Renting 1.4 t-xtender for my 100-400 lens this weekend tryout

[Ken Nielsen]

One thing compounds upon another. Birds are not going to come closer. I'm learning that I need to have 'reach' in order to shoot birds with some clarity. The 100-400 zoom has been the doorway into avian photography for me. Now, just for the weekend, I'm trying a rental 1.4 tele-Xtender to see what happens.

Anyone have any comments and experience with these? I'm going out in a few minutes with tripod, remote shutter release and lots of hope. Birds, most of them at 30 feet distance, are not filling the frame enough with the 100-400. I hope this will make the difference and give me birds that fill at least half of the frame.

Panning and capturing are still separate issues. I'm sure this added power will make everything harder in these departments.

I also am accepting that I need bright light in order to bring optimal settings into play with this added extension.

Ken

[jgrussell]

Don't know what body you have but be aware you may lose autofocus with the extender on that lens.

[Ken Nielsen]

I just got back and am downloading images as we speak. I lost autofocus, but will report back. I'm not so sure that a trained hand on the manual focus ring might not be a bad thing. Other than that, I was not aware of being any closer to the same birds in the same kinds of shots I have been practicing on. 1.4 times is not a huge difference, at least in the viewfinder. After I get to examine the shots and compare to yesterday's similar shoot without the extender I will report back.

One thing that was better, was having a wired remote to the shutter. That thing actually freed up one hand, the one I use to man the tripod handle also held the fire button and that combination worked quite well. I could concentrate more on using the 'two-eye' system of framing and focus, the left eye keeping a general outlook on the bird and the right eye over the viewfinder and checking for pinpoint focus on the bird's eye. I don't know if the pictures will be better until I get a chance to check 'em, but the whole shooting experience was better than ever simply because of having the remote button instead of having to have one hand on the camera and shutter button on the camera.

I'll report back, hopefully with good news on the shots,

Ken


PS: Oh, with limited funds, I've been investing in glass only, I am still using my Rebel XTi body. This is fine since I'm still in training.

[Ken Nielsen]

The results:

In both of these shots the bird is too small, taking only 1/16th or less of the frame in each case.

First without the xtender about 30 feet closer at 220mm and f13

Second with the xtender about 60 feet away at 520mm at f8

Trying to do a seat-of-the-pants calculation: I think the x-tender would be great when the bird is within the 30 foot range. Tomorrow morning I'll go out while the birds are more active and flying between trees where I can get within the 30 foot range. I'll report back.

Here are the two, full size (6 and 9 mb) files of the with and the without shot from today and a few days ago without.

http://www.studio10webgraphics.com/InternetPosts/wo_xtender.jpg

http://www.studio10webgraphics.com/InternetPosts/w_extender.jpg

[davebreal]

Ken - Red Winged Blackbirds are often a very aggressive and conspicuous species. They can be photographed upclose regularly if you can find a location with full walking access or good boardwalks. For me personally, my wildlife photography spots aren't necessarily the place with the MOST wildlife but merely the most accessible.

If you aren't regularly filling up at least 1/4 of the frame with wildlife shots, it generally isn't worth pressing the shutter button. Exceptions being an occasional habitat shot, large flock, etc.

[Ken Nielsen]

Here's how I feel about it:

http://www.studio10webgraphics.com/InternetPosts/bird_photographer.jpg

Your post concurs,

Thank You,

Ken

[Ken Nielsen]

The sad point about your comment, which I accept as true, is that I have never had a bird close enough to fill even 1/4th of the frame, which means I should not be shooting. I've covered many areas, farm country, refuges and all I find are birds that are timid, much like they have been all of my life. They are not willing for humans to approach beyond what they feel is a safe distance. I leu of not wanting to spend over $6,000.00 on a lens, I feel I should give up the hobby of bird photography.

Ken

[davebreal]

Ken - I don't want to discourage you, or anyone else for that matter. Bird photography can be a very frustrating hobby for those of us who choose not to use devices to call them in close. To otherwise get close, you really need to get good at being stealthy, locating birds before they locate you, and also approaching them in a manner not perceived as threatening. Camouflage, blinds, and feeders are helpful too. I believe this is all touched on in this forum's sticky.

It could easily be that you are simply trying TOO hard also. Why not go into a suburban park and nail some cool flight shots of Pigeons for starters? Go down to the local pond and practice on some tame Mallards. The 100-400 can get good results for large dragonflies, butterflies, rodents, and deer for filler between bird opportunities.

Strategize!

[Ken Nielsen]

I think I will try out the 2x TC, because I rented the 1.4 and it brought small but noticeable reach. I hear the 2x brings loss of quality, but I will only know if it fits my needs by trying it.

Other than that, I want to shoot birds in flight, I am not able to spend more money right now, so I will stay in the fight, practice capture with what I have with the result of being that much more prepared (and appreciative) if and when I am able to rent or buy that big bertha lens.

Adding up: my strategy is enjoyment - I'm getting that now, so it is not a loss. I also do like shots I am getting where the bird might be small in a georgeous landscape, I'll post an example here, and those are the kinds of shots I am going after. I call them art shots and they include more than the bird, but the bird is the focal point and main statement.

Here's a shot I'm happy with that does not have the bird 1/4th frame or more:

http://www.studio10webgraphics.com/InternetPosts/coming_in_for_a_landing_3801.jpg

[andrewhuxman]

One thing compounds upon another. Birds are not going to come closer. I'm learning that I need to have 'reach' in order to shoot birds with some clarity. The 100-400 zoom has been the doorway into avian photography for me. Now, just for the weekend, I'm trying a rental 1.4 tele-Xtender to see what happens.

Anyone have any comments and experience with these? I'm going out in a few minutes with tripod, remote shutter release and lots of hope. Birds, most of them at 30 feet distance, are not filling the frame enough with the 100-400. I hope this will make the difference and give me birds that fill at least half of the frame.



I also am accepting that I need bright light in order to bring optimal settings into play with this added extension.

Ken

I think I will try out the 2x TC, because I rented the 1.4 and it brought small but noticeable reach. I hear the 2x brings loss of quality, but I will only know if it fits my needs by trying it.



The 100-400 is not a good match for either the 1.4 or the 2x extenders, (in my opinion) as you have found out this lens is a very light hungry lens and auto focus either does not work or takes a big hit depending on what body you are using, not to mention the loss of image quality. But by now you probably have realized that .

[Ken Nielsen]

It looks like the

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/186153-USA/Canon_2534A002_Telephoto_EF_600mm_f_4_0L.html

Is my next step.

Some beefing up in the tripod area and I'll be set.

First, I will rent the 2x TC to see how it works. Nothing like direct experience I say. If not, I will move on to the 600mm.

[perchhead]

http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii97/perchhead/Killdeer2.jpg

1.4 extender and 100-400

[jgrussell]

If not, I will move on to the 600mm.Hey if you have a spare $7600 laying around, go for it! (And if you have that much cash laying around, adopt me!)

[Ken Nielsen]

I do not have $7600 laying around so there will be no adopting today.

I am happy with the 1.4 TC as the results are, well, take a look at perchhead's beautiful example above. I'll try the 2x next just to see what it does, but I've got plenty to work on with keeping the bird in the frame after it takes off, and doing accurate manual focusing during flight, ever so carefully, as the bird moves further or nearer. There is plenty to learn and that is what makes this such a great hobby.

Ken

[andrewhuxman]

I do not have $7600 laying around so there will be no adopting today.

I am happy with the 1.4 TC as the results are, well, take a look at perchhead's beautiful example above.

Ken

The Kildeer pic of perchheads is soft around the eyes and head, it lacks feather detail. I am curious to see what kind of results come about using the 2X for inflight shooting.

[jgrussell]

well, take a look at perchhead's beautiful example aboveThat shot wouldn't be acceptable to me. The bird's head is really really soft.

[Ken Nielsen]

The Kildeer pic of perchheads is soft around the eyes and head, it lacks feather detail. I am curious to see what kind of results come about using the 2X for inflight shooting.

Here you go, from today's shoot. I realize that there is nothing sharp about this photo. It's unretouched amateur shooting using a 1.4 TC on bif at about 70 feet distance.

I'll post a 2x TC shot of bif next week.

http://www.studio10webgraphics.com/InternetPosts/rwbb_flying_4087.jpg

Here's my last shot from this morning, before taking the 1.4 TC rental back. This is as good as it gets with what I have.

http://www.studio10webgraphics.com/InternetPosts/rwbb_on_the_wing_4131.jpg

[Ken Nielsen]

I got the 2x today and must say it is 'darker' and needs me to bump up exposure compensation 3 or 4 f-stops to equate to the 1.4x which only required two f-stops to bring in nice bright pictures. I'm shooting blackbirds, so I need all the daylight I can get. I'm treating the day like an indoor studio. Slight overcast is not bad. Tomorrow sunrise should bring the best light of all. I have some interesting pics with the 2x with the point that they are no sharper than the 1.4x but the image is closer and fills up more of the frame. It all adds up to no gain as I see it. It's the experience and ability of the shooter that gets the shot, as good shots are rendered by good judgement and hard work on the part of the photographer, with just one of many support ingredients being the glass.

I looked at the 600mm USM lens today. It weights only 12 lbs. and does not seem to be that much more to lug around than what I'm getting used to already. I'm going to rent it for four days in a few weeks and give it a run. I am getting close to having my car paid off and it would be like extending the contract for two more years to get the 600mm and a Wimberley Head on a Gitzo tripod. One day at a time on this.

Here's a shot with the 2x today, I'll go out early before sunrise tomorrow to greet the birds where they live and give it another go. I'm withholding judgement on the 2x until I finish a two-day test run with it.

Today's 2x still shot:

http://www.studio10webgraphics.com/InternetPosts/rwbb_still_shot_4172.jpg

[scrumpy]

Ken the perched bird is the best example so far in this thread.

You say you are in manual mode when trying to get birds in flight? How the heck do you manage that? Why not use TV mode, stick it on a whopping high speed and let the camera look after the aperture. I'll admit I have never tried it, but that would be the route I'd try.

[BradM]

Using the 100-400mm with either the 1.4x or the 2x almost always results in less than stellar results. I have gotten a few decent shots but using them but if you are finding you can't get close to the birds with 400mm to fill more than a bit of the frame then you might want to re-evaluate your technique in getting close to the birds.

These a couple of shots using the 100-400 and 1.4x:

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y259/Bradklr/dowitcher21.jpg

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y259/Bradklr/dowitcher21b.jpg

I was about 20 to 25 feet from the subject by belly crawling up to it. The point is that many many people use this gear to get birds to fill enough of the frame without using extenders to get detailed images. It can't be that all of the other birds are less wary, but something the photographer is doing differently from the those that can get closer.

Consider your methods and techniques, have a look at the staying hidden sticky and other sources of information on how to get close to your subject and see how this might vary from the methods you are using.

[Ken Nielsen]

Ken the perched bird is the best example so far in this thread.

You say you are in manual mode when trying to get birds in flight? How the heck do you manage that? Why not use TV mode, stick it on a whopping high speed and let the camera look after the aperture. I'll admit I have never tried it, but that would be the route I'd try.

Thanks for the note of positive reinforcement by mentioning the perched bird shot.

I am learning to follow birds in flight while using manual focus because teleconverters cut off the use of auto focus on my lens.. It is a challenge, but with practice I think I can get a 'feel' for the right amount of 'twist' on the focusing ring to match the changing distance of the bird. So far it is poor results, but moving in the right direction.

I am using TV mode to get shutter priority. I had it set to 1/800 sec this morning. I found out, by coming home with all BLACK shots this morning, that the blinking f11 in the viewfinder was trying to tell me that all I had was f11 to work with and I needed to cut back on shutter speed or boost ISO to get proper exposure. Inexperienced me ignored the blinking f11 in the viewfinder, didn't even bother to stop and check my first shots on the camera back histogram and I paid the price now for being ignorant. My 100-400 lens is f4-f5.6, 5.6 when extended to 400, so all of this is starting to sink in fast. I have the 2x converter for one more day so tomorrow morning early I wlll go out armed and dangerous to come back with actual pictures to show for it.

1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - .....

[Ken Nielsen]

Using the 100-400mm with either the 1.4x or the 2x almost always results in less than stellar results. I have gotten a few decent shots but using them but if you are finding you can't get close to the birds with 400mm to fill more than a bit of the frame then you might want to re-evaluate your technique in getting close to the birds.

These a couple of shots using the 100-400 and 1.4x:

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y259/Bradklr/dowitcher21.jpg

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y259/Bradklr/dowitcher21b.jpg

I was about 20 to 25 feet from the subject by belly crawling up to it. The point is that many many people use this gear to get birds to fill enough of the frame without using extenders to get detailed images. It can't be that all of the other birds are less wary, but something the photographer is doing differently from the those that can get closer.


Consider your methods and techniques, have a look at the staying hidden sticky and other sources of information on how to get close to your subject and see how this might vary from the methods you are using.


Brad, those shots are winners in my book. I especially like the 'personality' of the bird in the first link. These are great examples of what can be done using a 1.4 TC.

The jury is still out in my testing of these two converters. The 1.4 comes in with good marks, and the 2x is just giving me a little challenge right now, but I'll give it another go tomorrow.

Thanks for your post. It's informative and the examples are very good.

Ken


I have two bird dogs that go with me when I go out to shoot. We are noisy and I always shout 'Good Morning Birdies' to the birds as I approach. The one I want to shoot knows us by now, and looks at us like The world is becoming a crowded place. I guess I'll have to live with it.' This morning, that bird flew back and forth between his two favorite trees in front of me and gave me every opportunity to get good bif shots. My only problem was my settings were off by a mile. Having a subject near at hand is not a problem at this point. I simply need to get better at working with the equipment I have. (also - there is a moat and fence between me and the subject bird. My dogs swim in the moat, I don't think I want to try that, and the fence is off limits because it is a game preserve.)

[scrumpy]

Thanks for the note of positive reinforcement by mentioning the perched bird shot.

I am learning to follow birds in flight while using manual focus because teleconverters cut off the use of auto focus on my lens.. It is a challenge, but with practice I think I can get a 'feel' for the right amount of 'twist' on the focusing ring to match the changing distance of the bird. So far it is poor results, but moving in the right direction.


My mistake. I thought you were trying to use manual exposure for your BIF shots :o

[Ken Nielsen]

Here's my last post for image on this thread. This morning's test run of the 2x TC. I did get some bif, but they are all "Art Shots" with blur and good luck getting interesting 'finger paintings.' Even with fantastic light, the small opening requires slower shutter speed (I think I was down to 1/250) and highest ISO (1600) which all fight against IQ. I can see camera movement in some shots also, even on a pretty strong tripod using remote shutter button. The jury will be out for a few days on the 1.4 and 2x TC's. I got some great shots, but they are not sharp. The 1.4 allowed more freedom in getting bif. No conclusion yet, but both TC's point toward the need to sign a two-year contract and get the 600mm. I'll rent that baby next.

Ken

This morning's best of perched bird using 2x TC:

http://www.studio10webgraphics.com/InternetPosts/rwbb_perched_4513.jpg