p.3 #3 · Looking for advice on what to upgrade to (or if I should). Birds/wildlife
Vksrik wrote:
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.
I just tested it on my R3 with another lens that doesn’t support high frame rate, the EF 70–200mm f/4 IS from 2006. The actual behaviour is that the camera will let you select "H+" 30fps in electronic shutter, but when I fire off a burst the camera throttles it to ~16fps. I determined the achieved frame rate by inspecting the SubsecTimeOriginal EXIF field, which the camera writes to the resolution of 0.01s. Values were consistently 0.05s and 0.06s apart. The shutter speed was above 1/125s as required for 30fps; shot outside on a bright sunny day with the target a bush in shade being blown about a bit by the wind, IS off.
This is consistent with the link at Canon I posted above – which you quoted in your reply to me I quote from in this post - that also says the 4-5-6, like the lens I tested, can’t do 30fps.
p.3 #4 · Looking for advice on what to upgrade to (or if I should). Birds/wildlife
I had the 100-400L-V1, and trying the 400 5.6 I found the overall image quality to be nit-prickingly equal, so overall the closer MFD, IS, and versatility of the zoom won out in the end.
p.3 #5 · Looking for advice on what to upgrade to (or if I should). Birds/wildlife
Sy Sez wrote:
I had the 100-400L-V1, and trying the 400 5.6 I found the overall image quality to be nit-prickingly equal, so overall the closer MFD, IS, and versatility of the zoom won out in the end.
Common sense and first-hand experience, not hearsay.
Even Canon knows that most photographers prefer the zoom over the prime because they sold thousands of times more of the zooms than the prime, and that is why they never made a newer version of the prime.
Feb 02, 2026 at 11:56 AM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.3 #6 · Looking for advice on what to upgrade to (or if I should). Birds/wildlife
"The build quality of the Canon EF 400mm f/5.6 USM L is up to pro standards, of course. It is worth mentioning that the centering quality is superior to most lenses out there - that's thanks to its small number of lens elements and the lack of IS. The AF is very fast and reliable. If you can live without IS and don't bother the rather long minimal focus distances it remains one of the better choices."
p.3 #7 · Looking for advice on what to upgrade to (or if I should). Birds/wildlife
AmbientMike wrote:
"The build quality of the Canon EF 400mm f/5.6 USM L is up to pro standards, of course. It is worth mentioning that the centering quality is superior to most lenses out there - that's thanks to its small number of lens elements and the lack of IS. The AF is very fast and reliable. If you can live without IS and don't bother the rather long minimal focus distances it remains one of the better choices."
Yeah, while I'm sure it's happened, I can't remember a single time the 400mm was too long for me shooting wildlife or birds. In fact I tend to grab it when my 600/4.0 is too long. Or for handholding action work. AF on it seems to work just fine for me even today as I use it adapted on other bodies. It's fast and accurate on both my R5 MKII and my Leica SL2.
All I know is my 400/5.6 has been a prolific performer for me and I've never seen the need to get the 100-400 lens. For sure if I needed the zoom in my "work" I would have gotten it.
So in my view it comes down to what each individual needs for their work and what they prefer.
Feb 02, 2026 at 01:50 PM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.3 #8 · Looking for advice on what to upgrade to (or if I should). Birds/wildlife
jamesdak wrote:
Yeah, while I'm sure it's happened, I can't remember a single time the 400mm was too long for me shooting wildlife or birds. In fact I tend to grab it when my 600/4.0 is too long. Or for handholding action work. AF on it seems to work just fine for me even today as I use it adapted on other bodies. It's fast and accurate on both my R5 MKII and my Leica SL2.
All I know is my 400/5.6 has been a prolific performer for me and I've never seen the need to get the 100-400 lens. For sure if I needed the zoom in my "work" I would have gotten it.
So in my view it comes down to what each individual needs for their work and what they prefer.
Yeah 600mm ff equivalent has been much better than 400mm ff equivalent, here, (400 is 640 on the OP's 80D) but even then you're cropping a lot of the time. A zoom is nice but not having a zoom isnt a dealbreaker
The op seems to be having af issues and the 400 5.6 is one of the lighter less expensive superteles. It has been known for fast af so it's one that should be considered, imo
p.3 #9 · Looking for advice on what to upgrade to (or if I should). Birds/wildlife
ORGrown wrote:
Hi all,
My main focus is on bird photography, but also all wildlife, and of course some nature landscapes on the side since I'm out there anyways. I currently am shooting on an 80d with the sigma 100-400 contemporary (and the 18-35mm Art for landscapes). Every once and a while I get an awesome shot, but I'm finding that the autofocus is really a weak point for my setup. This became abundantly clear only last outing in which a snowy owl flew directly at me, and of the entire burst of pictures I only had 1 that was mostly in focus. I've also found that I'm just tossing tons of pictures that have missed a bit, even for perching birds. Admittedly I haven't got the lens calibrated yet, which may be part of the issue, but I'm wondering if I'd be better served by simply moving up to something newer, or focusing on improving what I have.
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.
For reference: I'm using AI servo, center point single point focus, BBF, lens stabilization on 1 for perching birds and 2 for flying. Generally trying to keep shutter speed around 1/2000 or higher for flyers.
Is it a skill issue? Should I just accept that I would see a marked improvement by jumping to an R7 and Canon glass? Should I bail out to a different ecosystem completely?
A lot depends on budget and whether you are frustrated by reach or low light.
The r7 is quite good in efcs mode (12 fps). It has better a/f then 80d. And it keeps apsc effective magnification with 32 mpx. I think if you are switching it’s a good switch.
The r5ii is 1 stop better and has a usable 30fps but it’s very expensive. It’s read out speed in electronic is pretty good. Whereas r7 electronic read out speed is not except for close in or perched. r5ii also a stop better in low light. But it’s really expensive and makes you need a longer lens $$$ because it’s ff.
Waiting for r7 ii is possible but I suspect that you still won’t like the read speed. It’s probably going to be as fast read speed as r5 (not r5ii) but still not great at panning. The rumours are 39mpx for the sake of 8k which will slow read speed down. So it’s 40fps may not be great
So I suggest r7 -way better than what you have, apcs. Great 12fps read speed and inexpensive
For lens, I really like the 200-800. Big range but not great at low light. The Ef 100-400 v2 is excellent but it also is not great in low light. Same with 100-500. The 200-800 requires big $$$ to exceed and get good low light performance.
I would recommend buy the r7 and try the sigma, rent and try 200-800 or Ef 100-400
