800D + 100-400 f5.6 II + Extender 1.4x III AUTOFOCUS WORKS ON F8 27 POINTS

Hi.. Just bought my 100-400 f5.6 II + Extender 1.4x III and the big question was will it autofocus at f8 and at the 27 AF points on the t7i (800D) like the manual says it does. YES@@@@@@!!!!!!!

And... it is FAST FAST FAST, BRIGHT BRIGHT BRIGHT and the IS is amazing!!!! My Tam 18-400 would wobble in the VF at 400 (640 on my crop)..

The new lens combo achieves 960mm (with crop factor) and is stable stable stable at 1/800...

I haven't tested it yet.. Will do so this afternoon

Yippee!!!!

Here are a few images from today's test shooting

f8, 1/800, ISO 640, EC-1 full zoom 896mm

f8, 1/1000, ISO 1250, +1 , 250mm

f8, 1/1000, ISO 500, EC + 2/3, 896mm

cdmazoff wrote:

The new lens combo achieves 960mm

Brilliant it works and you like it.

To be clear it is only 560mm    That's the laws of physics.  (Your camera simply throws away the off-centre picture image by not being able to record it by the impact of a small sensor).  You could get exactly the same image and magnification with an equal high density pixel full frame camera and 560mm.

Enjoy though

KevinRA wrote:

cdmazoff wrote:

The new lens combo achieves 960mm

Brilliant it works and you like it.

To be clear it is only 560mm That's the laws of physics. (Your camera simply throws away the off-centre picture image by not being able to record it by the impact of a small sensor). You could get exactly the same image and magnification with an equal high density pixel full frame camera and 560mm.

Enjoy though

Where do you get a 61.4 MP FF with EF mount?

I the the OP is excited about AF @ f/8 giving a 35mm equivalent FOV of 960mm. Like the Sony RX100 IV "has" a 24-70mm f/1.8-2.8 zoom lens.

(My latest photo was taken with a 4.3mm f/1.7 lens. But the photo doesn't look that wide:-O)

Niggle niggle niggle. Yes.. it's only 560mm. But I'm very short and I live in Canada so it all seems so much larger to me

Blue herons?  Looks so much like Cocois.
Can you tell how avid a birder I am?

Myrgjorf wrote:

KevinRA wrote:

cdmazoff wrote:

The new lens combo achieves 960mm

Brilliant it works and you like it.

To be clear it is only 560mm That's the laws of physics. (Your camera simply throws away the off-centre picture image by not being able to record it by the impact of a small sensor). You could get exactly the same image and magnification with an equal high density pixel full frame camera and 560mm.

Enjoy though

Where do you get a 61.4 MP FF with EF mount?

5DSR = 50 MP. Plus no AA filter.  Difference in linear resolution is trivial between 50 and 61 MP.

It's still not 896mm or 960mm.  It's just 560mm on a crop sensor which throws away half the image - in terms of everything not least depth of field.

Nice images yes all being well.  But it's a myth that crop cameras somehow increase your focal length - they just reduce your angle viewing by cropping the image and not using part of the lens capacity.

cdmazoff wrote:

Niggle niggle niggle. Yes.. it's only 560mm. But I'm very short and I live in Canada so it all seems so much larger to me

Enjoy - it's a great lens and great canon at last now make f/8 AF possible on more bodies than the 1 series

KevinRA wrote:

Myrgjorf wrote:

KevinRA wrote:

cdmazoff wrote:

The new lens combo achieves 960mm

Brilliant it works and you like it.

To be clear it is only 560mm That's the laws of physics. (Your camera simply throws away the off-centre picture image by not being able to record it by the impact of a small sensor). You could get exactly the same image and magnification with an equal high density pixel full frame camera and 560mm.

Enjoy though

Where do you get a 61.4 MP FF with EF mount?

5DSR = 50 MP. Plus no AA filter. Difference in linear resolution is trivial between 50 and 61 MP.

I think the 5DSR is a little more expensive than the 800D. And it still doesn't have the pixel density of the 800D.

It's still not 896mm or 960mm. It's just 560mm on a crop sensor which throws away half the image - in terms of everything not least depth of field.

Nice images yes all being well. But it's a myth that crop cameras somehow increase your focal length - they just reduce your angle viewing by cropping the image and not using part of the lens capacity.

Of course 560 mm is 560 mm. Just like the 4.3 mm f/1.7 lens on my smartphone is a 4.3 mm f/1.7 lens even it's photos doesn't look like a photo from a 4.3 mm f/1.7 lens from my FF (I am still looking for that lens). But FOV, "magnification", pixel density and FPS are more important than FL in many situations.

The crop doesn't throws away half of the image. It just uses a smaller part of the image circle from the lens. Just like a FF also only uses part of the image circle. The crop camera just uses the very best part of the image circle without sharpness fall off, vignetting etc. The FF often has to use the lesser quality part of the image circle.

FF isn't THE optimal size for a image sensor. It's just a standard that the market and the industry has agreed on for some purposes. I guess medium format shooters may talk about the poor IQ and DOF control from the small FF sensors when they meet. We as FF shotter are happy, though, that we don't have to lug around with (or pay for) a 600 mm FF equivalent lens for medium format. Just like crop shooter may be happy that they  don't have to lug around with (or pay for) a 600 mm FF lens.

I am sure you know all this but I often feel that some FF owners are very arrogant towards crop shooters.  I have both FF and crop as I am doing some wild life photo. Many of the wild life photographers I know also have both FF and crop. Especially many Nikon shooters use the D500 a lot. Not because they can't afford a FF - they have FF's. But because the D500 sometimes is the best tool because of pixel density, FPS, AF, FOV in the OVF...

I don't what to start a long discussion that has been taken many times before, so I will leave this thread with this comment.

I don't know how this got hijacked to talking about other things.. So I'll wind it up with another photo from this new combination.. I hope you enjoy it. I hope you all get out and enjoy your cameras!!

f10, 1/800, ISO 800, 890mm (full zoom + TC 1.4)

cdmazoff wrote:

I don't know how this got hijacked to talking about other things.. So I'll wind it up with another photo from this new combination.. I hope you enjoy it. I hope you all get out and enjoy your cameras!!

https://www.flickr.com/photos/37432113@N08/

How far away were you? Is that cropped?

Dave wrote:

cdmazoff wrote:

I don't know how this got hijacked to talking about other things.. So I'll wind it up with another photo from this new combination.. I hope you enjoy it. I hope you all get out and enjoy your cameras!!

https://www.flickr.com/photos/37432113@N08/

How far away were you? Is that cropped?

Hi.. my exif doesn't tell me the disance. It only tells me that I was at full zoom. I'm new at all of this. The final image is a crop of the original, which was a 6000x4000. The image posted to DPR is 2400x1388. Does this help you? I was standing pretty close.. Maybe 25 feet.. I surprised her. Most of my subjects are usually far away.

Here are 2 I took today that were quite far away... (did not fill the VF at all)... and the light was wrong.. but....whatever

Snowy plover.. Lighting was tricky.. I have a lot to learn

View: original size

Whimbrel

View: original size

cdmazoff wrote:

I don't know how this got hijacked to talking about other things..

Well, I can tell you why: You are using wrong terms and you did it again! Your combo has a FL of 560mm shot on APS-C. If you write 896mm than add “FF equivalent”. And if you find it important to add this information, you should add “cropped in post” as well otherwise it doesn’t make sense in the first place.

But back to your topic: Nice shots and you have a nice combo. I am thinking about getting the same and your posts encourage me to do so. I have an 80D and I was not aware that AF would work with the 1.4 extender.

So I'll wind it up with another photo from this new combination.. I hope you enjoy it. I hope you all get out and enjoy your cameras!!

f10, 1/800, ISO 800, 890mm (full zoom + TC 1.4)

Pepege wrote:

I am thinking about getting the same and your posts encourage me to do so. I have an 80D and I was not aware that AF would work with the 1.4 extender.

Another one of those pesky details in the manual.  
And a reason I am also considering the combination.

Isn't it great that it does?  BTW: I was having focus issues today at a Lagoon with lots of glare.. At the end of the day I switched from Single Point AF (centre) to 9 point AF and it really seemed to help.. Focusing was quicker and more accurate.

CD

cdmazoff wrote:

Here are 2 I took today that were quite far away... (did not fill the VF at all)... and the light was wrong.. but....whatever

Snowy plover.. Lighting was tricky.. I have a lot to learn

View: original size

Whimbrel

View: original size

Nice birds

Like the whimbrel, we seem in the UK to have a good number of these passing by right now.

Just a suggestion - it seems the highlights blown on these? - (e.g. "whites" essentially pure white little detail in highlights). Suggest consider taking some images with less + EV / exposure  compensation (or otherwise metering for the wider scene) to preserve the highlights and lighten shadows on the computer later? You can drop the ISO too if exposing darker which then gives more freedom for this in terms of dynamics range, especially if shooting RAW and you should still be able to pull out shadow detail such as eye shine normally without too much noise.   You'll then get a more natural looking image with extra highlight detail - will help in both of these 2.

The 3rd heron in your original post looks great.  Great capture.

(And have been out enjoying my camera too - I also own and like the 100-400 )

KevinRA wrote:

cdmazoff wrote:

Here are 2 I took today that were quite far away... (did not fill the VF at all)... and the light was wrong.. but....whatever

Black-bellied plover.. Lighting was tricky.. I have a lot to learn

View: original size

Whimbrel

View: original size

Nice birds

Like the whimbrel, we seem in the UK to have a good number of these passing by right now.

Just a suggestion - it seems the highlights blown on these? - (e.g. "whites" essentially pure white little detail in highlights). Suggest consider taking some images with less + EV / exposure compensation (or otherwise metering for the wider scene) to preserve the highlights and lighten shadows on the computer later? You can drop the ISO too if exposing darker which then gives more freedom for this in terms of dynamics range, especially if shooting RAW and you should still be able to pull out shadow detail such as eye shine normally without too much noise. You'll then get a more natural looking image with extra highlight detail - will help in both of these 2.

The 3rd heron in your original post looks great. Great capture.

(And have been out enjoying my camera too - I also own and like the 100-400 )

Thanks Kevin. I'm meeting with a very advanced photographer to find answers to my EC problems.. I seem to have it under control for dark BIF against a blue sky (+1.3 to 2).. but it's with water and glare .. that I really get confused.. I've seen lots of people use -EC and I'm going dyslexically apoplectic just thinking about it. My pooh brain just doesn't get it yet!!... So, you suggest not metering for the the plover or whimbrel but for the background.. Interesting.. I shall consider that.. All the best to you! CD