p.2 #1 · Looking for advice on what to upgrade to (or if I should). Birds/wildlife
Not disagreeing with any of the above advice but the first thing I would check would be static focus as Garyvot suggested
Then assuming that’s ok then try to find some easier moving subjects something like seagulls
p.2 #2 · Looking for advice on what to upgrade to (or if I should). Birds/wildlife
Vksrik wrote:
Find a used 400 5.6 L prime , EF to RF adaptor and a Canon R6 Mark III, this will be a killer setup, once you are used to the AF and mirrorless, you can move to a bigger lens ( only if needed ) but the 400 5.6 is underrated and its one of the best primes out there for that weight and value !
---------------------------------------------
melcat wrote:
That lens is a poor choice for this application, because it doesn’t support high frame rate on the R7 (OP’s proposed body), R6 (all Marks), R3 etc.:
OP’s contemplated EF 100–400 II is on the list of lenses supporting high frame rates, and I can confirm it does on the R3. (Older copies need a firmware update, and OP should confirm the R7 can apply them to lenses before buying that combination, otherwise they would have to borrow a body that could.)
Folks might want to consider backing-off from high blast shutter technique (shotgun approach) to fine-tuning physical technique to acquire focus and track subjects. My choice is center point focus (sniper approach) and lots of practice, only hitting shutter when locked on target. Personally, I don't even use the high speed continuous setting on my ancient 7DMk2. Plus, I have no patience for sorting through hundreds of frames to see if anything descent resulted from the blast. Would much rather be out shooting. Cheers!
p.2 #3 · Looking for advice on what to upgrade to (or if I should). Birds/wildlife
jimmy_racoon wrote:
Folks might want to consider backing-off from high blast shutter technique (shotgun approach) to fine-tuning physical technique to acquire focus and track subjects. My choice is center point focus (sniper approach) and lots of practice, only hitting shutter when locked on target. Personally, I don't even use the high speed continuous setting on my ancient 7DMk2. Plus, I have no patience for sorting through hundreds of frames to see if anything descent resulted from the blast. Would much rather be out shooting. Cheers!
Like all skills in life there are always those that are better at it then others, and that applies to camera handholding and tracking as well.
IMO, whatever technique works best in achieving the desired results, for any induvial, is the more sensible, and reasonable approach.
p.2 #4 · Looking for advice on what to upgrade to (or if I should). Birds/wildlife
Here is a youtube video from a guy praising the Canon 400mm f/5.6 and mentioning it paired with the OP's 80D.
Thirty year old lens but tack sharp, quick and solid.
Might be a consideration, if you can find one...
p.2 #6 · Looking for advice on what to upgrade to (or if I should). Birds/wildlife
jimmy_racoon wrote:
Folks might want to consider backing-off from high blast shutter technique (shotgun approach) to fine-tuning physical technique to acquire focus and track subjects. My choice is center point focus (sniper approach) and lots of practice, only hitting shutter when locked on target. Personally, I don't even use the high speed continuous setting on my ancient 7DMk2.
The purpose of using high frame rate is not to get a single frame in focus (that was a valid approach in the days of manual focus, where the focus point was fixed and the bird flew through it). The value is in having a choice of poses of the bird, such as wing, beak and foot positions. There’s an example here upthread of a duck coming in to land, where the tail is just off the water’s surface. I’m going to guess @Imagemaster got it by using a high frame rate and choosing the exact pose he wanted. This isn’t lack of skill, rather it is using a tool to achieve a planned outcome. From my own experience, you need about 10fps to have a wide choice of poses in flight shots, and higher framerates for some other bird behaviours.
That said, in many of my bird shots I like the most the bird is almost or completely still. To some extent, bird photography online has been gameified with high action shots getting most likes. Some may notice I choose not to play.
Plus, I have no patience for sorting through hundreds of frames to see if anything descent resulted from the blast. Would much rather be out shooting.
It’s very little actual human work with suitable software, in my case Capture One, but I’m sure Lightroom and others can also do it. You let the software read all the files and generate thumbnails and previews (no human labour there), then click on the thumbnails of ones that look close to what you want; each time you click on a thumnail the software shows a larger preview in a separate pane. I’m spoiled having two 27″ monitors so I can have the thumbnails occupying most of one and a large preview on the other, but for years I did it with one monitor.
p.2 #7 · Looking for advice on what to upgrade to (or if I should). Birds/wildlife
jimmy_racoon wrote:
Here is a youtube video from a guy praising the Canon 400mm f/5.6 and mentioning it paired with the OP's 80D...
As far as I know, the “4-5-6” for birding was popularised by Arthur Morris, known for his bird photography instruction books back before the web was such a thing. He later switched to the 300mm f/4 IS + 1.4× (my own starter kit), then Nikon and now Sony.
We’re talking about a lens released 33 years ago, and the OP already has a good Sigma 100–400. The OP’s zoom is less than a stop slower than the 4-5-6, which is insignificant with modern cameras, and if it’s similar to the Sony mount one described on Sigma’s web site, has 4 stops of image stabilisation. On the face of it, there’s no reason to think the modern Sigma isn’t better or at least as good. (Duade Paton reported a problem with a different Sigma zoom adapted to the R7, and did a followup video with settings to mitigate it.)
I disagree with the video maker about IS, because I think he has wrongly generalised from his experience in Oklahoma. Here a lot of wildlife is crepuscular, and you need every stop you can get.
If the OP sold their current lens and bought the 4-5-6 they would still only have 400mm, and only 400mm, and would be taking a loss just to get back to what they currently have.
p.2 #8 · Looking for advice on what to upgrade to (or if I should). Birds/wildlife
100% EF 100-400 v2 over the old 400/5.6. No R camera frame rate limitation, it's sharp, a zoom, takes TCs, and when needed, has good IS.
I also agree about the benefit of high frame rates. I'm not into wildlife, but instead photograph some sports. Having 30 or 40 fps might seem like overkill until you start to use it in high speed situations and notice that there is still significant variation in subject position from shot to shot. It just provides more options/choices.
Compared to when I shot DSLRs, I now generate 2-3x more images with mirrorless, but my time to cull games has actually decreased because I'm not spending a lot of time checking critical focus. The mirrorless cameras are simply a lot more consistent with focus, even high speed action at 30-40 fps. I mostly skim through the thumbnails, pick the best and maybe then check the details, if desired.
p.2 #9 · Looking for advice on what to upgrade to (or if I should). Birds/wildlife
The EF100-400v2 is a great lens, so good that the used prices are quite high.
I am a birder and use the lens as my bring everyday everywhere. I used to shoot it with a 7d2, then 5dsr, now R5. In the EF world, 5dsr gave me the best bird and wildlife shots over the 7d's. R5 is a great upgrade for AF, especially flying birds.
JP
Feb 01, 2026 at 09:01 AM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.2 #10 · Looking for advice on what to upgrade to (or if I should). Birds/wildlife
The well under 3lb (sans tripod mount ) 400/5.6, which used to be known as BIF king for fast af, would still be an excellent choice imo. No IS but one of my most used teles has no IS, 400/5.6 supposedly sharper than 100-400 v1 which was a very popular choice for bird photography years ago. Sure , they came out in 1993, but some wouldn't be anywhere near that old since they made them for years
ORGrown wrote:
I've been eyeing something like the R7, largely influenced by the newer AF tech (bird eye detection) combined with a crop sensor. I'm wondering how much of this is just marketing, versus how much of an impact the new tech will actually improve things. If this is a situation where I just need to get better, I'm happy to hear that too! Or if there's a better ecosystem to move into for birds/BIF/wildlife.
To be clear, I do get some really nice shots that I'm happy with, but I'm only keeping maybe 3% of my total shots, and a lot of those are getting tossed for being out of focus.
p.2 #11 · Looking for advice on what to upgrade to (or if I should). Birds/wildlife
Vksrik wrote:
Find a used 400 5.6 L prime , EF to RF adaptor and a Canon R6 Mark III, this will be a killer setup, once you are used to the AF and mirrorless, you can move to a bigger lens ( only if needed ) but the 400 5.6 is underrated and its one of the best primes out there for that weight and value !
How about the R6 Mk3 is not in his budget?: ORGrown wrote:
I agree that waiting for the R7-mk2 might be smart, but only so that I can pick up the mk1 cheaper! While I'm at peace with spending the money I need to for high quality, I also can't stand buying brand new, and always gravitate towards a generation or two old.
Also, the 400mm is pretty useless shooting from 100 to 399mm.
p.2 #12 · Looking for advice on what to upgrade to (or if I should). Birds/wildlife
AmbientMike wrote:
The well under 3lb (sans tripod mount ) 400/5.6, which used to be known as BIF king for fast af, would still be an excellent choice imo. No IS but one of my most used teles has no IS, 400/5.6 supposedly sharper than 100-400 v1 which was a very popular choice for bird photography years ago.
The 300 f2.8 and 400 f2.8 both had faster AF than the 400 f5.6. I owned several copies of both the 400 5.6 and the 100-400 and saw no noticeable sharpness advantage from the prime. The prime may be lighter, but not important if you have to carry around an additional lens for shooting under 400mm.
p.2 #13 · Looking for advice on what to upgrade to (or if I should). Birds/wildlife
melcat wrote:
That lens is a poor choice for this application, because it doesn’t support high frame rate on the R7 (OP’s proposed body), R6 (all Marks), R3 etc.:
OP’s contemplated EF 100–400 II is on the list of lenses supporting high frame rates, and I can confirm it does on the R3. (Older copies need a firmware update, and OP should confirm the R7 can apply them to lenses before buying that combination, otherwise they would have to borrow a body that could.)
Respectfully, that’s not correct. The EF 400mm f/5.6L does not limit high frame-rate shooting on the R7, R6 series, or R3—FPS is governed by the camera body and shutter mode, not the lens. The trade-offs here are no IS and f/5.6 in low light, not burst speed.
p.2 #16 · Looking for advice on what to upgrade to (or if I should). Birds/wildlife
The 400/5.6 was really disappointing compared to the hype from the 1990s. It has no FL or modern ED glasses, no IS, is quite long and has a long MFD. IQ was adequate up to the 21Mp era, fine by itself but not at a high level that takes a 1.4x well. I used the 400/5.6 only for a short time and then carried it around for some years until the 100-400 II made those type of lenses pointless.
IDK how the center would hold up on the R7, but the lack of IS with that high mag and the shutter shock would make me reach for an adapted 100-400 II every time if not the RF 100-500.
p.2 #17 · Looking for advice on what to upgrade to (or if I should). Birds/wildlife
Vksrik wrote:
Then it works even better with r7 !! why do you call it useless ? just curious !!
Get someone to explain to you that a 400mm prime only shoots at the focal-length of 400mm, and does not shoot at any of the focal-lengths from 100-400mm. That makes it useless if you need to shoot at those focal-length.
p.2 #18 · Looking for advice on what to upgrade to (or if I should). Birds/wildlife
Without knowing a budget any advice may not suit. However, I would think that just adding something longer to the existing camera would be the lowest cost, Sigma 150-600C? This low cost route locks in a dead end to further improvements. A better, though more costly, path would be a step change to the RF system. RF7+100-400? If better AF without the deficiencies of the R7 then an R5 + 100-500 or 200-800. Because birds are secondary to my main subjects I use a R6 +200-800 and I find this good but would be the first to agree that the frequent need to crop with birds means more pixels are much better.
Feb 01, 2026 at 08:37 PM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.2 #19 · Looking for advice on what to upgrade to (or if I should). Birds/wildlife
Imagemaster wrote:
The 300 f2.8 and 400 f2.8 both had faster AF than the 400 f5.6. I owned several copies of both the 400 5.6 and the 100-400 and saw no noticeable sharpness advantage from the prime. The prime may be lighter, but not important if you have to carry around an additional lens for shooting under 400mm.
There just aren't many (any?) pro build, sub 3lb superteles out there.
300 2.8, 400 2.8, popular nikon pf series don't zoom either. Sure id rather have a zoom but youre going to be at 400mm probably 90%+ of the time
Speaking of budget the 400 5.6 costs about half the 100-400 v2. And pretty much no one thought 100-400 v1 good bif lens.
