Some shots with the 600mm and 1.4x Extender- Opinions please

[Canon_Bob]

All of these except the spoonbill in flight were shot with the 600mm and 1.4x Extender (840mm in my 1DsMII). The Spoonbill was shot with the 600mm and no Extender. All of these are off the tripod, and I must say that the flight shot was actually quite easy with that Wimberley head! What do you guys think of the quality of the shots with the Extender on them? I definitely notice a slight drop in sharpness (especially at actual size), but I think the images are acceptable. I will say that it takes the extenders much better than the 100-400 does! Focus is much slower, but still automatic.

This first one is a shot that I didn't include in the other series (fish picture) that I posted today:


Green Heron in a tree:


This is the only shot in this series without the Extender (I shot this at ISO 800 to get some speed with that big glass, and the quality was actually very good):


Reddish Egret - This fellow was a LONG ways out, and not even remotely close enough to shoot with the 100-400:


This last one's more for entertainment, but is very interesting. Yes, that is a shark in the backgound. This is a freshwater area, but the tides sometimes push the sharks through the channels. VERY strange seeing the shark here, but makes an interesting shot with that Reddish Egret I think :shock:

[SmartWombat]

The green heron seems to be front focussed a but, but as you say the others are acceptable.
I'm looking for one on ebay second hand, but if I can't find it themn with the $ to £ at the moment it's almost worth flying out for the weekend and buying one new.
Since a US lens wouldn't have any warranty in the UK, I might as well buy grey import into the US and save a few $$

[mn shutterbug]

Outstanding!!!

[paulnj]

I like the reddish egret alone the best, but that shark in the BG image is very cool too.

[Loupey]

Looks sharp enough to me. Depends on what you want to do with them I suppose.

I've got to think that cropping a IDsMkII image taken with a 600mm prime has to be "better" than using a magnified teleconverter image, yes? I love my TC but I only have the 300mm. Kind of like putting Goodyear's on my Chevy - as opposed to put them on a Ferrari

[Canon_Bob]

Looks sharp enough to me. Depends on what you want to do with them I suppose.

I've got to think that cropping a IDsMkII image taken with a 600mm prime has to be "better" than using a magnified teleconverter image, yes? I love my TC but I only have the 300mm. Kind of like putting Goodyear's on my Chevy - as opposed to put them on a Ferrari

I think you're right on with this assessment. My personal experiences have shown that pixel density wins out over crop factor or teleconverters. I think there's a limited use for tele-converters (extenders), but obviously the camera and lens were designed to some optimal settings. The images are tolerable and sellable, but not to my personal standards of sharpness.

[Canon_Bob]

The green heron seems to be front focussed a but, but as you say the others are acceptable.
I'm looking for one on ebay second hand, but if I can't find it themn with the $ to £ at the moment it's almost worth flying out for the weekend and buying one new.
Since a US lens wouldn't have any warranty in the UK, I might as well buy grey import into the US and save a few $$

Sounds like a good plan to me!

[Loupey]

Just a side note, Canon_Bob...

I was thinking seriously (again) about the 500mm the other day while out shooting. I know both the 500 and the 600mm have quite limited close focusing capability (around 12' to 15' feet if I remember correctly). Even with extension tubes I doubt that I can get it down to under 6'.

So I'm re-thinging the purchase unless I want to always carry 2 lenses in the field (which I don't want to) to shoot both macros and telephotos. Perhaps, for me, the new 40D with its cleaner higher ISO performance would be a better purchase now after all.

[Canon_Bob]

Just a side note, Canon_Bob...

I was thinking seriously (again) about the 500mm the other day while out shooting. I know both the 500 and the 600mm have quite limited close focusing capability (around 12' to 15' feet if I remember correctly). Even with extension tubes I doubt that I can get it down to under 6'.

So I'm re-thinging the purchase unless I want to always carry 2 lenses in the field (which I don't want to) to shoot both macros and telephotos. Perhaps, for me, the new 40D with its cleaner higher ISO performance would be a better purchase now after all.

I'm picking up a 40d as well. It will be fitted with my new 300 f/4 for flight shots. You are correct on the 600 and 500 lenses, The 500 has minimum of 15 feet, and the 600 has a minimum focusing distance of 18 feet. These are "reach out from a distance" lenses.

I hiked three miles with the 600 over my shoulder on Saturday. I can guarantee you that it was a chore. Carrying another camera and lens for quick shots would've been really tough. I have built a trail cart for the 600 now, and will try carrying the 40d with my 100-400 on it this weekend, and the 1DsM2 set up with the 600mm.

[Loupey]

I hiked three miles with the 600 over my shoulder on Saturday. I can guarantee you that it was a chore. Carrying another camera and lens for quick shots would've been really tough. I have built a trail cart for the 600 now, and will try carrying the 40d with my 100-400 on it this weekend, and the 1DsM2 set up with the 600mm.

Good luck! That's quite a mental picture. I love to surf fish and occasionally fish off the piers - the locals have a cart that they pull that carries all their rods/reels, cooler, radio,... Sounds kinda like that.

I thought about this when I was shooting dragonflies the other day. I was lying on my back parallel to the water edge (trying not to roll in). The bugger was too far to use the extension tubes effectively on the 300mm. But I was able to use the 2x to get a tight head shot - 600mm at 4'. Tough to get that kind of flexibility (both from me and the gear ).

Still, I would love to get a 500mm to have for birding-specific trips.