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



## fabioduarte (Aug 5, 2021)

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 (Aug 5, 2021)

fabioduarte said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


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 (Aug 5, 2021)

tron said:


> 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 (Aug 5, 2021)

fabioduarte said:


> 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 (Aug 5, 2021)

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 (Aug 5, 2021)

@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.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 5, 2021)

tron said:


> 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 (Aug 5, 2021)

AlanF said:


> 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 (Aug 5, 2021)

tron said:


> 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 (Aug 5, 2021)

fabioduarte said:


> 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.


----------



## fabioduarte (Aug 5, 2021)

AlanF said:


> 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)."
> ...


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 (Aug 5, 2021)

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.


----------



## fabioduarte (Aug 6, 2021)

tron said:


> 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 (Aug 6, 2021)

fabioduarte said:


> 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.


----------



## fabioduarte (Aug 6, 2021)

tron said:


> 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 (Aug 6, 2021)

fabioduarte said:


> 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.


----------



## fabioduarte (Aug 6, 2021)

AlanF said:


> 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 (Aug 6, 2021)

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.


----------



## nc0b (Aug 7, 2021)

fabioduarte said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


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 (Aug 7, 2021)

nc0b said:


> 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.


----------



## Bdbtoys (Aug 7, 2021)

stevelee said:


> 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.



I love questions where I am genuinely intrigued by what the answer might be. In contrast, I believe that longer focal lengths would get more usage out of IBIS than a shorter once due to the perceived magnification of camera movement at longer lengths. But it really looks more lens based...

Per Canon spec on the applicable lens pages and then here for IBIS...


15-35/2.8 has 5 w/IS, and 7 w/IS+IBIS
50/1.2 has no IS, and 7 w/IBIS
85/1.2 has no IS, and 8 w/IBIS
70-200/2.8 has 5 w/IS, and 7.5 w/IS+IBIS
100-500/4.5-7.1 has 5 stops w/IS, and 6 w/IS+IBIS

So comparing just about any lens to the 100-500 supports your theory... but comparing others such as the 15-35 > 70-200 or the 50 > 85 doesn't. It would be nice to see the data points on other long lenses.

Note: There is also the image circle of each lens in play here too as that matters as well when dealing with IBIS.


----------



## stevelee (Aug 7, 2021)

Bdbtoys said:


> So comparing just about any lens to the 100-500 supports your theory... but comparing others such as the 15-35 > 70-200 or the 50 > 85 doesn't. It would be nice to see the data points on other long lenses.
> 
> Note: There is also the image circle of each lens in play here too as that matters as well when dealing with IBIS.


So it is a generalization, but apparently most of the work is done in lens with longer lenses. And of course longer lenses need the stabilization more than shorter ones. That is acknowledged in the reciprocal rule of thumb for shutter speeds.


----------



## stevelee (Aug 7, 2021)

AlanF said:


> 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.


To me, sharp BIF pictures don't look like the bird is flying. I realize that is contrary to the views of BIF fans.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 7, 2021)

stevelee said:


> To me, sharp BIF pictures don't look like the bird is flying. I realize that is contrary to the views of BIF fans.


How do you define sharp for BIF? There's a difference between blurring movements of the wings, which can show motion and can even enhance a shot, and the eye and beak not being sharp.


----------



## fabioduarte (Aug 7, 2021)

nc0b said:


> 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.


If you do purchase an R5 then from what I've read so far it would be a good option to sell the EF 100-400 and get an RF 100-500.


----------



## Bdbtoys (Aug 7, 2021)

stevelee said:


> So it is a generalization, but apparently most of the work is done in lens with longer lenses.


For the first part, I realize it was a generalization... however, after seeing the data, I can't say I agree (for at least the RF lenses). In all the examples I semi-randomly picked out, they all start with either 5 stops of correction or none. The amount that IBIS added changed... with longer focal lengths getting more stops of correction from IBIS than the shorter counterparts (with the exception of the 100-500).


----------



## stevelee (Aug 8, 2021)

AlanF said:


> How do you define sharp for BIF? There's a difference between blurring movements of the wings, which can show motion and can even enhance a shot, and the eye and beak not being sharp.


Yes, it sounds like you likely know what I meant, shots where the tips of the wings show no blur at all. A long-time online friend gets criticized at his photography club if there is the slightest blur. That’s fine for eagles and other soaring raptors. And I guess about all birds soar sometimes. They just don’t hold still to pose for pictures.

I admit to liking some BIF shots, but don’t share a passion for looking at most of them, much less the level of interest in taking them that inspires some of you guys to spend significant time and money on that pursuit. I have no quarrel with those who do, of course. I just throw in an opinion from time to time.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 8, 2021)

stevelee said:


> Yes, it sounds like you likely know what I meant, shots where the tips of the wings show no blur at all. A long-time online friend gets criticized at his photography club if there is the slightest blur. That’s fine for eagles and other soaring raptors. And I guess about all birds soar sometimes. They just don’t hold still to pose for pictures.
> 
> I admit to liking some BIF shots, but don’t share a passion for looking at most of them, much less the level of interest in taking them that inspires some of you guys to spend significant time and money on that pursuit. I have no quarrel with those who do, of course. I just throw in an opinion from time to time.


And getting a sharp eye and beak is why I rarely shoot as low as 1/1000s for BIF.


----------



## nc0b (Aug 9, 2021)

While I do prefer to have my shutter speed at 1/1000 to 1/2000 or higher, it doesn't always work out that way. Here is a hawk flying around my back yard shot with a 5DsR 400 f/5.6 @ f/9, 1/800 @ ISO 400.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 9, 2021)

There is now a YouTube on this:




Go to 10:30 and he tells you that you can't get sharp shots hand held at 1/320s and 560mm.


----------



## tron (Aug 9, 2021)

AlanF said:


> There is now a YouTube on this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That must not be the 1.4X he claims. It has to be a 2X. The 1.4X is thinner.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 9, 2021)

tron said:


> That must not be the 1.4X he claims. It has to be a 2X. The 1.4X is thinner.


He uses both the 1.4x and the 2x, and describes when he uses each.


----------



## tron (Aug 9, 2021)

Also at 1:57 he mentions: EF 500mm 2.8L IS II but that's a typo. But yes at 11:44 he uses the 1.4X


----------



## tron (Aug 9, 2021)

All in all this was an interesting video. It proves that 100-400 II and 100-500 are a much better choice for birding.


----------



## fabioduarte (Aug 9, 2021)

I am starting to see a path for me here, which is to get R5 (or R7 if it ever comes out) and then later move to RF 100-500m.


----------

