Birds, 120-300S, your opinion?

Purchased the 120-300 Sport late last fall to shoot High School Football/ Baseball and was pleased with the results. Being a 2.8 all the way through made the low light at evening games easier to deal with, had been using the Sigma 150-500.
So I decided to shoot some yard birds with the 120-300S and not sure if I like the results, was hoping for more detail and sharpness from this lens.
The weather has been horrible here for days, light is terrible so I took it out for a test run. First day shot several at 2.8 and wasn't pleased with them at all.
Today I shot these at 4.5, 1/400 and iso 2000, fog and mist, late afternoon, visibility about 1200 feet at best so low light.
They have all been cropped at least 50% and birds were about 35 feet away.
I've considered buying a 1.4 TC or 2x TC to play with at spring baseball games but think I will hold off for awhile.
I have not purchased the dock at this time but intend to. Also will definitely keep trying it as lighting conditions improve.
I have been pleased with my 150-500 with good light but sunshine seems to be in short supply where I live. Maybe more patience is all I need.
Just thought I'd ask your opinions if the lens should be given more time shooting my feathered friends.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/ReF8​35

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/R7vE​ac

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/R7wb​rK

i use mine all the time...usually with a 2X, but i've shot birds at a feeder with it without the TC...

i'm not sure how far away you are...but if that lost shot is indeed a 100% crop that means you are really far away, and the bird is taking up just a small portion of the initial shot

i do think 1/400 is a little slow if you are looking for super sharp shots...especially with small birds

i'd give it some more time, and remember you still need decent light, and to get as close as you can

Thanks Dre for commenting and it looks like we have some gear in common.
May pm you with a question on TC,s later in the week if you wouldn't mind.
I was 35 feet away from all my shots today and no I'm not filling the screen by a long way. Sitting in the open so will have to work a little harder at getting closer, it's possible especially when this rain stops.

DreDaze wrote in post #18246787
i do think 1/400 is a little slow if you are looking for super sharp shots...especially with small birds

I have a different take on the shutter speed issue.

If you are properly mounted up to a sturdy tripod, I wouldn't worry about shutter speed unless you get down below 1/60th of a second or thereabouts. You can get really, really sharp detailed shots at relatively slow shutter speeds, so long as the birds aren't moving at the time you release the shutter. And this is true for images shot at focal lengths much longer than 300mm - if you are using this lens, with a maximum focal length of 300mm, I wouldn't hesitate to shoot at 1/40th or 1/50th of a second.

.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18246846
I have a different take on the shutter speed issue.

If you are properly mounted up to a sturdy tripod, I wouldn't worry about shutter speed unless you get down below 1/60th of a second or thereabouts. You can get really, really sharp detailed shots at relatively slow shutter speeds, so long as the birds aren't moving at the time you release the shutter. And this is true for images shot at focal lengths much longer than 300mm - if you are using this lens, with a maximum focal length of 300mm, I wouldn't hesitate to shoot at 1/40th or 1/50th of a second.

.

yeah, you can get sharp shots...but it's probably not ideal...i was looking at some bird feeder shots i took without a TC...and they are shot at 1/125...so that goes against my post...but i also wasn't analyzing them to see how sharp they were

i feel like 1/40, or 1/50 would be rough though...but then again you mention tripod, and i've never mounted mine to one...

DreDaze wrote in post #18246867
i feel like 1/40, or 1/50 would be rough though...but then again you mention tripod, and i've never mounted mine to one...

Oh, well then that is why you favor shutter speed so much.

If you start using a tripod - a really good sturdy tripod with no center column and a great gimbal head, I think that once you get used to it you will love it, and wonder why you ever tried to shoot birds at feeder setups without one.

.

Long lens, poor light = tripod - simple.

Tom and I have banged heads a couple of times but there is no doubt that he knows his stuff on wildlife photography at low shutter speeds, taught me a bit too. Have a look at his Flikr.

When I stray down the shutter speed scale I loose a lot (most?) shots through subject movement rather than lens shake. If the subject isn't twitchy then a tripod will allow remarkably low shutter speeds (and nice low ISO) allowing good files in poor light. I still don't know how Tom gets away with such low shutter speeds? Perhaps he drugs his subjects?

To Grizz1.

35 feet on small birds is a LONG way! On small birds I consider the MFD of my long lens (6 meters, just under 20 feet) about right, and that is an 800mm! With smaller bird species you really need to get up close and personal. Extenders will help but, ideally, get closer - then closer still! This is not as daft/impossible as it sounds but it is not easy! I do not pretend to be able to do this but I ran into a Photographer in Lincoln (UK) a few years back and his birding lens was a Canon 24-70 F2.8 on a full frame camera! Now that is getting close! By the way his images were rather nice too!