A doubler allows amazing magnification for the close-focusing 400 2.8.
Here's how thin the DOF is at about 5 meters distance and f/5.6 (the bird's total length is a mere 4 inches, hence it's more than life-size as posted).
Lowland White-eye(Zosterops meyeni, a near Philippine endemic)
Canon 7D + 400 2.8 IS + Canon 2x TC II, 800 mm, f/5.6, ISO 3200, 1/320 sec, 475B/516 support, manual exposure in available light, near full frame.
At a distance of 8 - 9 meters, and when the bird's body is parallel to the sensor plane, the same wide open Av of the 400 2.8 + doubler has a more useable DOF.
Canon 7D + 400 2.8 IS + Canon 2x TC II, 800 mm, f/5.6, ISO 3200, 1/250 sec, 475B/516 support, manual exposure in available light, near full frame.
Note - I've made 12"x15" prints of the second capture, and noise is not noticeable at all, while feather detail is very decent even when viewed at my eyes' MFD.
I tried the 7D / 70-200 f2.8 IS II / 2X III combination. Intitial shots showed severe Front Focus Issues. I talked to the folks at CPS about the setup asking if Microadjustment settings would remember the combination as its own lens, or would it also apply those microadjustments to the 70-200 by its self also. They could not answer that question, so I exchanged that extender for another. I later discovered that the combination is remembered as it's own lens.
Based on the intial bad results with the replacement extender (and really wanting that combination to work for me) I tackled lens Microadjustment. What I discovered was at 400mm, the setup was fairly accurate, (although also somewhat inconsistant) with little or no adjustement needed, but at 200mm I needed to adjust focusing to +12 on the -20 to +20 scale. I decided this was not going to work for me, so I returned the second extender.
I understand that lenses and extenders are built to tolerance ranges, and if the tolerances of the lens and extender are at the oposite ends of that range, problems could result. CPS suggested I borrow one of their 2x's to compare, as the ones I purchased may have be built together with similar tolerances towards one end of the scale. I have not tried that yet. I may give the 1.4x a shot but I really wanted to get to 400mm.
I think my 70-200 just doesn't play nice with extenders.
I had to use 12 for my 7D and the 70-200II with the 2XtC II. It works fine now. With the 70-200L II, it doesn't need an adjustment. I don't use the 7D too much as I prefer my full frame bodies but if you don't crop and keep to a low ISO, it does ok, IMO. I shot these yesterday.
More experimental than artistic, a moon shot with the 400/2,8 IS, 2X TC II and 2X TC III stacked. Resolution is approximately 50% of original.
It tried to autofocus, but the f/11 lens/converter combination would not allow that. I did get it to autofocus during live view, however, and it seems to be pretty accurate. A bit better than I could do manually with 10X magnification on the LCD panel, but I was experiencing some vibration that interfered with manually manipulating the focus ring.
It seems that 1600 mm amplifies minor shake A LOT!
Edit - a little more information - ISO 1600, 1600 mm, f/18 (exif says 9, need to add 2 stops), 1/160 with some contrast and exposure tweaks in DPP.
Canon 5D3, 400/2.8 IS, Canon 2X II and 2X III teleconverters.
Tom_W wrote:
More experimental than artistic, a moon shot with the 400/2,8 IS, 2X TC II and 2X TC III stacked. Resolution is approximately 50% of original.
It tried to autofocus, but the f/11 lens/converter combination would not allow that. I did get it to autofocus during live view, however, and it seems to be pretty accurate. A bit better than I could do manually with 10X magnification on the LCD panel, but I was experiencing some vibration that interfered with manually manipulating the focus ring.
It seems that 1600 mm amplifies minor shake A LOT!
Edit - a little more information - ISO 1600, 1600 mm, f/13 (exif says 9, need to add 2 stops), 1/160 with some contrast and exposure tweaks in DPP....Show more →
Good lunar detail, Tom!
The camera doesn't recognize the second 2x TC, and if EXIF says 800 mm f/9, actual is 1600 mm, f/18.
I'll correct my post concerning aperture - I wrote it in haste (and may have been enjoying an evening beverage or two, ). I knew I lost 2 stops, but I failed to calculate it correctly.
Romy, your Mars image still looks better than my space station picture from a couple of years ago. I'll see if I can dig it up just for fun. It pales in comparison to yours, but to be fair, I was dealing with extreme ISO settings since I don't have a tracking tripod/mount.
Edit - here it is...
I shot it with the 7D at ISO 3200, using the 400/2.8 and a 2X teleconverter. I don't recall if I had stacked the 1.4X with that or not, but I think that because of light limitations, I chose to stay with 800 mm and f/5.6 instead of 1120 mm and f/8.
Tom_W wrote:
Romy, your Mars image still looks better than my space station picture from a couple of years ago. I'll see if I can dig it up just for fun. It pales in comparison to yours, but to be fair, I was dealing with extreme ISO settings since I don't have a tracking tripod/mount.
Edit - here it is...
I shot it with the 7D at ISO 3200, using the 400/2.8 and a 2X teleconverter. I don't recall if I had stacked the 1.4X with that or not, but I think that because of light limitations, I chose to stay with 800 mm and f/5.6 instead of 1120 mm and f/8....Show more →
The solar panels are easily recognizable and that makes it a good ISS attempt, Tom.
I've been shooting the ISS with various combos, and I'm posting below some of the results. Looks like the least bad is the one with a 7D + 400 2.8 + 5.6x worth of TCs (first image).
I'm impressed with the results you get using multiple teleconverters stacked. Though I've done well with the 1.4X/2X combination, my above moon shot was the first decent attempt using 2-2X teleconverters.
I'll have to keep the 400 out for a few days and see if I can capture some bird images, since those are so very nice.
Ernie Aubert wrote:
Did you reject it only because of the -12 adjustment, or a broader set of considerations?
I rejected it because the micro adjustment was different when I zoomed out to 200mm. If I could get AF results the same as live view autofocus, I would be have been extremely happy.
). I knew I lost 2 stops, but I failed to calculate it correctly.
