angels from that location, I found that the 100-400L ii zoom was very handy

[Bobobird]

Whatever you have will work just fine when you understand and work around the limitations. There is no camera/lens combination today that does not have limitations of one sort or another.

To get serious about bird photography there is only one "rule" - shoot often and be glad to make as many mistakes as you can because only then will you really learn.

[Tord]

I have the Sports version, and it is a challenge to use handheld, but I find it works better with a monopod attached, the monopod working as support between shots, and to increase the inertia, thus increasing the number of sharp shots.

It definitely is big, heavy, and not for everyone. But very rugged, and fast-focusing.

Under normal naturewalks, I definitely prefer the little (in comparison) Sigma 100-400 C, which works great with Sigma's TC-1401, which makes it a 550mm lens, just marginally shorter than the 150-600 S. The 100-400 C focuses a bit slower than the 150-600 S, but that's the main difference in use.

[russellsnr]

Hi, traded in my Sigma 150-500mm for a ver 1 of the Canon 100-400mm and although loose 100mm the Canon I have found to be lighter and even with the push/pull zoom a lot easier to hold and use, not found the push/pull hard to use either.
Russ.