Birds in flight: Canon 7D + 300/4 with or without Extender 1.4x II

[Mike Koopmans]

Hello everyone,

Have recently switched from a Canon EF 100-400/4.5-5.6 L IS USM to a Canon EF 300/4 L IS USM. The autofocus of the 100-400 was too slow for my liking and I heard and read loads of positive comments on the 300. Arthus Morris even mentions this lens to be the best for "beginning birdphotographers" combining it with the Extender 1.4x so it seemed to be a great move to make.

I finally had the time to take out my new Canon EF 300/4 L IS USM and 1.4x Extender II and test them in a serious wildlife/birds-in-flight scenario yesterday. Can anyone confirm my conclusions from the day?

1. The 300/4 without converter is very sharp. It is very fast on autofocus as well, and accurate, on my 7D. It is however mostly so when using the center point. Using All Points AF with birds in flight, even with an even toned background, has a harder time tracking birds in flight, and getting the focus to be 100% spot on.

2. The 300/4 WITH converter is also quite sharp. A bit less of course, but that was to be expected. Autofocus is alright when using the center point, but for birds in flight I do notice a big fallback in AF speed and accuracy. This drop in speed and accuracy becomes even more pronounced when using All Points AF.

Are these conclusions correct? Because if they are, I will need to adapt my shooting strategy and techniques for birds in flight. I was hoping that the 300+1.4+7D was a viable option for birds in flight, but I was not entirely happy in that department after a couple of hours of playing around with it. I am now getting convinced more and more that I will probably need to start saving up for a 500/4 L IS USM Version I to really get to the point where I want to be for photographing birds. The 300 without a converter feels a bit too short even on my 7D and I have already had the pleasure to get a taste of what the 500 can do on a 7D and it's just amazing.

Looking forward to hearing what you guys think about my conclusions.

[John Guastella]

It is however mostly so when using the center point. Using All Points AF with birds in flight, even with an even toned background, has a harder time tracking birds in flight, and getting the focus to be 100% spot on.

This is a function of the the camera, not the lens. The 7D has a very difficult time tracking subjects across a busy background and it's only marginally better with a homogeneous background.

IMO, a better solution for your purposes would have been the 400/5.6. Fast-focussing and very sharp, even wide open. Also light, so it's easy to carry and hand-hold.

John

[Mike Koopmans]

Well the decision to go for the 300 was made after taking loads of things into consideration so I am still happy about that. But I am glad to know that it's not just me then.

[arash_hazeghi]

Welcome to BPN Mike,

The 300 f/4 IS is quite and old lens and while it is sharp bare and also with TC relative to the zoom, the AF will be quite sluggish and inaccurate when combined with a TC. Add to that, the limiting AF system in the 7D and the combo will struggle for flight. Not a good choice IMO. Also, keep in mind all point AF is not the correct choice for flight. With varied BG's the AF will lock on the BG and stay there even with bumping. With plain sky BG (not a desirable BG for flight any away) it might randomly grab the tail or the wing tips, leaving the head soft. Always use center point or center expansion for flight.


Good luck

[Mike Koopmans]

Thank you Arash, that is most helpful. I read that some people love to use All Point AF for birds in flight against an even background, but I am pretty sure they weren't using 7D's. I almost always use single point myself and only just now started experimenting with the All Point AF but that's off the table now :).

With Single Point Expand you mean the mode where you have one center point and four adjacent points activated? Or the one that uses one center point and the eight points surrounding it?

The 300 without a TC actually is very fast with autofocus so I am quite happy with that, just didn't realise the 7D would have so much trouble tracking with the 300+1.4x combo. Doesn't matter: will mainly use the 300 without TC for flight then, and only use the 1.4x for stills. My old lens, the 100-400, wasn't that fast and accurate either way when tracking birds, so I didn't really lose anything in that department.

One other thing I noticed: I was able to help the AF by manually giving it a notch in the right direction, but even when doing so the 300+1.4x combo would have a hard time "grabbing hold". Am going to try and use single point only (or expand) on my next outing, and will try to find out if the 300+1.4x combo will yield better results then. I reckon it will at least be better than All Point AF, since the middle point is the most sensitive.

Thanks again and am looking forward to try this again next time I go out.

[arash_hazeghi]

Thank you Arash, that is most helpful. I read that some people love to use All Point AF for birds in flight against an even background, but I am pretty sure they weren't using 7D's. I almost always use single point myself and only just now started experimenting with the All Point AF but that's off the table now :).

With Single Point Expand you mean the mode where you have one center point and four adjacent points activated? Or the one that uses one center point and the eight points surrounding it?

The 300 without a TC actually is very fast with autofocus so I am quite happy with that, just didn't realise the 7D would have so much trouble tracking with the 300+1.4x combo. Doesn't matter: will mainly use the 300 without TC for flight then, and only use the 1.4x for stills. My old lens, the 100-400, wasn't that fast and accurate either way when tracking birds, so I didn't really lose anything in that department.

One other thing I noticed: I was able to help the AF by manually giving it a notch in the right direction, but even when doing so the 300+1.4x combo would have a hard time "grabbing hold". Am going to try and use single point only (or expand) on my next outing, and will try to find out if the 300+1.4x combo will yield better results then. I reckon it will at least be better than All Point AF, since the middle point is the most sensitive.

Thanks again and am looking forward to try this again next time I go out.

Hi Mike,

With any camera, you should avoid all-point AF. The camera simply cannot distinguish between an erratically moving subject (that is often less than 50% of the frame) and a BG with the same color/contrast. It's better to take control as opposed to letting the camera "think" and decide for you. Expansion means the center sensor plus the 4 points around it in the 7D (it has only one mode). This is not to be confused with the zone AF in the 7D which should be avoided.

I use AF expansion with the 1DX, the size of the expansion and its parameters depend on the subject and the condition I am photographing, but with the 7D, I would probably stick to center point only.

If your main subject is flight I recommend getting a 400 f/5.6 for about the same price, you will get better results. A 300mm lens will be too short and limiting. When the subject is small in the frame, it is much more likely for the AF to lock on the BG.

Good luck

[Mike Koopmans]

Thanks Arash that makes it even more clear.

So my new strategy for next time: when photographing birds-in-flight I will use center point AF only. I will go out and test if the 300+1.4x converter combo causes me issues, and if it does I will just use the 300 alone. The 300 on a 7D equals a 480mm when comparing it to say a 1DX so that's already quite a large focal length (almost the same as a 500 on a 1DX).

The choice for the 300 was made for several reasons:

1. The minimum focus distance is awesome for butterflies and dragonflies and the likes.
2. The IS is useful for me, since I like walking around with my 7D + 300 on my BlackRapid strap and shooting the combo handholding. It's not so important for birds in flight though, since the shutter time must already be quite fast.
3. The 300 is more flexible for me, since it has the possibility to be used as a 300 and a 420 since it takes a 1.4x without losing autofocus on my 7D.
4. The 300 has f4 without a converter, and has f5.6 (like the 400) at 420.

These points are the reason that I chose the 300 over the 400. I am very much aware that the 400 is a great lens as well, but since my budget is a bit limited I reckoned it would be best to go for the 300 (+1.4x) now, and then save up for a 500 which would be a great addition. In fact I am quite sure that once I will FINALLY buy a 500 it will be the lens I use 95% of the time. But till then I will have to work with what I have.

Thanks for helping me out, and will report back here once I have tested the new strategy. :)

[Mike Koopmans]

Okay maybe I am thinking a bit out of the box, but I still have the option (till tomorrow) to trade my brand new 300/4 with the store where I bought it for a Tamron 150-600/5.0-6.3. I have read loads of positive reviews of this lens but the usability for this lens for birds in flight still isn't clear to me. As I know for a fact I will not be able to afford a 500/4 for the next 5-10 years, would the Tamron be a nice alternative or am I better off with my 300/4? The Tamron at least gives me a lot more reach, which I will never be able to get with the 300 if I don't want to degrade AF and sharpness too much with a 2.0x extender. If the Tamron is able to track birds at least a little bit, then it has a huge edge over the 300 since I can't always get closer to my subjects.

[Daniel Cadieux]

Mike, that lens may have its' uses but you would not be happy with the Tamron for birds-in-flight (or anything at the longer focal lenghts). You're better sticking with the 300 f/4, or even better the 400f/5.6 as suggested if BIF is your main interest.

[Kester Clarke]

I had the 300 f/4 for a while. I can attest to the frustration of BIFs being too small in frame and AF being very slow with the 1.4. Eventually I fast-tracked the saving up and got a 500.

[Mike Koopmans]

Thank you guys for your thoughts and advice.

@ Daniel: I have made the following plan: I have ordered a Tamron 150-600. Next week I will take it with me on holiday to Austria. If it is not sharp or fast enough for my liking, I will exchange it for a 400/5.6 L. Chances are that I will, if your comments are right on the mark.

@ Kester: Frustrating isn't it? It is a marvelous lens otherwise. The minimum focus distance is just plain awesome and while the 300 is lightning fast without the TC, it just becomes very, very slow and inaccurate with the 1.4. A 500 is just not a realistic option for me for the next 5-10 years, and I do want to have fun photographing birds, even at large distances, till then. So we'll just wait and see how the Tamron fairs, and if it is no good, then the 400/5.6 will have to do till then.

[Karl Egressy]

I would second all that Mike Coopmans said about the 300 f4.0 L IS.
When I started bird photography in 2004 the 300 f4.0 L IS was my only lens with a 10D.
Shortly after I added a 400 f5.6 L.
I used them for a few years and was happy with both of them as they had their own advantages.
I still have the 400 and yes it is very sharp and is excellent for BIF shooting but I greatly miss the IS.
Sometimes I miss the 300 f4.0 for example when I go shooting Loons from a canoe.
It was good for BIF as well with no extender on.
The best is to have both.

[John McNamara]

400 5.6 for BIF. 300f4 w/TC for perched birds, dragon and butterflies. If you're trying to do BIF with the 300 + TC, be SURE to turn off the IS! Also, take lots of shots, you're going to miss a lot. I have both lenses and had the 100-400. Got rid of the 100-400 and am keeping the 300 and 400 even though I have the 500 v1.