# Next step in tele - difficult decision - especially now in between EF and RF.



## PKinDenmark (Jul 20, 2020)

Need some experienced input to my decision-making regarding my plan to upgrade my tele-lens.
Currently I am on a Canon 6D Mk II and a Tamron 150-600mm 1.G.
Mostly used for wildlife - e.g. birds of prey in flight and Kingfishers.

I am looking for faster, sharper, better focusing - I often find my photos 'almost in focus' and 'almost sharp'.

Can not afford / can not carry the largest big whites. Find 400mm DO II attractive and within limits.

Have read a lot about it - mostly very positive.
Will it perform well on 6D II ? and with 1.4 TC III ?

Also within a year I expect to own a new R-camera (R5 or R6 - depending on how well they perform).
This should probably affect my tele-considerations.

I know that an EF-tele will perform fine on adapter.
Still: Will I regret investing in an EF big white, once I am on the RF-system, and when RF-system offers a variety of RF-tele-options - perhaps with added new benefits? 
For example: When on R5 or R6 would the new RF 100-500mm be a better option?
I am aware of the new F/11 RF-teles - interesting, but probably not my first choice.

Thank you in advance for any insightful input.


----------



## TominNJ (Jul 21, 2020)

my opinion is that if you aren’t sure what to buy then you should wait and keep looking until you find what’s right for you. 

the big whites will give you some OOF shots too especially with birds in flight. I’m not familiar with the 400mm DO but I have experience with the 600/4 with and without TCs and the 400/5.6. I get plenty of focus misses with them on the 5D IV. I hope the R5 does a better job. I’ll be seriously disappointed if it doesn’t.

TCs come with their own issues. Images aren’t as sharp.

for sharper faster better focusing I think the R5 and R6 will be everything you’re looking for.

my suggestion is to wait. the EF big whites might come down in price and Canon might come out with an RF tele that‘s a significant improvement


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 21, 2020)

This is a case where I'd go with a R5 rather than a new lens. It will breathe new life into your existing lens, and even autofocus it with a 2X TC. You can always get a better lens next year, but you will miss out on the improved camera for a year.


----------



## Maximilian (Jul 21, 2020)

I would definitely wait until you can have an R5 in your own hands and maybe rent it for testing.
You say you do a lot of wildlife. You should look at (through) the new EVF of the R5, if this fits your needs. It seem to be a reasonable step further.
If this suits your needs and if you decide to buy an R5 then I second MT. Spokanes thought to get the camera first. 
After that you should think about RF teles as the RF100-500 for example has the dual nano USM linear AF motors which seem to be a important factor for faster focusing.


----------



## PKinDenmark (Jul 21, 2020)

Thank you all above for your advice. 
You shift me towards an early adoptation of the R5/6. 
All three of you seem to point to - which was my underlying concern - a solution based solely on R-system being preferable compared to mixing EF and R-system. 
Especially when the timing is as it is. (I guess I shold have invested in the 400mm DO much earlier - but that is another story).

Speculation for me is, that future big whites will be RF-based and are likely to be even better on R-cameras than current EF lenses.
So whether to go with the already announced 100-500 mm or with some yet to come bigger whites can be open options for now.

Thanks again.

PS: Some of my Wild-life work can be seen at: https://symphoto.smugmug.com/Wild-Life


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 21, 2020)

PKinDenmark said:


> Thank you all above for your advice.
> You shift me towards an early adoptation of the R5/6.
> All three of you seem to point to - which was my underlying concern - a solution based solely on R-system being preferable compared to mixing EF and R-system.
> Especially when the timing is as it is. (I guess I shold have invested in the 400mm DO much earlier - but that is another story).
> ...


You actually get a better image from a existing lens when your new camera has a sensor with better definition, so the R5 should give you better images from your existing lens.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jul 21, 2020)

I came from the 6D and when I still had it I bought the 400 DO II knowing that another camera body was coming. It was imperative that I have AF at F8 for 2X and the 6D wouldn't do it, but otherwise it worked well with the 400. I love that lens but it is a little heavy but at 70 I'm not deterred from hiking hours with it and now the R5 will reduce weight somewhat. It's like the R5 was designed just for me ... 20 MPs is not ideal for wildlife. If interested click my Guru Shots link and check the photos - many/most with 400 X2 and almost always with significant cropping and the EXIF is in there.

I agree that lenses are better value in general but I feel like the R5 is a dream come true for wildlife shooters if it's anywhere close to as good as it appears so far. I was conflicted between the 5D4 and the 1DX2 since I wanted more MPs but also wanted 4K60 but now there is an R5  

Jack


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jul 21, 2020)

PKinDenmark said:


> Thank you all above for your advice.
> You shift me towards an early adoptation of the R5/6.
> All three of you seem to point to - which was my underlying concern - a solution based solely on R-system being preferable compared to mixing EF and R-system.
> Especially when the timing is as it is. (I guess I shold have invested in the 400mm DO much earlier - but that is another story).
> ...


Judging from your work, you deserve to move up with your gear. Very nice!

I think we have to be patient for a few more weeks when the serious reviews start showing up.

Jack


----------



## PKinDenmark (Jul 21, 2020)

Thanks to you both, MtSP and JD. 
Exiting times indeed. 
regards PK


----------



## FrenchFry (Aug 23, 2020)

For anyone wondering about the R5 and 400 DO II, the combination works really well. I don't have any teleconverters yet, so for now I can just speak to the pairing of body with adapter and lens.
Autofocus is fast and accurate, and images look quite nice. If only I could take them somewhere more interesting, I could truly see what the combination is capable of.
I look forward to Canon's eventual release of RF big (but hopefully smaller than before) whites. Until then the EF 400mm DO II (and RF 100-500) will hold me over just fine.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 23, 2020)

FrenchFry said:


> For anyone wondering about the R5 and 400 DO II, the combination works really well. I don't have any teleconverters yet, so for now I can just speak to the pairing of body with adapter and lens.
> Autofocus is fast and accurate, and images look quite nice. If only I could take them somewhere more interesting, I could truly see what the combination is capable of.
> I look forward to Canon's eventual release of RF big (but hopefully smaller than before) whites. Until then the EF 400mm DO II (and RF 100-500) will hold me over just fine.


Thanks for posting this. I'm interested in more commentary/pics as you continue to explore and am most interested if you were to acquire an EF 2X to augment the 400. My 400 is almost always paired with 2X for reach, the exception mainly being sometimes BIF at 400 or 560. Comparisons between the 400 and the 100-500 would also be helpful, especially does one cause the other to be less used or maybe more correctly worded, does having the zoom make you tend to leave the 400 at home?

Jack


----------



## unfocused (Aug 23, 2020)

I guess I'm just a contrarian, but I have to wonder about the wisdom of buying a new camera body for full retail price, knowing that within a year it will drop in price, vs. buying an excellent lens that is unlikely to see significant price reductions anytime soon. I guess I am just against paying the early adopter's tax for camera bodies.

On the other hand, I imagine your Tamron will perform very well on the R5, so I guess you may decide that you don't need the 400 II. Ultimately, I think it depends on what your end game is. Do you expect that eventually you will be buying both an R5 and the 400 DO? Do you think you might be happy with the R5 and the 100-500 zoom (which together is about the same price as the 400 DO II.) Depends on how much value you put on the f4 aperture and how tolerant you are of higher ISOs. Will you be upset in a year when the R5 has dropped in price, or will you look at it from the standpoint of the enjoyment you got during that year? Questions only you can answer.


----------



## PKinDenmark (Aug 23, 2020)

Thank you FF for your experience with R5 and 400 DO II. Good to hear. 
And thank you JD for elaborating - yes, would be great to know comparison between EF 400 DO II and RF 100-500 mm - both with or without TCs.
Two different tools certainly, but still would be great to hear which one FrenchFry and others would pick for a day in the wild (primarily birding).

And thanks to you, Unfocused. Good points for sure. Could be a good path to give my old Tamron a workout with R5 before final decision on 'tele end game'

I have preordered R5 (I am ready to be an early adopter for this once) and RF 100-500 (this decision still brewing)
Happily and less patiently waiting.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 23, 2020)

Jack Douglas said:


> Thanks for posting this. I'm interested in more commentary/pics as you continue to explore and am most interested if you were to acquire an EF 2X to augment the 400. My 400 is almost always paired with 2X for reach, the exception mainly being sometimes BIF at 400 or 560. Comparisons between the 400 and the 100-500 would also be helpful, especially does one cause the other to be less used or maybe more correctly worded, does having the zoom make you tend to leave the 400 at home?
> 
> Jack


I used my 400 DO II frequently with a 2xTC on the 5DIV. However, I was never happy with the 2xTC on the 5DSR, which is of similar resolution to the R5, and used the DO either bare or with the 1.4xTC.


----------



## Frodo (Oct 8, 2020)

AlanF said:


> I used my 400 DO II frequently with a 2xTC on the 5DIV. However, I was never happy with the 2xTC on the 5DSR, which is of similar resolution to the R5, and used the DO either bare or with the 1.4xTC.


I had a similar experience with my 400/5.6, 1.4x and 5DsR. In tests I found that the teleconverter (mk1) didn't produce better files than simply cropping 1.4x. I regret selling the 1.4x as my R gets a lot more use than the 5DsR.


----------



## [email protected] (Oct 14, 2020)

I have used both EF and RF lenses on my R5 and with the R5 there is an improvement in the EF lens performance. on a side note i also got the 100-500 RF lens and it is sharper and faster focusing then my 100-400 EF. and the 100-500 is almost as sharp as my 600mm III EF lens but does not perform as well in low light. The 100-500 is $10000 less and the improvement on the ISO performance would make it a very hard to chose. I would start with the 100-500 to see if it fits your needs. You take a hit in sharpness even with a 1.4 extender but i have noticed it less with the RF extender but it is still a hit in a stop of light.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Oct 14, 2020)

Thanks, that's interesting commentary. Keep us informed as you gain more experience. I am optimistic I'll have the R5 next spring and might consider the 100-500 although I suspect from a financial point of view I'll have to stick with the 400 DO II.

Jack


----------



## [email protected] (Oct 15, 2020)

Jack Douglas said:


> Thanks, that's interesting commentary. Keep us informed as you gain more experience. I am optimistic I'll have the R5 next spring and might consider the 100-500 although I suspect from a financial point of view I'll have to stick with the 400 DO II.
> 
> Jack


I had a 400 ser 1 EF and it was one of the sharpest lenses that i had even with a 1.4 extender it was sharper then my 600mm III but it was built like a tank and just as heavy. I really like the 600mm III for sharpness, reach and weight but with the new 100-500 RF and the 1.4 RF extender in my bag i will not take the 600 it for hikes into areas that I have not gone into before the 100-500 RF will be my travel lens unless i know that i will need the 600 for low light shooting. The 100-500 RF was a real surprise. I have even shot the R5 at 12800 with good results noise starts to creep in above 3200 ISO


----------



## stevelee (Oct 15, 2020)

My experience may not be that helpful, but I'll share it briefly just in case. I don't shoot a lot of wildlife or BIF, just the cardinals at the feeders next door and an occasional humming bird or butterfly. I have the 6D II and the 100mm–400mm II lens. I have found the combination to work flawlessly. I can't recall ever having a focusing issue. I don't own an extender, so I can't say how that would work on my camera. I'm not ready to give up the OVF, so I an unlikely to buy another body unless they run a good sale on the 5D IV again and I have a weak moment. The optical view through that lens is enough for me to want to hang on to my current camera.


----------



## [email protected] (Oct 15, 2020)

Jack Douglas said:


> Thanks, that's interesting commentary. Keep us informed as you gain more experience. I am optimistic I'll have the R5 next spring and might consider the 100-500 although I suspect from a financial point of view I'll have to stick with the 400 DO II.
> 
> Jack


Here is a shot with the R5 and the 100-500 RF ISO 1600 f 9.0 2000 sec at 500 focal length
View attachment 193365


----------



## [email protected] (Oct 15, 2020)

Here is a shot with the R5 and the 100-500 RF ISO 1600 f 9.0 2000 sec at 500 focal length


----------



## nc0b (Oct 15, 2020)

Frodo said:


> I had a similar experience with my 400/5.6, 1.4x and 5DsR. In tests I found that the teleconverter (mk1) didn't produce better files than simply cropping 1.4x. I regret selling the 1.4x as my R gets a lot more use than the 5DsR.



With my 5DsR I found I could use my 1.4X TC III with my 100-400mm II, but when used with my 400mm f/5.6 the CA was not acceptable. What I would like to know is how well does IBIS work on an R5 with the 400mm f/5.6. Does it stabilize the EVF well, and how many stops of stabilization does it actually provide to the digital image?


----------



## Del Paso (Oct 15, 2020)

PKinDenmark said:


> Thank you all above for your advice.
> You shift me towards an early adoptation of the R5/6.
> All three of you seem to point to - which was my underlying concern - a solution based solely on R-system being preferable compared to mixing EF and R-system.
> Especially when the timing is as it is. (I guess I shold have invested in the 400mm DO much earlier - but that is another story).
> ...


Thanks for the link !
Great pictures!


----------



## PunkRawkJay (Oct 16, 2020)

[email protected] said:


> View attachment 193382
> 
> Here is a shot with the R5 and the 100-500 RF ISO 1600 f 9.0 2000 sec at 500 focal length


gorgeous!


----------



## dwarven (Oct 25, 2020)

I have a Sigma EF 100-400 and it works like magic on the R6. I tested it side-by-side with the Canon 100-400 f/5.6 and it gave the $2k lens a serious run for its money. I suspect you could throw nearly any EF lens on either the R6 or R5 and they will work flawlessly. The cameras are just that good.


----------



## PKinDenmark (Jan 6, 2021)

Dear all. 
Thank you again for your comments and input. Much appreciated. 
I took the plunge into R-land. Since mid December I am the happy owner of R5 and RF 100-500mm.
The camera just blows me away - so fast, responsive, good in low light, and both AF and IBIS works magic. 
The tele-zoom is equally as good - and together this is all that I hoped for.
True, the speed of the zoom (7.1 @ 500mm) is not impressive, but the camera makes up for it in many ways - AF, high ISO, IBIS. 
best regards
PK
@David: Gorgeous bird-shot. Hoping to come closer to doing something like that before long - maybe the kingfishers in spring. (A guy can hope - even more so now)


----------



## PKinDenmark (Feb 3, 2021)

Dear all
After about one month of usage my experience is a confirmation of first impressions just above.
And I can add, that the RF 1.4 TC works very well with the combo. The rather slow optics is quite well covered for by great IS and good high ISO performance.
To prove my point - and referring to my wish above for kingfishers - I can add, that I got some already. And once I came really close - se two examples here.
Both at 700mm @f/10 (max speed with TC). No 1 @ ISO 1000, No 2 @ ISO 1600.
I recommend displaying at full resolution to get an idea of the level of detail.
Couldn't be more happy.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 3, 2021)

PKinDenmark said:


> Dear all
> After about one month of usage my experience is a confirmation of first impressions just above.
> And I can add, that the RF 1.4 TC works very well with the combo. The rather slow optics is quite well covered for by great IS and good high ISO performance.
> To prove my point - and referring to my wish above for kingfishers - I can add, that I got some already. And once I came really close - se two examples here.
> ...



Very nice shots!

My only thought relative to my typical shooting is that I'm ecstatic if I can be at ISO1250, very happy at 1600 but usually find myself above and my typical scenario is 400X2 @F8 with ISOs ranging up to 6400. The 1DX2 handles the high ISOs quite well but of course it's only 20 MP so I'm wondering just how the R5 will compare since I plan to buy it by spring.

Jack


----------

