New member needs help

[lurechunker]

I am new to the forum and asking for help. Our granddaughter plays basketball and I would like to photograph her. I kayak and would like to photograph birds. Is the EOS 760D the camera for me? Other? What lens or lenses? How can I protect my equipment form damage from saltwater? Thank you.

[Waddizzle · Accepted solution]

---

@lurechunker wrote:
My 80D with 18-55 from Canon store will arrive tomorrow. I think I made a mistake by not getting the 28-135. Should I leave the 18-55 in the box and send it back? I'd like to start with an "all-round" lens and one long enough for back yard birds.

---

Do you mean 18-135, instead of 28-135?  The 18-135 lenses are pretty good.  BUT, they will likely cast a shadow when you try to use the flash.  I know that older 18-135mm lenses cast a major shadow on a T5, so I would expect a shadow on an 80D.  The 18-55mm lens has a 35mm equivalent of 29-88mm, which is pretty close to 24-70mm that is very popular for use with full frame camera bodies.

The  STM version of the 18-55mm is a really good lens.  I would hang on to it.  I can guarantee you that whatever plans you have for using the camera, you will find new scenarios to use it.  I would keep the 18-55mm, and pass on buying a 18-135, so that you can budget more money towards your birding lens.  If you can afford to do all of the above, then by all means, buy all of the lenses you want.

[ebiggs1]

"I will buy the Canon f/2.8 70-200. Thoughts?"

Yeah a few but the important one is, it is the best lens made.    I would not be without mine!

I agree with you on the 100-400 with the t-con but I don't on the 150-600mil G2.  It is a consumer lens.  No better no worse and on par with Canon consumer lenses or anybodies for that matter.

[lurechunker]

I did not like the 1.4 extender on my 100-400. How about a 1.4 on a 70-200 for birds at 15-40 yards?

[Waddizzle]

---

@lurechunker wrote:

I have the latest version of the Canon 100-400. I tried a Canon 1.4 extender and found that it needed more light and was slow to auto focus. The images were disappointing. 

---

You should give it more time to learn.  But, you knew going in that the extender would decrease the light and slow down the aperture.  You just didn't know much the impact on AF performance would be.  Didn't you have to climb a learnng curve with the 100-400mm before you were satisfied with the shots?

I think the 100-400mm with the 1.4x feels like it focus at least as fast as my Sigma 150-600 "C".  But, since the firmware upgrade to the Sigma, which was a complete rewrite of the AF, the Sigma is VASTLY improved in AF speed and image quality.

Curiously, I have never bothered to use the 1.4x with the 70-200mm, but I would expect the impact on aperture and AF speed to be similar to that of the 100-400mm.  I guess I must reach for the 100-400, instead of the using the 1.4x with the 70-20.

Seeing how the 70-200mm is perfect just the way it is, that might explain why I have never used the 1.4x with it.  When I do carry the 100-400mm, it has been on a crop sensor body, and the 70-200mm is on a full frame body.  

[RobertTheFat]

---

@Waddizzle wrote:

---

@lurechunker wrote:

I have the latest version of the Canon 100-400. I tried a Canon 1.4 extender and found that it needed more light and was slow to auto focus. The images were disappointing. 

---

You should give it more time to learn.  But, you knew going in that the extender would decrease the light and slow down the aperture.  You just didn't know much the impact on AF performance would be.  Didn't you have to climb a learnng curve with the 100-400mm before you were satisfied with the shots?

I think the 100-400mm with the 1.4x feels like it focus at least as fast as my Sigma 150-600 "C".  But, since the firmware upgrade to the Sigma, which was a complete rewrite of the AF, the Sigma is VASTLY improved in AF speed and image quality.

Curiously, I have never bothered to use the 1.4x with the 70-200mm, but I would expect the impact on aperture and AF speed to be similar to that of the 100-400mm.  I guess I must reach for the 100-400, instead of the using the 1.4x with the 70-20.

Seeing how the 70-200mm is perfect just the way it is, that might explain why I have never used the 1.4x with it.  When I do carry the 100-400mm, it has been on a crop sensor body, and the 70-200mm is on a full frame body.  

---

I have used a 1.4 extender on my 70-200 f/2.8, and it worked fine. The loss, if any, of image quality wasn't noticeable. Of course it turned the lens into an f/4, but that's no hardship outdoors. (And it takes a pretty big room before a 70-200 lens needs an extender indoors.)

The big difference in using the extender on the two lenses under discussion is that the 70-200 is a constant-aperture zoom and the 100-400 isn't. So it's possible that the extender could cause autofocus problems at the long end when used on the 100-400, but no such issues should occur with the 70-200.

[Waddizzle]

---

@RobertTheFat wrote:

---

I have used a 1.4 extender on my 70-200 f/2.8, and it worked fine. The loss, if any, of image quality wasn't noticeable. Of course it turned the lens into an f/4, but that's no hardship outdoors. (And it takes a pretty big room before a 70-200 lens needs an extender indoors.)

The big difference in using the extender on the two lenses under discussion is that the 70-200 is a constant-aperture zoom and the 100-400 isn't. So it's possible that the extender could cause autofocus problems at the long end when used on the 100-400, but no such issues should occur with the 70-200.

---

If he is having AF problems, then it could related to the selection of AF points and/or AF assist points.  Not every AF point would be functional with extender at maximum zoom.  

[TCampbell]

I seem to recall that Canon deliberately slows the AF speed when the notice the extender is being used.  A slower AF speed is fairly normal.  There were a few reasons why it was a good idea to do that... I do not recall specifically what they were.

[lurechunker]

Should I expect good images on birds at 40 yards with the 2.8 70-200 on my 80D? I crop images but do no other editing.

[Waddizzle]

---

@lurechunker wrote:

Should I expect good images on birds at 40 yards with the 2.8 70-200 on my 80D? I crop images but do no other editing.

---

What size of brids?  Why should you NOT expect good images?  I suppose how fast birds are moving about, and what direction, might present a challenge to the AF system.  

At that distance, why not use the supertelephoto zoom?  BTW, Lightroom reports the distance to the subjects in the above photos as being between 30 meters and infinity.  My foggy recollection is that they were around 40-50 yeards.

[ebiggs1]

"Should I expect good images on birds at 40 yards with the 2.8 70-200 on my 80D?"

Any photo from the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Lens will be good.  However if you are referring to the size of the bird in the shot from 40 yards, it depends on what bird.  An ostrich will be pretty nice a chickadee will be tiny.  No reasonable lens made will make a tiny bird large in a photo at 40 yards.

I use 400mm to 600mm on tiny birds and try to be not more ths 25 (less than 10 yards) feet from them.  The closer the better.

This is from a 500mm lens at approx. 20 feet for example.

[Waddizzle]

---

@TCampbell wrote:

I seem to recall that Canon deliberately slows the AF speed when the notice the extender is being used.  A slower AF speed is fairly normal.  There were a few reasons why it was a good idea to do that... I do not recall specifically what they were.

---

I am pretty certain that you're correct.  I read about that, too, on one of Canon's web sites.  Don't quote me, but I think it was related to the reduction in incoming light, so they give the camera a brief moment of more time to gather liight.