Anyone tested R5(6) + TC 1.4x III + 400mm f/5.6L ?

fabioduarte

I'm New Here
Aug 8, 2014
20
3
Brazil
www.instagram.com
Has anyone used or knows someone who's used this combo and could tell how it performs?

I have this lens combo on a 7D Mark II and really want IS. Doing the math, my conclusion is that the best option for me while keeping a prime lens is to move to a body with IBIS. Since I'm tired of waiting for the ghost R7, the R5 seems the only option.

I appreciate your comments.

Cheers,
Fabio.
 

tron

EOS R5
CR Pro
Nov 8, 2011
4,984
1,344
Has anyone used or knows someone who's used this combo and could tell how it performs?

I have this lens combo on a 7D Mark II and really want IS. Doing the math, my conclusion is that the best option for me while keeping a prime lens is to move to a body with IBIS. Since I'm tired of waiting for the ghost R7, the R5 seems the only option.

I appreciate your comments.

Cheers,
Fabio.
Or you can get a 100-400 II L and get IS! It is much cheaper than R5 :) They mentioned in this site that for telephoto use IS is much better than IBIS. But I have no link or personal experience for this comparison. Only that I am happy with my 100-400 II.
 

fabioduarte

I'm New Here
Aug 8, 2014
20
3
Brazil
www.instagram.com
Or you can get a 100-400 II L and get IS! It is much cheaper than R5 :) They mentioned in this site that for telephoto use IS is much better than IBIS. But I have no link or personal experience for this comparison. Only that I am happy with my 100-400 II.
Thanks. For the moment I am looking for a solution in which I can avoid the zooms. Besides that, my investigation shows that moving to the R5 I will get other bonus features besides the stabilization of IBIS. Difficult decision though, based on the costs involved.
 

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
8,848
12,091
Thanks. For the moment I am looking for a solution in which I can avoid the zooms. Besides that, my investigation shows that moving to the R5 I will get other bonus features besides the stabilization of IBIS. Difficult decision though, based on the costs involved.
Why do you want to avoid the zooms?
 

tron

EOS R5
CR Pro
Nov 8, 2011
4,984
1,344
Other solution: For the cost of R5, adaptor,CFExpress card or cards you get EF400mm f/4 DO IS II. There you have it: IS and fixed lens and one stop brighter.
 

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,517
5,771
@fabioduarte trust AlanF on this issue. He is very experienced and methodical in his testing and has a broad experience of many Canon lens and body combinations and a few Nikon ones too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fabioduarte

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,517
5,771
Other solution: For the cost of R5, adaptor,CFExpress card or cards you get EF400mm f/4 DO IS II. There you have it: IS and fixed lens and one stop brighter.
There's always more than one way to 'skin a rabbit'!
 

fabioduarte

I'm New Here
Aug 8, 2014
20
3
Brazil
www.instagram.com
Why do you want to avoid the zooms?
Because in my specific case I don't need less than 400mm. I only shoot small birds and nothing else, but I struggle when doing this in the woods because my lens lacks IS.

So, in my case I think it makes more sense to keep the prime and put the money I would spend in a 100-400 in the R5 which offers IBIS and other features that my 7D Mark II does not offer, like the animal eye autofocus, 20fps, and possibly more accurate autofocus when using the lens with the 1,4x III extender.

However, I have read different opinions about how IBIS performs with this lens and TC. Some say it does not make any difference, some say they can shoot hand-held at 1/250! So I am investigating more on this before I make a decision.
 

fabioduarte

I'm New Here
Aug 8, 2014
20
3
Brazil
www.instagram.com
Other solution: For the cost of R5, adaptor,CFExpress card or cards you get EF400mm f/4 DO IS II. There you have it: IS and fixed lens and one stop brighter.
Thanks. Let me do the math as I have not considered the CF cards into account. However, 400mm f/4 DO IS II is not very popular here in Brazil so it might be very difficult to get.
 

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
8,848
12,091
Because in my specific case I don't need less than 400mm. I only shoot small birds and nothing else, but I struggle when doing this in the woods because my lens lacks IS.

So, in my case I think it makes more sense to keep the prime and put the money I would spend in a 100-400 in the R5 which offers IBIS and other features that my 7D Mark II does not offer, like the animal eye autofocus, 20fps, and possibly more accurate autofocus when using the lens with the 1,4x III extender.

However, I have read different opinions about how IBIS performs with this lens and TC. Some say it does not make any difference, some say they can shoot hand-held at 1/250! So I am investigating more on this before I make a decision.
If you shoot only at 400mm and the minimum focal distance of the prime is good enough for you, then you don't need the zoom for those reasons. But, the 100-400mm II is slightly sharper than the 400/5.6 prime - see: https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/08/the-sort-of-great-400mm-shootout/
and this is what Roger Cicala wrote:

"And just because I wanted to know, we tested the old, but excellent Canon 400mm f/5.6 L prime lens, for comparison. Few people shoot it anymore, but there’s a reason it’s remained in production for decades. It’s not quite as good as the 100-400 IS L, but still, an excellent performer considering how old the design is. (In the lab. In the field I’ll take the IS every time)."

The ISs of that zoom and the 100-500mm are stellar. But, it's your choice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fabioduarte

fabioduarte

I'm New Here
Aug 8, 2014
20
3
Brazil
www.instagram.com
If you shoot only at 400mm and the minimum focal distance of the prime is good enough for you, then you don't need the zoom for those reasons. But, the 100-400mm II is slightly sharper than the 400/5.6 prime - see: https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/08/the-sort-of-great-400mm-shootout/
and this is what Roger Cicala wrote:

"And just because I wanted to know, we tested the old, but excellent Canon 400mm f/5.6 L prime lens, for comparison. Few people shoot it anymore, but there’s a reason it’s remained in production for decades. It’s not quite as good as the 100-400 IS L, but still, an excellent performer considering how old the design is. (In the lab. In the field I’ll take the IS every time)."

The ISs of that zoom and the 100-500mm are stellar. But, it's your choice.
It'll be a tough choice. I'll let you guys know what I eventually end up doing. Thanks for the inputs so far.
 

tron

EOS R5
CR Pro
Nov 8, 2011
4,984
1,344
My non zoom solution is D850 or D500 with 500mm PF 5.6E

No kidding. Despite my various Canon cameras and lenses this is my goto birding combo.

But you want R5 so R5 and 100-500 with tc 1.4x and/or 2X is very good although expensive solution.
 
Last edited:

fabioduarte

I'm New Here
Aug 8, 2014
20
3
Brazil
www.instagram.com
My non zoom solution is D850 or D500 with 500mm PF 5.6E

No kidding. Despite my various Canon cameras and lenses this is my goto bitding combo.

But you want R5 so R5 and 100-500 with tc 1.4x and/or 2X is very good although expensive solution.
As I wrote in another thread, I was ready to sell all my gear and get a D500 +500mm f/5.6 pf from Nikon. But I decided to check if changing only my 7D II body to an R5 wouldn't be a better solution.

My "fear" is I make the move and the next day Canon launches an IBIS equipped R7!
 

tron

EOS R5
CR Pro
Nov 8, 2011
4,984
1,344
As I wrote in another thread, I was ready to sell all my gear and get a D500 +500mm f/5.6 pf from Nikon. But I decided to check if changing only my 7D II body to an R5 wouldn't be a better solution.

My "fear" is I make the move and the next day Canon launches an IBIS equipped R7!
You think of IBIS too much simply because you don't have IS.

I have both combos and I prefer Nikon as I said. But that's me. Alan is proficient in the use of R5 100-500 plus TCs.

And 100-500 is very versatile because you do need less than maximum Focal Length sometimes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fabioduarte

fabioduarte

I'm New Here
Aug 8, 2014
20
3
Brazil
www.instagram.com
You think of IBIS too much simply because you don't have IS.
.
Yes indeed. I was expecting that IBIS on my non-IS EF lens would be as effective as IS is in a stabilized lens, but maybe it's not . I need to check to make a decision.

If it's not, then the Nikon combo goes back again to the top of the list.
 

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
8,848
12,091
Yes indeed. I was expecting that IBIS on my non-IS EF lens would be as effective as IS is in a stabilized lens, but maybe it's not . I need to check to make a decision.

If it's not, then the Nikon combo goes back again to the top of the list.
There are always some people who love using legacy lenses, and if they enjoy that and get good results from them, then great, and may they long continue to enjoy them. However, as a bird photographer, which you say you are as well as me, I would not base my choice of a new body solely on using a 20+ year old design of lens, the 400mm f/5.6L, that has been superseded in capabilities by modern lenses. Its lack of IS will not be compensated by the IBIS that much. If you are shooting just small birds in trees, as I think you wrote elsewhere, then the Nikon D500 + 500mm PF will be excellent, as will be the R5 + 100-500mm or 100-400mm II. If you are doing birds in flight, the R5‘s tracking is in the forefront all bodies out there. However, the D500 + 500PF is exceedingly good. To be honest, the RF 100-500mm at 500mm is pretty close in sharpness and IQ to the Nikon prime, which is high praise. And, with the R5's AF, it is very good with a 2xTC at 1000mm. You will be restricted to 700mm f/8 with the Nikon, but it is very sharp with the TC.

We are spoiled for choices.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tron

fabioduarte

I'm New Here
Aug 8, 2014
20
3
Brazil
www.instagram.com
There are always some people who love using legacy lenses, and if they enjoy that and get good results from them, then great, and may they long continue to enjoy them. However, as a bird photographer, which you say you are as well as me, I would not base my choice of a new body solely on using a 20+ year old design of lens, the 400mm f/5.6L, that has been superseded in capabilities by modern lenses. Its lack of IS will not be compensated by the IBIS that much. If you are shooting just small birds in trees, as I think you wrote elsewhere, then the Nikon D500 + 500mm PF will be excellent, as will be the R5 + 100-500mm or 100-400mm II. If you are doing birds in flight, the R5‘s tracking is in the forefront all bodies out there. However, the D500 + 500PF is exceedingly good. To be honest, the RF 100-500mm at 500mm is pretty close in sharpness and IQ to the Nikon prime, which is high praise. And, with the R5's AF, it is very good with a 2xTC at 1000mm. You will be restricted to 700mm f/8 with the Nikon, but it is very sharp with the TC.

We are spoiled for choices.
Thanks so much again for the advices and opinions.
 

stevelee

FT-QL
CR Pro
Jul 6, 2017
2,178
883
Davidson, NC
Is it not true that IBIS is most effective on shorter lenses, and that it doesn't do so much for extra long lenses? It might help a bit when added to the lens's IS, but it not a substitute for it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fabioduarte

nc0b

5DsR
Dec 3, 2013
255
11
74
Colorado
Has anyone used or knows someone who's used this combo and could tell how it performs?

I have this lens combo on a 7D Mark II and really want IS. Doing the math, my conclusion is that the best option for me while keeping a prime lens is to move to a body with IBIS. Since I'm tired of waiting for the ghost R7, the R5 seems the only option.

I appreciate your comments.

Cheers,
Fabio.
Here is my experience with a 5DsR and the 1.4 TC III on a 400mm f/5.6 vs. 100-400 II. I am talking about one sample of each lens, and one 50mp body. While I don't use the TC very often on the zoom, the image quality is fine. On the other hand I found the chromatic aberration a big problem with the TC on the 400mm prime. Any extra reach was negated by the added CA.

Personally I still prefer the prime for BIF over the zoom. Maybe if the zoom had an additional 10m minimum focal distance limiter, focus would get lost less often in the sky, For me anyway, it is easier to reacquire focus for BIF with the prime set to 8.5m minimum focus distance.

I would like to hear some real world experience as to the advantage of IBIS with a 400mm lens. If I purchased an R5 and EF to RF adapter, what would I gain when shooting raptors that perch around my house and then take off in flight? I usually have to shoot at 1/1000 for hawks and eagles on the wing.
 

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
8,848
12,091
Here is my experience with a 5DsR and the 1.4 TC III on a 400mm f/5.6 vs. 100-400 II. I am talking about one sample of each lens, and one 50mp body. While I don't use the TC very often on the zoom, the image quality is fine. On the other hand I found the chromatic aberration a big problem with the TC on the 400mm prime. Any extra reach was negated by the added CA.

Personally I still prefer the prime for BIF over the zoom. Maybe if the zoom had an additional 10m minimum focal distance limiter, focus would get lost less often in the sky, For me anyway, it is easier to reacquire focus for BIF with the prime set to 8.5m minimum focus distance.

I would like to hear some real world experience as to the advantage of IBIS with a 400mm lens. If I purchased an R5 and EF to RF adapter, what would I gain when shooting raptors that perch around my house and then take off in flight? I usually have to shoot at 1/1000 for hawks and eagles on the wing.
I find 1/1000s too slow in general for BIF with IS on and don't get tack sharp images unless the bird is very lazily floating across, so usually have 1/2500-1/4000s, and the IS isn't contributing much if anything at all to sharpness. With the 5DSR and 100-400mm II, I use the centre 9 points and never have much difficulty getting focus. With the R5, the full screen tracking just picks up birds quickly whenever they are in view, and the IBIS is of secondary importance. I've recently searched the net for the effect of IBIS on the 400/5.6 L and haven't found anything.