Canon R7, Ef 100-400 ii and 1.4 Tc Bif Photos. Are these acceptable?

Hi,

I just got the EF 100-400 ii lens and the 1.4 tc mark iii. I was shooting with rf 100-400 but needed something weather sealed and this lens seemed to be the best option as I couldn't afford the rf 100-500.

So this is just the second day out with the combo. No birds around so trying it with some seagulls and just took these shots of the grey heron. Here I'm sharing some shots from a burst. How should I feel about these shots? Are these accaptable or should I expect more?

Thses are not edited, just cropped to %100 and exported as jpeg from lightroom. As you can see some are in focus some are not.

I use double bbf one for eye af and the other one is a spot af. I used eye af for taking the shots. f9, 1/1600, ISO 640-800. EFC shutter mode. H+. Case 2 with tracking set to -2.

So far, other than shooting some boring bif pictures I couldn't find anytihing to shoot. I dont want to regret my purchase. I really want to like the lens and tc combo.

What do you think about the pictures?

I would expect the eyes to be pin sharp. 
if these are 100% crops then you must have been a long way away with that combo. Nothing can replace getting closer.

light looks pretty flat.

plus the other problem is that herons can be pretty boring subjects unless you get them catching their dinner

In my testing with EF 100-400 II lens and a bunch of different teleconverters, including the Mark III Canon ones, there was no improvement with any of them over using the lens by itself and resizing. That was using a Canon 5DS. The pixel pitch on the R7 is smaller than with the 5DS, so I would expect no improvement on the R7 either. The lens simply isn't sharp enough to gain an advantage with the TC. But maybe you have a sharper lens than I have. It doesn't appear so, though, from the photos.

For your first outing I’m glad you got something to show, my early shots were all birds on a branch. I’ve never had much luck with TCs though, images seemed soft so it sits in the drawer

Some of these - I'd say yes OK and as expected.

https://1.img-dpreview.com/files/p/E~forums/66890948/82ffd85795fe4dba8e529ea4d3f64214

So the R7 is in effect already a 1.4X TC over a 7D or 7DII - which the 100-400 when it came out was designed for. So in effect 1.4X TC on the R7 is like a 2X on the 7D - and the rule then was only the best prime lenses were really worth it with 2X TC's.

You are also at ISO 640-800 - so at pixel level will see some noise at 100% on the R7. Take the sharpest ones - put through DXO deep prime XD with lens sharpness off - then try topaz sharpen AI to sharpen up and some of these will then likely look OK.

I never bother with the 1.4X TC on the EF100-400 with the M6II, R10 or R7. Not worth it.

Steve Fink wrote:

Not a fan of the cropping. When you say %100 crop, does that mean you no cropping, untouched cropping? If so, you probably needed to drop the full zoom back a bit.

The bird was small in the frame so zoomed to 1:1 and cropped. Applied the same crop to all the frames.

KevinRA wrote:

Some of these - I'd say yes OK and as expected.

https://1.img-dpreview.com/files/p/E~forums/66890948/82ffd85795fe4dba8e529ea4d3f64214

So the R7 is in effect already a 1.4X TC over a 7D or 7DII - which the 100-400 when it came out was designed for. So in effect 1.4X TC on the R7 is like a 2X on the 7D - and the rule then was only the best prime lenses were really worth it with 2X TC's.

You are also at ISO 640-800 - so at pixel level will see some noise at 100% on the R7. Take the sharpest ones - put through DXO deep prime XD with lens sharpness off - then try topaz sharpen AI to sharpen up and some of these will then likely look OK.

I never bother with the 1.4X TC on the EF100-400 with the M6II, R10 or R7. Not worth it.

Yes when you zoom so much it starts to look noisy. Normally I do the same as you mention. Run through dxo first and then edit in lightroom. So 1.4 tc doesn't improve iq. I should use it when the bird fiils the frame then. Maybe one stop closing at f11?

Mark B. wrote:

Are these cropped, or did you downsize them to 1.7mp? Either way, they're all soft. I guess what you consider acceptable is up to you.

These are cropped and I tried to put the bird in the center when cropping. Personally I was expecting a better quality. I just asked to be sure if I was doing something wrong or these are as good as it gets.

Victor Engel wrote:

In my testing with EF 100-400 II lens and a bunch of different teleconverters, including the Mark III Canon ones, there was no improvement with any of them over using the lens by itself and resizing. That was using a Canon 5DS. The pixel pitch on the R7 is smaller than with the 5DS, so I would expect no improvement on the R7 either. The lens simply isn't sharp enough to gain an advantage with the TC. But maybe you have a sharper lens than I have. It doesn't appear so, though, from the photos.

Are there sample variations in this lens? I read the first version really suffers from this.

So no gain with the tc at all? I saw some great images on the net even with the 2.0 tc.

OlcayK wrote:

KevinRA wrote:

Some of these - I'd say yes OK and as expected.

https://1.img-dpreview.com/files/p/E~forums/66890948/82ffd85795fe4dba8e529ea4d3f64214

So the R7 is in effect already a 1.4X TC over a 7D or 7DII - which the 100-400 when it came out was designed for. So in effect 1.4X TC on the R7 is like a 2X on the 7D - and the rule then was only the best prime lenses were really worth it with 2X TC's.

You are also at ISO 640-800 - so at pixel level will see some noise at 100% on the R7. Take the sharpest ones - put through DXO deep prime XD with lens sharpness off - then try topaz sharpen AI to sharpen up and some of these will then likely look OK.

I never bother with the 1.4X TC on the EF100-400 with the M6II, R10 or R7. Not worth it.

Yes when you zoom so much it starts to look noisy. Normally I do the same as you mention. Run through dxo first and then edit in lightroom. So 1.4 tc doesn't improve iq. I should use it when the bird fiils the frame then. Maybe one stop closing at f11?

Hi

Problem with f/11 is on the R7 you are now into more significant diffraction softening territory.... plus one stop worse noise and dynamic range over f/8.

I own and like the EF 100-400 and dont want to shell out for the RF 100-500.  I just accept smaller but sharper and high hit rate images when using it without a TC on R10/F7/M6II

OlcayK wrote:

Victor Engel wrote:

In my testing with EF 100-400 II lens and a bunch of different teleconverters, including the Mark III Canon ones, there was no improvement with any of them over using the lens by itself and resizing. That was using a Canon 5DS. The pixel pitch on the R7 is smaller than with the 5DS, so I would expect no improvement on the R7 either. The lens simply isn't sharp enough to gain an advantage with the TC. But maybe you have a sharper lens than I have. It doesn't appear so, though, from the photos.

Are there sample variations in this lens? I read the first version really suffers from this.

So no gain with the tc at all? I saw some great images on the net even with the 2.0 tc.

If you compare the 5DSR with a 2X converter, this would equate to a R7 with a 1.4X converter.

You can see here the IQ is just not quite there - compare to the 600II plus 1.4X as another another way to get to 800mm in this 5DSR test. This is under test conditions, in the field likely a little worse since focus errors may also creep in.

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=6&API=3&LensComp=748&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=0

Now it is not that the EF100-400 II is not a good lens - without the 1.4X TC even on a R7 it is quite good. Compare to a lousy lens as in this comparison even without TC:

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=0&LensComp=776&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=1

(R7 = 5DSR with 1.4X TC in centre)

OlcayK wrote:

Victor Engel wrote:

In my testing with EF 100-400 II lens and a bunch of different teleconverters, including the Mark III Canon ones, there was no improvement with any of them over using the lens by itself and resizing. That was using a Canon 5DS. The pixel pitch on the R7 is smaller than with the 5DS, so I would expect no improvement on the R7 either. The lens simply isn't sharp enough to gain an advantage with the TC. But maybe you have a sharper lens than I have. It doesn't appear so, though, from the photos.

Are there sample variations in this lens? I read the first version really suffers from this.

I think there are variations with any lens. The manufacturers try to reduce variation, but it's inevitable. Subtle variations in refraction from the mixing process of the glass, for example, or wear on the machines that grind the lenses, or small changes in assembly done by people using their hands.

So no gain with the tc at all? I saw some great images on the net even with the 2.0 tc.

The gain is that you get an enlarged image. But you can also enlarge an image made without a TC in post, and that's what my comparison was. In every case I tested, the upsized image was equal to or better than the equivalent one made with a TC. There may have been a couple of marginal tests, but I figured with the loss of a stop of light, it wasn't worth it to explore any further.
I did a similar test using my 600mm f/4 III lens, and I got different results. What it boils down to is that the 100-400 II lens I have doesn't resolve more detail than the resolution of the 5DS but the 600mm does.

It might be that you are at the absolute limit for the rig and parameters you have chosen

Any tiny camera shake is going to be magnified dramatically for every 100mm gained (perhaps 4 fold)

You are shooting (hand-held I assume) at nearly 900 EFOV at 1600 Tv and then cropping too much.

I do think the images are OK for the set-up you have and the method you have used.

Try a few test shots with a tripod, with and w/o the TC, and at least 4000 SS and see how you go against shooting the same scene hand-held at various SS with the TC.

A target such as a bank note at 100 feet (30M) would be a good place to start.

I would enjoy seeing the results.