Liquidstone wrote:
Looks like you have a great copy of the 400 DO, not bad with a doubler and wide open.
Cadaver wrote:
Brimull, This is one of the best photos I've ever seen from the 400m f4 DO. And it's with a 2X? That's incredible.
Thank you. I recently bought it used. It's not up to my 300mm 2.8 II, but still okay, esp. with a 2X extender. I'm not sure I'll keep it since I've been spending money as though I have it!
brimull wrote:
Canon 400mm DO + 2X III. Slow focus but okay for a large, slow-moving bird.
Great work! Shots like this remind me that this combo is capable of good pictures, and part of the reason I recently picked up a 400mm DO. Since I have a 7D things are complicated somewhat, as I have to stack 1.4 TC's and fool the camera into thinking it's f/5.6, but that being said, AF is very good with decent light, and stopped down just a notch I think the potential is there for usable pictures. I haven't had time to do a lot of practice though...your shot encourages me to get out with the combo asap.
If you have any more post 'em up if you get a chance.
brimull wrote:
Thank you. I recently bought it used. It's not up to my 300mm 2.8 II, but still okay, esp. with a 2X extender. I'm not sure I'll keep it since I've been spending money as though I have it!
Curious- since you have both lenses, how close do you think the IQ is between the 400 DO with a 1.4TC and the 300mm II with the 2xTC? Similar focal length, and while I expect the 300 to be better, just curious by how much.
Another sample from my old Sigmonster - a fruit-dove found only in our islands.
Black-chinned Fruit-dove (Ptilinopus leclancheri, a near Philippine endemic, male, 10 to 11 inch total length)
Habitat - Uncommon in forest patches up to 1500 m.
Shooting info - Mt. Makiling, Laguna, Philippines, January 2, 2007, Canon 350D + Sigmonster (Sigma 300-800 DG) + Canon 2x II, 1600 mm, f/16, ISO 400, 1/60 sec, manual exposure in available light, 475B/3421 support, uncropped full frame resized to 1200x800.
gocolts wrote:
Great work! Shots like this remind me that this combo is capable of good pictures, and part of the reason I recently picked up a 400mm DO. Since I have a 7D things are complicated somewhat, as I have to stack 1.4 TC's and fool the camera into thinking it's f/5.6, but that being said, AF is very good with decent light, and stopped down just a notch I think the potential is there for usable pictures. I haven't had time to do a lot of practice though...your shot encourages me to get out with the combo asap.
If you have any more post 'em up if you get a chance. ...Show more →
Thank you. In keeping with the thread, these three samples were all taken with 400mm DO and the 2X III extender.
Subjectively only, the 300mm 2.8 II is so magnificent IMO, there is no comparison, even under the conditions you mention in your other post. But for reach + moderately fast lens + size/weight (important if you carry long distances, like I do), the 400mm DO can fit the bill.
These three are moderately cropped and moderately sharpened in post. There is no post-processing noise reduction so you can judge the entire image, including the background.
How light is the new 400/2.8 II? Outside of a shooting emergency, I wouldn't have much inclination to try that with the original 400/2.8 IS. It craves a tripod.
Tommy, as you know, the original 400 f/2.8 IS (MkI) was very difficult to shoot with handheld beyond 1/2 hr or so. I used it on a monopod a fair bit.
However, 400 MkII is much lighter (by about one kilogram), therefore extended handheld use becomes feasible for average folks. I can do 2-3 hrs with it OK, before my back starts to ache. Then I place the lens/camera on a monopod, if there is a good reason for me to continue shooting.
Quite often I do a couple of hours with it in the morning, and a couple of hours in the evening, no problems so far.
1 kg - 2.2 pounds lighter. That's significant. Seems, if I recall, about the same weight savings that occurred when they went from the non-IS Mk II to the IS version. I had one of those for a while. Very heavy, and very sharp.
Nice to see all of these! For so long it seemed like the traditional wisdom was to NEVER use a 2x It was fairly hard to overcome the mental block that all my images would look like crap with a 2x. This has been a refreshing bit of real world proof vs test charts accompanied by hot air. I find that images from my 2x and 300mm f/2.8 IS (stopped down to 6.3 or better) rival my 100-400mm wide open, and I have an excellent copy of the 100-400. It will soon be going up for sale though...
Asian Golden-Plover (Pluvialis fulva)
7D + 400 2.8 IS + Canon 2x TC II, 800 mm, f/5.6, ISO 800, 1/250 sec, bean bag, manual exposure in available light, near full frame
Got my 400 f/2.8 II in decent working condition finally, I think. Here are a few from today with the 2X III mounted on the 1DX.
The images of the pet hummers were taken at almost MFD but still cropped about 2.5X (linearly). The image of the Spotted Towhee was cropped about a factor of 2 and was quite a ways away - bigger bird. That of the really large Band-tailed Pigeon was cropped to only about 60%.
Canon 2XTCII, 70-200L II at the long end and the 7D hand held. I really like that IS. My 200L f2 does better and almost seems like no degradation to the IQ.
You guys have posted some insanely great images.
Green tree skink. 7D, 200L f2 and TC 2XII, Skink getting nectar from a banana flower, which had not been documented before.
