Blue Rock Birds
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.2 #1 · Top Value Mid-Tier Lens Upgrade for Bird/Wildlife | |
Cliff L. wrote:
I've owned a couple of copies of the RF 200-800, and didn't like it.
It's hard to beat the RF 100-500L, even with a TC attached:
Gorgeous, thank you for sharing. I know it's not just a matter of slapping a nice lens on and suddenly everything looks amazing, but the fact that it *can* deliver this shot is inspiring.
bman212121 wrote:
My 2 cents. If you are birding then the comfortable zone is north of 600mm on a full frame in the 45 - 50MP area (Which is around 20MP on a crop). For me it doesn't feel like there's enough lens until you are at that level, and you'll continue to seek options until you can get there. (It's fairly common if you're only at the 20 - 24MP level on Full Frame they will use it with a 600 / 4 + 1.4x, which is 840mm)
The 70 - 300 won't ever get there, the 100 - 400 IS II could with a 2x but it really doesn't pair well with it. That leaves the 400 DO II, the 100 - 500, and the 200 - 800. The resolution out of the R7 would maybe make the 400 DO II with a 1.4x viable, but it would probably pair better with a 2x. But that's a huge ask of the end user to make work, and you'd have to get an EF teleconverter to go with the lens.
The RF teleconverter won't work with an RF - EF adapter, so it can't be used with any of the EF lenses. You need an EF teleconveter that's in front of the adapter.
https://community.usa.canon.com/t5/EF-RF-Lenses/Using-RF-Teleconverter-with-EF-lenses/td-p/570402
The RF 100 - 500 is likely the best all around-er upgrade you can get at that price level. You can make good use of it without the TC on the lens, and still toss it on when the light is good. I certainly can also understand the play for the 200 - 800mm for birding as well. One thing you have to think about is that you're already using F8 and only at 400mm. 800mm F9 is still almost 2 stops more light for the same subject, and it's going to be significantly better. The biggest disadvantage is that at 400mm the 200 - 800 ends up almost being a wash compared to your current lens, and a 100 - 500mm will be better at 400mm. So it's nice to have options but I don't know if there is a clear winner as each combination will have it's strengths.
EDIT: One point worth mentioning. If you are already using 400 + 1.4x TC (560mm) on a crop, that's like framing with around 900mm on full frame. The 500 + 1.4x (700mm) is over 1100mm, and a full 800mm is like having almost 1300mm. Even for the people with 600 / 4 + 2x they are not using 1200mm that often not because they can't, but because if you need that much lens the atmosphere can be limiting so the best option is to get closer and not have to use as much focal length....Show more →
This strikes me as well-reasoned and persuasive, thank you for working through the options in detail.
melcat wrote:
Yes, here’s an example:
https://live.staticflickr.com/1449/23657676844_0dc1c48479_b.jpg
Eastern Rosella by Frank Ernens, on Flickr
1/200s f/8 EF 100–400mm f/4.5–5.6 L IS II @ 400mm on EF 1.4× II ISO 400
Canon 1D Mk III (1.3 crop, 10Mpx), uncropped
Image copyright Francis Ernens
The slightly flat look is the processing; the modern version of it in Capture One is more vibrant. There’s some motion blur because it was either that or raise the ISO more than I wanted to. With a modern camera and the way I process now those problems would go away.
This was the Mk II teleconverter. The Mk III has slightly better image quality and the AF is noticeably faster. But here the Mk II kept up with a feeding bird (the EXIF says it was shot at 10fps with servo AF, single point + surround assistance) and this and the preceding frame in the burst are in focus.
According to the EXIF this was shot at about 12m distance. The “full frame equivalent focal length” was 400mm × 1.4 × 1.3 = 728mm. Today I would use my 100–500 on a 1.4×, giving me 700mm f/10....Show more →
Thanks for sharing the photo and details on the Mk II/III. This sounds to me like, if my goal is catching birds in flight, I'd probably need the Mk III, which honestly dissuades me from this specific idea (EF 100-400, RF 200-800).
melcat wrote:
One of the problems I had with the 300 + 1.4× II was that its focus couldn’t keep up with the 10fps of my1D Mk III. The fix was to set AF release priority to “focus” in servo, so the camera would slow down as much as it had to for each frame to be in focus. With the R3 (and your R7), this is no longer possible: in servo, these cameras always use release priority. So you have to do one of the following:
1. Set one-shot AF release priority to “focus” and use one-shot.
2. Continue to use servo + continuous but reduce the frame rate.
But supposedly mirrorless cameras do a bit more racking forwards and backwards than DSLRs so will be more demanding on focus speed. A lens like this with slow focussing is better on a DSLR.
My R3 and 100–500 can have problems with this kind of scene. It’s just something mirrorless cameras are weak at compared to DSLRs. You might be able to use a polariser to reduce the glare but of course that alters the mood. Giving up on subject detection and tracking completely, and just putting a small AF point on the bird manually, sometimes helps....Show more →
Since it seems increasingly likely I'll end up with a 100-500, I will make use of this advice and hopefully overcome the challenges involved. Thank you for explaining some of the more granular aspects of the issues I've encountered -- I'm definitely still in the "don't know what I don't know" phase of learning, so figuring out which of the more subtle camera adjustments are impactful is super useful to me. I am extremely grateful for all the thoughtful responses this thread has yielded. I wasn't quite sure what to expect, but this is everything I could have hoped for and more.
|
