R6 + 800mm f11 BIFs

400mm is the best compromise FL for BIF, so many birders agree. Best was the old trombone focus of the 100-400mm, if that lens had the IQ and AF speed of the newer version, or if the MkII had the trombone zoom, it would simply be the best BIF lens ever made.

Thanks, I know for me personally the my 7D 2 with 100-400 + 1.4x is probably the better option but the 800 just seems like more fun. Certainly lighter.

I'm not looking just for birds in flights, just getting reach.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #19154309
400mm is the best compromise FL for BIF, so many birders agree. Best was the old trombone focus of the 100-400mm, if that lens had the IQ and AF speed of the newer version, or if the MkII had the trombone zoom, it would simply be the best BIF lens ever made.

I agree about the 400mm being a great FL for BIF, Jake. For swallows or martins I often even go shorter and use my 300/4L. I know where their nests are, know their flight path home and wait for them. The short MFD of the 300/4 is perfect. But other than that, yes, 400mm.

I am thinking of getting the 600/11 too. Just for (non swallows) BIF this summer in the fields. Should be fun and I think it would be better than the 300/4L with 2xTC. Although that combo isn't bad at all either on the R6. But the 600/11 will have faster AF and have better IQ. Plus: summer, plenty of light, birds in the sky so the f/11 won't matter at all. I don't know, just seems like a good idea. Also because it weighs almost nothing!

Tommydigi wrote in post #19154325
Thanks, I know for me personally the my 7D 2 with 100-400 + 1.4x is probably the better option but the 800 just seems like more fun. Certainly lighter.

I'm not looking just for birds in flights, just getting reach.

Oh yeah, the 800/11 is really fun! That's also part of the reason I'm thinking of getting the 600/11 as well.

As for reach, those 800mm really can make a difference.
We have a group of cormorants in a lake nearby but too far away for my EF lenses. The 800mm was very helpful.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.
Photo from Levina de Ruijter's gallery.

While I've found I can occasionally nail a BIF with the R6 + 800, the success rate is disappointing. On the other hand, the R6 + 100-400 ii + 1.4 iii is a pleasure to use. Focusing is fast, results are excellent and the ability to zoom in/out is reassuring. The attached image captures Northern Shovelers darting across a lake here in Maryland.

I didn't really consider the 600 but wow it's pretty small.

The 35 with either 800/600 would make for a great lightweight hiking kit. I want to get an R6 at some point to replace my 7DII if it's even worth selling the 7D2 at this point.

With people posting BIFs taken with the 800/11 I thought I would try again today but this time aim for birds a bit of a distance away. And that worked better than I expected. I managed quite a few gulls in flight. And a whole sequence where I tracked two gulls chasing a third one with food. The 800 performed well. I lost the birds for 2 or 3 shots against the dark, busy background of trees, but picked up the birds immediately after as they left that area.

These are jpegs, straight out of the camera (I started shooting RAW+jpegs a few days ago), just cropped, resized and put my name on it. The birds covered a lot of sky, moving from dark to light but the R6+800/11 tracked them nicely. And zooming in to 100% the birds are sharp and in excellent focus. It was dark and damp though, so they're not the best of images but that's not the point now. I'm pretty pleased with them because I now know I can take these kinds of shots and that opens up possibilities!

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Two more from the sequence. Again jpegs, SOOC.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

The best birding lens I have used was not the 100-400. Its great but I felt the Sigma 150-600 was the better option. Why ?? Reach . Cant beat 500-600 for BIFs. The extra 200MM is huge. My only problem with the sigma was hit rates. Notably less than the 100-400 even on my 1Dx2. I had to take longer bursts for BIF's to ensure I got what I wanted. Shorter bursts on canon L glass...... When it hit, the sigma results were great.

I wish Canon made a 150-600L with the same specs as a 100-400. On the new sensors, it would replace a lot of 500F/4's

I've seen posts from people who use a 'red dot' sight on their mirrorless camera(I believe Shalu is one of them) to make it easier to follow BIF. Maybe an option?

Something like this: https://www.dpreview.c​om/forums/thread/30096​95

(no personal experience)

Levina, I agree with your assessment of shooting bifs with the 800mm. I get results similar to yours when shooting distant flyers.

I think the deal breaker for the lens when shooting closer birds is that it offers a focusing area only in the center of the frame, estimated to be no more than 15-20% of the full viewfinder area. So, keeping the bird dead in the focusing area is a real challenge. I recently spent time with friends shooting ducks. The sample shown of a Ring-necked Duck shot with R6 + 800 is decent, but it was the ONLY one that was worthwhile, so I was quite discouraged. My friends, on the other hand, shooting with aps-c DSLRs and the Sigma 150-600 C were routinely getting good images.

Image hosted by forum (1073951) © steveb108 THIS IS A LOW QUALITY PREVIEW. Please log in to see the good quality stuff.

steveb108 wrote in post #19154965
Levina, I agree with your assessment of shooting bifs with the 800mm. I get results similar to yours when shooting distant flyers.

I think the deal breaker for the lens when shooting closer birds is that it offers a focusing area only in the center of the frame, estimated to be no more than 15-20% of the full viewfinder area. So, keeping the bird dead in the focusing area is a real challenge. I recently spent time with friends shooting ducks. The sample shown of a Ring-necked Duck shot with R6 + 800 is decent, but it was the ONLY one that was worthwhile, so I was quite discouraged. My friends, on the other hand, shooting with aps-c DSLRs and the Sigma 150-600 C were routinely getting good images.

Hosted photo: posted by steveb108 in
./showthread.php?p=191​54965&i=i242944944
forum: Canon Digital Cameras

The smaller focus area is definitely a thing with this lens when shooting closer birds but I don't find too restricting personally. I have more problems keeping the darn bird in the viewfinder at 800mm. The smallest movement on my part and the bird is gone. Which of course doesn't happen with the birds further away as your field of view becomes much bigger.

I hate to say it but yes, I too am missing shots with the R6 that would have been a breeze with my 1D4. On the other hand I'm getting shots I know I couldn't have gotten with the 1D4, so there's a trade-off I guess. I'm still very happy with my decision to buy both the R6 and the 800/11. But, I really think a DSLR is better for birds in flight than a mirrorless. I don't know, it's just a lot easier. Probably because you're looking through the lens, in real time. The Eye-AF on the R6 is really wonderful. When it works. But with BIF it's often troublesome.

I can actually see myself using both systems side by side next year: the R6+800/11 in the field for waders and (hopefully) breeding terns. And in the mean time the 1D4 with the 400/5.6L at the ready for BIF. I might even upgrade my 1D4 to a 1DXII, prices dropping as they do at the moment. Oh, the choices we have at the moment!

Yes, indeed, I too am extremely happy with the R6 + 800. I have a slight preference for smaller birds, (particularly warblers, kinglets, vireos) and the extra reach is incredibly comforting. The sharpness is darn good and having more images with snappy eyes makes me a happy camper. As you mentioned, its difficulties with BIFs is just a trade-off for its other strong suits.

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #19154738
These are jpegs, straight out of the camera (I started shooting RAW+jpegs a few days ago),

It might be good to look at the difference between the extra JPEG and the embedded JPEG in the RAW. They may not be significantly different, if different at all.

Years ago, Canons gave lower-res embedded JPEGs in the RAWs, but for at least a decade or so, the embedded JPEGs have been full-res.

Many image viewers like Irfanview and FastStone Image viewer show you the embedded JPEG by default in a RAW file, and any saving you do or batch JPEG conversion is based on the embedded JPEG. The only reason that I'd shoot "+JPEG" was to have something on the card to give to someone else who is only interested in JPEGs, or if you want to give them reduced resolution. Otherwise, "+JPEG" is kind of redundant.

Maybe some image viewers will advance through a folder of JPEGs faster than RAWs with embedded JPEGs, but some programs are smart and only read the embedded JPEG and never read the whole RAW file.

John Sheehy wrote in post #19155589
It might be good to look at the difference between the extra JPEG and the embedded JPEG in the RAW. They may not be significantly different, if different at all.

Years ago, Canons gave lower-res embedded JPEGs in the RAWs, but for at least a decade or so, the embedded JPEGs have been full-res.

Many image viewers like Irfanview and FastStone Image viewer show you the embedded JPEG by default in a RAW file, and any saving you do or batch JPEG conversion is based on the embedded JPEG. The only reason that I'd shoot "+JPEG" was to have something on the card to give to someone else who is only interested in JPEGs, or if you want to give them reduced resolution. Otherwise, "+JPEG" is kind of redundant.

Maybe some image viewers will advance through a folder of JPEGs faster than RAWs with embedded JPEGs, but some programs are smart and only read the embedded JPEG and never read the whole RAW file.

Actually, John, I am shooting both raw+jpeg at the moment because of a comment you made. Remember you mentioned Rawdigger a few days ago? Well, I decided to download it and have a look. And was rather shocked because it made me realise that I've probably never actually seen a raw file before! Could that be true? Does Lightroom 5.7 show me the embedded jpegs? In any case, Rawdigger was quite an eye opener. It also told me that whatever generates the previews I am seeing in Lightroom, is pretty good.

The thing that got me interested in this was the quality of the files from the R6. With my 1D4 (and the 1D bodies before that) I always needed to do some work on the files. Now, I so often look at the R6 files SOOC, thinking: what on earth am I supposed to do here? So I thought if that is the case then why not just shoot jpegs. After looking at the raw files in Rawdigger and realising that what I am seeing in LR are probably the embedded jpegs, or if not, most definitely edited files and not pure raws, I wondered if the +jpegs would be the same as what I am seeing in Lightroom. That is the reason I am shooting both at the moment, so I can compare. So as you can see, I'm following you to the letter!

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #19155691
Actually, John, I am shooting both raw+jpeg at the moment because of a comment you made. Remember you mentioned Rawdigger a few days ago? Well, I decided to download it and have a look. And was rather shocked because it made me realise that I've probably never actually seen a raw file before! Could that be true? Does Lightroom 5.7 show me the embedded jpegs? In any case, Rawdigger was quite an eye opener. It also told me that whatever generates the previews I am seeing in Lightroom, is pretty good.

The thing that got me interested in this was the quality of the files from the R6. With my 1D4 (and the 1D bodies before that) I always needed to do some work on the files. Now, I so often look at the R6 files SOOC, thinking: what on earth am I supposed to do here? So I thought if that is the case then why not just shoot jpegs. After looking at the raw files in Rawdigger and realising that what I am seeing in LR are probably the embedded jpegs, or if not, most definitely edited files and not pure raws, I wondered if the +jpegs would be the same as what I am seeing in Lightroom. That is the reason I am shooting both at the moment, so I can compare. So as you can see, I'm following you to the letter!

I don't think that Lightroom pays any attention to the embedded JPEG in a RAW file, but I haven't tried it in quite a while.