EB-1 wrote:
If you are going big and fast, I suggest a 300/2.8 IS (1999 version) instead of the 400/4 DO as I have those. The 300/3.8 IS is still quite good on a later DSLR with the EF 1.4x III and gives more flexibility. If you really need more reach the original 500/4 IS (1999) is another good option.
But on the practical side, the 100-400 IS II is quite a nice lens and pretty good with the EF 1.4x III TC.
EBH
plus the 300 is built like a tank and was designed to be abused by sports photogs in field. The 400DO, per canon support when I called them 15 years ago, was considerbly easier to get out of alignment due to the way they implemented DO optics.
Fritz photos wrote:
Should I not upgrade my lens and instead go with something like an R6? Thanks!
No one has touched on this yet. I don't know how well the Tamron zoom will adapt to the R6, but I do know that the old R6 will generally outperform the 1DX/1DXII with respect to AF performance and frame to frame consistency when photographing action. You will also be able to access subject tracking AF which will follow your subject around the frame automatically. It's really a 'magical' feature with very powerful capability compared to the very rudimentary capabilities DSLRs offered in this area.
The tradeoff is that the R6's peak capability will be in e-shutter, but then you will deal with some rolling shutter effects that might become visible depending on the sports you photograph (like round ball sports and/or stick sports - soccer, basketball, baseball, golf, volleyball). You can use the R6 in electronic first curtain shutter (EFCS) mode to avoid rolling shutter distortion, but Canon EF lenses prior to 2010-2012 will reduce the highest frame rate (12 fps) in that shutter mode. Somewhere on Canon's website there is a list of lenses that support peak fps. I don't know how third party lenses fare. If your budget only allows pre-IS or IS v1 Canon super-tele lenses, none of those support 12 fps EFCS, however you can get higher frame rates with e-shutter.
Regarding your original question, generally I would suggest higher quality lenses will make more of a difference for your images than a body change. Certainly a lens that is 2-3 stops faster will result in different looking images, but also the ability to successfully work in lighting that would otherwise be marginal with a slow zoom.
Fritz photos wrote:
I mainly shoot sports and wildlife, I currently have an Eos 1dx(original) an ef 24-105 f/4L usm mk1 and a Tamron 100-400 as well as a Tamron 1.4x. I want to upgrade my telephoto as 560mm at f/9 can be quite slow to focus for birds and fast moving subjects(and sometimes slow ones too).
There's actually two competing requirements here
a) longer lens for birds
b) sports
For birds and wildlife beyond 400mm, you're looking at your 150-600mm type zooms (Tamron, Sigma) or a prime, eg Canon EF500 f4L IS v1.
For most field sports, usually you want something f2.8 around 300mm-400mm which drops you in the EF300mm f2.8L, f2.8L IS v1, EF400mm f2.8L v1 and v2, f2.8L IS v1 etc category. All of these are heavy.
Something like the EF400mm f4 DO v1 might not be long enough for requirement a) nor fast enough for requirement b) especially in low stadium light/night games. The EF300mm f2.8L isn't long enough for birding and some wildlife, but is ideal for field sports. A 1.4x or 2.0x v3 might help, but it's a very heavy setup for walking around.
if the question is about "too slow to focus on subjects", the R6 will certainly make big difference over the 1DX (I used to own the 1DX, and the original R5, and some old EF lenses, so I do have some experience).
I can't state strongly enough how much you have to avoid the original DO. The mk2 is pretty cheap these days and it will work very well with new RF bodies. I still use it.
Mk1 EF big whites are heavy and they are also not great lenses by today's standards. I get a lot of flak for that statement but it's true; back with film or early digital, you couldn't tell and you could always blame it on the AF missing. That's not an excuse you will have with an R6 or more modern body. You will know that it's the lens, and you will deeply regret lugging it around and paying good L money for it.
In many ways I think getting an R6 or some other RF body will get you the furthest towards your goals.
The 400mm f/4 DO II is unbeatable. Sharp as a tack and lightweight. I shoot routinely with 2X TC (800mm f/8) and it's still extremely sharp; I don't miss a beat.
