Mark II, round 2?

Steady rain overruled walks in the field today, so I used the time when it slacked up a bit to see how some stuff did with known targets. The 100-400mm IS II and 1.4X on the R6 got a turn.

I’ve long felt that the 100-400mm was substantially short of 400mm at the long end. Some years back what was supposedly the patent was posted on a website somewhere, and it claimed 391mm. A couple of years ago I did a direct comparison with my R 180mm f/2.8 APO and 2X extender, known to be 358mm, and found the Canon to have a slightly narrower field of view. A reviewer whose work I trust did his own tests and estimated the lens to be 382mm at the long end.

All of this is a long-winded way of repeating what I’ve said before: on the R6, the lens and 1.4X combined don’t have as much reach as I need, no matter how great the lens may be. Obviously the now-departed 90D wasn’t the right camera for it, but in recent times I’ve come ’round to the notion that gear is best paired with its own mount and gear from its own era.

And after ruling out the a9 in large part due to its age, I’m now considering the ancient 7D Mark II for the Canon lens. I had one before, unfortunately paired with a 300mm f/2.8 IS I, on which IS didn’t work so well. Too, I couldn’t seem to get much out of Canon files with my software back then. But that part has changed.

Not wanting to make yet another misstep, it looks as though I’ll be poking through the archives again . . .

a6400/200-600mm G