First attempt at photographing birds with R, and a question about lenses

I don't shoot birds much at all, but, just for fun, I thought I'd see how my new R copes with the 70-200 F2.8L IS II and 2X III extender. I've been impressed with how well the R works with the 70-200 for runners, but hadn't tried it with the extender (on the R) before today. We have a bird feeder in our front yard, and lots of tiny birds, who hang out in a bush near the feeder, and then fly up to the feeder and back. The first thing I have to say is that I have even more respect for bird photographers after trying this. And second, you really really really need long glass, especially on full frame. I used this combo a bit on my 7DII and M6II, and the extra reach is really noticeable (especially with the pixel density on the M6II). I was standing or sitting on my front porch today, just about 15-20 feet away from the bush and feeder, and the birds were still tiny in the frame at 400mm! Most of the crops that I processed ended up being almost 100%. I reduce images to 2000 pixels on the long side for the web, and most of the crops were between 2000 and 2800 pixels on the long side, so there wasn't much reducing going on at all. Third, that combo is heavy, especially when you add the adapter. Anyway, after about 10-15 minutes of standing still, waiting for the birds to come back after I stepped out of my front door, I got some fun shots, mostly of them perched on branches, waiting their turn for the feeder (got some feeder shots too, but they weren't as interesting). Catching any of them in flight was pure chance (I have managed some birds in flight before, but much bigger ones. These are about 3-4 inches long). Watching them interact reminds me of my two cats, who sometimes have amusing encounters (amusing to us, that is). Here are a few, with accompanying dialogue (I'm sure this was what they were saying):

Hey, you! What's so interesting?

Look out! Here comes trouble.

Don't stand, don't stand so, don't stand so close to me.

Well, if you're going to be like that...

I'm going to leave

Weeeee! Here I go.

I'm going all the way over here...

See, I'm literally miles, er, inches, away from you now

And I'm going to pretend I can't even see you

Are you still here? Why are you pointing that bloody great thing at us? Aren't your arms tired? (yes)

Oh look! Now we're a Bob Marley song.

Blimey mate! What the hell are you doing over there?

What does it look like I'm doing?

This is my swan impression

I'm impressed with the processing latitude of R files. Most of these, as I said, are close to 100% crops, and have had a lot of adjustments.

I have a question for those of you who have made it this far. If I wanted to do more of this, how would a Tamron or Sigma 100-400 compare with my combo of 70-200 + 2X? I know that either the Tamron or Sigma would be a lot lighter (around 2.5lbs, compared with 4lbs), a bit shorter, and only 1/3 stop slower at 400mm (and I shot most of my shots today at F6.3 by accident). But how would the IQ and focusing speed compare? They are both available new for $799. I don't do enough of this kind of shooting to justify spending much more than that (certainly not the RF 100-500, or even the EF 100-400). I like the idea of getting an EF mount lens, so I can also use it on my M6II. Also, how well do either of those lenses take a 1.4X extender? I have a Kenko Pro, and an even older Tamron. I think I'd rather get a 100-400 to use with an extender I already own (if it works) than one of the 150-600 (or 60-600) lenses, which are much bigger and heavier (and more expensive). I know I'd only get 560mm at F9 like that, rather than 600mm at F6.3. But I see this as something I'd use so infrequently that I just can't justify something really big and heavy.

Hoka Hey wrote:

It's like crack. Stop now before you are hooked.

I'd suggest you splurge and get the EF 100-400 ii with the 1.4 or 2x extender even though it's out of you budget. You're not going to be happy with less..

Best,

Thanks for the suggestion, but as you say, that’s out of my budget (way out). The most I’ve ever spent on a lens was around $2100, for my 70-200 F2.8L IS II, and that lens has seen a lot of use, for many different types of subject. I’ve taken over 20,000 shots of runners with it, and many thousands more of conference participants. It’s a real workhorse. I simply can’t justify spending even more than that on a lens I’d use a fraction of the time. Also, one of the attractions, for me, of the Tamron or Sigma versions is the weight saving over my 70-200 + 2X combo. The Canon 100-400 is not much lighter.

Nimonus wrote:

To get a RF600 or RF800
99% of EF user had never tasted this range of focal length.
Worth to try, it's exclusive for Rs.

That’s an interesting suggestion. I have considered it. The 600 is actually cheaper than the Tamron and Sigma 100-400s. But I’d really like a lens I can use on my M6II as well.

I'm not in to this kind of stuff, but maybe you could use extender + 70-200mm on your M6mkII?   That's a very affordable way to increase the pixels per bird!

Maybe it's a better idea not to buy anything, and save those 800 bucks for other and more important purposes in post-Covid times.  In all fairness, the pictures you just showed here are looking really good without enlarging things. If you want better, the fun starts where the weight becomes too much and the price becomes too high.

If you can't stand the temptation, I would get a Sigma rather than a Tamron, as in general Sigma has better compatibility with Canon.  Make sure if you need the Sigma dock, or try to get the updates from the store you're buying the lens.

I got mine for a steal (around $550 used, Amazon, like new)... I did end up returning it.

Why:

Front heavy with the adapter. Despite being the lightest 100-400 on the market, with that adapter, it'll get heavy really fast. It's not just the weight, it's how it handles. I have no problem with a 28-70 f/2L, but a 100-400 adapted? Yup.

.

AF accuracy is 100%. AF speed though, is not. Very slow. It also has trouble with macro and infinity focus swaps and gets confused requiring intervention ie focusing on something intermediary length, or a manual focus pull to resolve.

Image quality is high, especially for the price, weight. SOOC JPEGs above (uncorrected, note vignette). Color is good, bokeh is good, contrast is good. In the end, like you, handling/weight is a big deal. Oddly things like this handled better on my former M6 II, where you held the weight from the lens almost entirely, vs on the R, you hold it from the camera while supporting the lens. Try for yourself but you've been notified if you're looking for a lighter solution, it is, but it doesn't help. It's still an excellent option if that's not your goal, and the bang for buck is phenomenal.

BTW, I'll add, there is still a strong case for this type of photography to happen on a dense crop sensor, be it the M6 Mark II or 90D, where you can't beat the pixel density otherwise cropped. This is a strength of crop bodies (reach).

Oh, one more thought... Those new 600 and 800 DO lenses, mesh with teleconverters. That's a good use of an R for reach purposes, and light, cheap, for what they are.

https://j.mp/36mD86V

$700 USD, and the same size as the 100-400, but with 200mm more reach... And, can tele convert. And, lighter... You get the picture

Too bad no DO for EF-M Canon did have patents for it, so it was considered, but rejected, in the form of a patent...

I'd recommend the Sigma 150-600 C. It's just slightly outside your budget at $899 but you could probably find a good used copy. I tried it on my R5 this past weekend and it was surprisingly sharp, comparable to my 100-400 with 1.4x (and you gain 2/3 of a stop of light), so it should do even better on the R. And you'll still be able to use it on your M6, although that pixel density will be quite a bit more difficult to resolve. It's just a shade over four pounds. A couple samples below (heavy crop on the moon shot):

I have an R + Tamron 100-400, which ok for general wildlife. But as you pointed out, 400mm is still on the short side for birding. For that reason I would steer you towards the RF 800. Even with telephoto lenses, you still need to move as close to the subject as possible a majority of the time.

Someone else mentioned the Tamron 100-400 focus accuracy is excellent, but focus speed is on the slow side - I would agree with that assessment. This is true in particular when moving between near and distant targets.

Another option would be one of the 150-600 lenses if you're ok with the size/weight.

good shots

I'd try the same lens combo on your m6ii

MAC wrote:

good shots

I'd try the same lens combo on your m6ii

I did when I first got the M6II. It works quite well, but is definitely very heavy on that camera. That's one reason I'm interested in the Tamron 100-400, which is a lot lighter. The one time I tried the 70-200 + 2X on my M6II, the birds weren't cooperating. I got one short sequence of a bird a long way away, flying with something in its beak. This is more than a 100% crop (the crop was about 1800 pixels, and my web resizing actually upsized it):

At least I can make out the nut, or whatever it is, in the beak

I got closer to a bunch of geese, but they just wouldn't fly while I was pointing the camera at them. Here's one of them, toying with me:

I think it might be time for me to take off

If you keep pointing that camera at me, you might get some shots of me flying

Yes, I'm definitely in a flying mood

Any second now, I'll take off

I kept thinking that one was about to take off, but s/he never did. So I had to content myself with a cool reflection shot.

Hah! Sucker! I'm just going to sit here laughing at you holding that great heavy thing.

If you are looking to shoot small stationary birds, or far away objects, you can't beat the RF800 with or without an extender, it does a fantastic job. If you want to shoot BIF or fast moving targets, I would recommend an RF 600 and do a little bit of post cropping. THE RF800 is so powerful it can be hard to keep moving targets in the frame if they are relatively close. I have used it for BIF, but the keeper rate is low compared to a smaller MM lens that's easier to keep framed. Although the keepers you do get, really are keepers.

The Tamron is 1135 grams & 199mm

The Sigma is 1160 grams & 182mm

25grams more vs 17mm less.....

More important: Dustin Abbott compared the Sigma against the EF 100-400mm mkII, and the Sigma is as good and sometimes better than the Canon lens, albeit with a slower aperture.

https://dustinabbott.net/2017/06/sigma-100-400mm-f5-6-3-contemporary-review/

Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary Lens 745-101 B&H (bhphotovideo.com)

for $899 and cost of a monopod, this may be your best bet

MAC wrote:

Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary Lens 745-101 B&H (bhphotovideo.com)

for $899 and cost of a monopod, this may be your best bet

Alastair moved to the RF mount very recently, so it might be a bit to early for suggestions like this.

2Kg, 268mm..................

Although not on the R, I got the Tamron 100-400mm for my R6 a few weeks ago and REALLY like it. I got mine for a bit of wildlife and mostly cityscapes but it does well for both.

In terms of birds I’ve only managed to capture these two so far, this is with the M5 which the lens performed very averagely on

On the R6 it’s like a completely different lens though. The only bird photo I’ve taken is this at the zoo

Although it may not be as useful for birds, one of the main reasons I went for the Tamron over the Sigma is it has a (expensive but great quality) tripod collar but the Sigma isn’t designed to support one. I also personally prefer Tamron zooms over Sigma’s.

thunder storm wrote:

MAC wrote:

Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary Lens 745-101 B&H (bhphotovideo.com)

for $899 and cost of a monopod, this may be your best bet

Alastair moved to the RF mount very recently, so it might be a bit to early for suggestions like this.

2Kg, 268mm..................

see link

Re: EOS RP, Super Telephoto Options: Canon EOS R Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

I'll take "fairly decent job" for 1/3 the price for BIF

Alastair, like me, is not into expensive lenses