ke3vg wrote:
Joshua, I love your Owl pics, unfortunately I am not able to find any place for Owl in Wash. DC area, please, keep it coming.
Thank you very much, Mukesh! I just came back from the owl site... yet again. I will post some flight images later but here is an image using the 2X of a perching owl. This is the first time I used that TC. Since I wanted to see how good the optical quality of the lens plus the 2X TC, and the owl was a stationary target, I used my A7r III for that shot. I didn't want to bother the owl and approached it too close. So the resulting image was cropped. I am also attaching a larger crop of that image. And yes, I am pleased with the way the lens renders feather fine details of the owl at 1200mm and wide open.
AGeoJO wrote:
Thank you very much, Mukesh! I just came back from the owl site... yet again. I will post some flight images later but here is an image using the 2X of a perching owl. This is the first time I used that TC. Since I wanted to see how good the optical quality of the lens plus the 2X TC, and the owl was a stationary target, I used my A7r III for that shot. I didn't want to bother the owl and approached it too close. So the resulting image was cropped. I am also attaching a larger crop of that image. And yes, I am pleased with the way the lens renders feather fine details of the owl at 1200mm and wide open....Show more →
Once again, 1200mm is looking sweet with this lens.....basically 1200mm is the reason I'd buy the 600 over the 400 because otherwise I'd prefer the smaller size of the 400 even if I rarely shot it at 400. It also reminds me how far behind the Nikon 2xTCIII is. These type of 1200mm results are what I was used to with the Canon 600II/2xTCIII but the benefit of the Sony system will be not having to MFA carefully to get these types of results and much more consistent hit rate even with high-density sensors.
arbitrage wrote:
Once again, 1200mm is looking sweet with this lens.....basically 1200mm is the reason I'd buy the 600 over the 400 because otherwise I'd prefer the smaller size of the 400 even if I rarely shot it at 400. It also reminds me how far behind the Nikon 2xTCIII is. These type of 1200mm results are what I was used to with the Canon 600II/2xTCIII but the benefit of the Sony system will be not having to MFA carefully to get these types of results and much more consistent hit rate even with high-density sensors.
And the tracking on the A7r III is decent, too. So, I feel confident that it will do even better on the A7r IV plus the sensor of the A7r IV is denser. Although I used my A9 for most of the tracking today, I ended up using more my 1.4X TC on the GM 600mm or the bare lens to get more keepers. To be honest, it is tough to track erratic flying birds at 1200mm . I had to use my tripod for the setup and a part of the reason is my delayed reaction is just that...
I continue to ask myself how you get along with high shutter speed, diaphragm and ISO and long lenses, I struggle to get decent looking images after 6 p.m. this time of the year, for fast flying birds like swallows, with 100-400 GM, so I question which advantage can give a 1200mm f8 lens in practical terms if you are constrained to shoot it from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. or limit to static subjects. Am I wrong somehow?
fadeslayer wrote:
I continue to ask myself how you get along with high shutter speed, diaphragm and ISO and long lenses, I struggle to get decent looking images after 6 p.m. this time of the year, for fast flying birds like swallows, with 100-400 GM, so I question which advantage can give a 1200mm f8 lens in practical terms if you are constrained to shoot it from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. or limit to static subjects. Am I wrong somehow?
Given that, very nice results with TC2x.
In my experience, when I have 1200mm (which I did for many years with Canon 600II/2xTCIII) I didn't view it as a BIF combo. I used it for perched and floating birds. I did shoot a few BIF with 1200mm but certainly not swallows...think eagles
Big lenses in general (even if you were shooting a 400 f/2.8 bare lens) aren't the best for very fast/erratic birds like swallows in flight. Unfortunately that means that I usually shoot swallows in good light because usually I use f/5.6 lenses to get a smaller, easier to maneuver lens.
arbitrage wrote:
Once again, 1200mm is looking sweet with this lens.....basically 1200mm is the reason I'd buy the 600 over the 400 because otherwise I'd prefer the smaller size of the 400 even if I rarely shot it at 400. It also reminds me how far behind the Nikon 2xTCIII is. These type of 1200mm results are what I was used to with the Canon 600II/2xTCIII but the benefit of the Sony system will be not having to MFA carefully to get these types of results and much more consistent hit rate even with high-density sensors.
Joshua, great quality at the 1200mm, I am not a big user of 2X TC, but I do use it for stationery subject and it does great job. Love the details of feathers! Also, I do use A7Riii for the Eagles in flight and it does good job tracking, not much complaint, other than AF does slow down quite bit at the low light situations.
I was never happy with Nikon 2X TC version iii, some time it did gave me acceptable images for the stationery subject at shorter distances but not to great at far subjects.
So you have places where they fly closer than me, I can't find a 400mm-ready spot, I feel I'd need 600 or 800mm to do that better, but it comes in the land of the dark (f/5.6 to f/8 or f/11, if I stay with 100-400 GM, or 6.3 if I'd company with 200-600). So my thought of 1200mm, but maybe a 500GM would do the tricks.
arbitrage wrote:
In my experience, when I have 1200mm (which I did for many years with Canon 600II/2xTCIII) I didn't view it as a BIF combo. I used it for perched and floating birds. I did shoot a few BIF with 1200mm but certainly not swallows...think eagles
Big lenses in general (even if you were shooting a 400 f/2.8 bare lens) aren't the best for very fast/erratic birds like swallows in flight. Unfortunately that means that I usually shoot swallows in good light because usually I use f/5.6 lenses to get a smaller, easier to maneuver lens.
OK, let's end this derive and come back to images, keep on publishing stunning work!
AGeoJO wrote:
Thank you very much, Mukesh! I just came back from the owl site... yet again. I will post some flight images later but here is an image using the 2X of a perching owl. This is the first time I used that TC. Since I wanted to see how good the optical quality of the lens plus the 2X TC, and the owl was a stationary target, I used my A7r III for that shot. I didn't want to bother the owl and approached it too close. So the resulting image was cropped. I am also attaching a larger crop of that image. And yes, I am pleased with the way the lens renders feather fine details of the owl at 1200mm and wide open....Show more →
fadeslayer wrote:
I continue to ask myself how you get along with high shutter speed, diaphragm and ISO and long lenses, I struggle to get decent looking images after 6 p.m. this time of the year, for fast flying birds like swallows, with 100-400 GM, so I question which advantage can give a 1200mm f8 lens in practical terms if you are constrained to shoot it from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. or limit to static subjects. Am I wrong somehow?
Given that, very nice results with TC2x.
I hear you loud and clear. Like Geoff that replied to your post previously, I do not consider this lens plus a 2X TC as a continuous setup for BIF but more for perching birds. I would say that 1200mm is still doable to capture images of larger cranes with more predictable flight path at a famous birding spot in New Mexico but not for local smaller birds.
I was in Costa Rica twice and I am planning of going to a similar country sometime this year. Under certain circumstances, the distance between you and perching birds in the darkish rain forest is too far. On the last trip, I had to use my 400mm lens and stacked a 1.4X TC with a 2X TC to get close to 1200mm. The resulting image was okay and the GM 600mm plus 2X TC is for sure better than that setup I used before. Plus, the AF capability of the setup is still excellent and under those circumstances in the rain forest, I would be happy to get just a single or maybe two frames of those birds in flight. I am referring to colorful quetzals.
You may have missed it, @shalu posted great images of this lens plus 2X TC on page 4 of this thread. And, yes, some BIF images, too. I am not sure that I am up to doing that for smaller birds. Please take a look at them.
On a similar note of using TCs, a shooting buddy of mine stacked 2 TCs. The same as shalu did. So, he puts an extension tube between the 1.4X and the 2X TC. The AF still works, too. You cannot get the lens to focus to infinity but still I am surprised that it can focus to approximately 20m or some 60 feet or so. I saw the result and it was more than just decent. So, that will be my next project. I realize that I won’t be able to get the opportunity for stacking TCs often but it is there if the opportunity shows up. I will try that tomorrow and post the resulting images here.
Hi Chris, optically, for sure it is up there. What I believe is important here and this lens offers that, is the AF performance. I used Canon lenses prior to this. Both Canon EF 400mm f/2.8 Mark II and EF 600mm f/4 Mark II are optically superb lenses and in that aspect, they delivered plentifully. As matter of fact, I compared images in my library, of course, the shooting conditions were not the same, and the images taken with either of those lenses are impressive as well. Maybe, and that MAYBE, Canon’s sensor technology and AF performance are behind those of Sony currently, but the optical performance of their long white lenses are superb.
Another factor that makes this lens desirable is the weight. Together with the Canon Mark III version of this lens they are considered as the lightest 600mm lenses at this point. Not only this lens is fairly light, and everything is relative, of course, the center of gravity is further back towards the camera, making it easier to handle and use under real-life conditions.
AGeoJO wrote:
Hi Chris, optically, for sure it is up there. What I believe is important here and this lens offers that, is the AF performance. I used Canon lenses prior to this. Both Canon EF 400mm f/2.8 Mark II and EF 600mm f/4 Mark II are optically superb lenses and in that aspect, they delivered plentifully. As matter of fact, I compared images in my library, of course, the shooting conditions were not the same, and the images taken with either of those lenses are impressive as well. Maybe, and that MAYBE, Canon’s sensor technology and AF performance are behind those of Sony currently, but the optical performance of their long white lenses are superb.
Another factor that makes this lens desirable is the weight. Together with the Canon Mark III version of this lens they are considered as the lightest 600mm lenses at this point. Not only this lens is fairly light, and everything is relative, of course, the center of gravity is further back towards the camera, making it easier to handle and use under real-life conditions.
Joshua, Mukesh, Shalu and all the others who have posted your images here, thank you, they are indeed a treat.
I am late to the party, just received my 600 yesterday. Walked around with it in my backyard doing some birds on the feeder and it does feel slightly heavier and bulkier than the 400 2.8 but so much easier than the Canon MkII was.
Coming from a long experience with Canon, Sony is really so much nicer. Have not used the MkIII versions of the Canon super teles, but I had MkII of the 500, 600 and the 400 DO. With the 1DX2, these were heavy and cumbersome to use handheld, except for the last one of course.
I had sworn never to go back to superteles, having moved to Sony for, among other reasons, the form factor and yet, here I am. Truly we are all victims of our own ambitions!
Primus wrote:
Joshua, Mukesh, Shalu and all the others who have posted your images here, thank you, they are indeed a treat.
I am late to the party, just received my 600 yesterday. Walked around with it in my backyard doing some birds on the feeder and it does feel slightly heavier and bulkier than the 400 2.8 but so much easier than the Canon MkII was.
Coming from a long experience with Canon, Sony is really so much nicer. Have not used the MkIII versions of the Canon super teles, but I had MkII of the 500, 600 and the 400 DO. With the 1DX2, these were heavy and cumbersome to use handheld, except for the last one of course.
I had sworn never to go back to superteles, having moved to Sony for, among other reasons, the form factor and yet, here I am. Truly we are all victims of our own ambitions!
Yes, we certainly are the victims our own ambitions, for sure! And they heck why not .
____________________________________
Here is one of the sequential images of a burrowing owl while parachuting down almost vertically... Again, the f/4 aperture yields fairly smooth bokeh...
AGeoJO wrote:
Yes, we certainly are the victims our own ambitions, for sure! And they heck why not .
____________________________________
Here is one of the sequential images of a burrowing owl while parachuting down almost vertically... Again, the f/4 aperture yields fairly smooth bokeh...
Joshua, another great shot, I am feeling envy. The 1200mm shot is just amazing.
Premus, welcome to club, looking forward to see some great shots.
I went to another birding location and it was kind of disappointing first due to the shortage of interesting birds. Then I saw some dragonflies and I ended up shooting a few... At the end of the outing I did see some interesting birds. But here is one of the dragonfly images. I had to use a TC for more reach...
Shalu, I am impressed that you were able to use the 2X TC for in flight images! Keep’m coming, please!
I stacked two TCs yesterday in the backyard and again, I was pleased with the results. I will go out and play with that setup for real world images of..... owls . We will see...
Excellent performance with 2x, I do try to use 2x but little hesitant due to my past experience with Nikon 2X. I had some great result with 400 and 2x. Will try more.
. I had to use my tripod for the setup and a part of the reason is my delayed reaction is just that...
.
