Canon 400mm f5.6 + Olympus OM-D for a whopping 800mm

Any good?

texshooter wrote in post #17702888
Any good?

In what context - sharpness, handling, how it looks when you pull it out in a zoo?

A 4/3 camera has a crop factor of 2x, which means that vs a full frame sensor, the area is 1/(2^2)= 1/4 of the size. A quick Google tells me the OM-D is 16.3MP, so a FF camera with 16.3*4=65.2MP would have the same pixel density (same sized pixels, but more of them due to the 4x larger sensor area).

Therefore, if you take a 5DS (50MP) and took a 2x crop out of the centre you'd end up with a 50/4=12.5MP image (close-ish to 16.3MP I guess). If you can find any data (perhaps DxOMark) that shows the lens holds up well at that pixel density then it'd probably give decent sharpness.

Thinking about it... it's probably easier to look for data for it on a Canon APS-C sensor. If my dodgy math is correct, a 1.6x APS-C crop sensor with the same pixel density as the OM-D would be the equivalent of about 25MP, so if the 400mm gives good sharpness on a modern crop body (I suspect it does) then you'd probably get decent sharpness on the OM-D.

As for handling, AF, etc... no idea. Depends on the adapter I guess.

But it's not 800mm it's still only 400mm, and you are still having to enlarge the image twice as much as if you were shooting on FF with a real 800mm. Even with the relatively good pixel density you will be pushing the lens hard. I'd much rather shoot with one of the 150-600 zooms on a 24MP 1.6 crop, as you are saving 1.44× on the final enlargement, and have more total resolution too. Even the 18-20 MP 1.6 crops will have more total resolution, along with the 1.44× saving in final enlargement. No contest I would have though.

If you really must have a small form factor camera body, I would look at the SL1. It even has the big advantage of an optical viewfinder. Personally though I would not really want to be using a lens of that size and focal length on such a small camera body, I thought that the 100-400 zoom was too much on my 300D with battery grip, and that has the advantage of IS.

Alan

This was my most used combination for the past year and a half until I sold my E-M1. The 400mm and E-M1 work very well together, I just got tired of manually focusing and wanted to go back to using the lens the way it was intended. I just bought a 7D Mark II. A few shots with the E-M1 and EF 400mm 5.6L are below. I used a simple Fotodiox adapter to mount the lens on the E-M1. Also, I found peaking to be inaccurate. I always used the magnifier to obtain focus, instead.

JM_2 wrote in post #17705006
This was my most used combination for the past year and a half until I sold my E-M1. The 400mm and E-M1 work very well together, I just got tired of manually focusing and wanted to go back to using the lens the way it was intended. I just bought a 7D Mark II. A few shots with the E-M1 and EF 400mm 5.6L are below. I used a simple Fotodiox adapter to mount the lens on the E-M1. Also, I found peaking to be inaccurate. I always used the magnifier to obtain focus, instead.

I knew there was a POTNer that was using that combo.

7D2 or 70D for cheaper alternative, APS-C Canon body is the obvious choice. I had 400 5.6L and 1.4TC since when 20Ds were current body. Later I got a 1D2n, which like the 7D2, can AF at F8 which made me realize AF was far superior to me manual focusing (and my first SLR was a Pentax Super A in 1985 so I had a lot of MF practice) and that 400 5.6 with 1.4TC could produce great results.

Keeping the NON IS lens steady becomes the challenge. (unless you happen to have a convenient concrete wall and bean bags...)

With the Metabones .71x speed booster that makes this combo equivalent to (in FF terms)

568mm F8 with no increase in ISO noise.

Sounds tempting.

There were pluses and minuses to using this combination. On the positive side, the E-M1 made the lens image stabilized by virtue of the Olympus in-body 5 axis stabilization. Hand holding it wasn't a problem, although I generally used it on a monopod. On the downside, missing shots while manually focusing got old after a while. I don't think the extra reach is enough of a benefit to make up for the lack of autofocus. Another minus was that the small body of the E-M1 wasn't comfortable to grip for long periods of time. I had the battery grip mounted and my hand would still cramp after a while. All in all, the lens mounted on the 7D Mark II is a much more comfortable and capable combination...for me anyway.

I have used this combination extensively for two years. It has been my main walk-around bird rig, naturally only MF and wide open. Stunning combination! Now....
Enter the Metabones EF-mFT Smart Adapter with new firmware (v1.8),

Even with the Extender III I get AF (first three pins taped!!). It is a little slower than without, but not that much.

Very nice photos, Dan. The combination is working very well for you. I'm glad I had a chance to use it for a couple of years, I got a lot of nice shots with it. It's a very capable combination, the drawback being manual focus.

I spent about six months re-evaluating how well my cameras and lenses were working out for the kind of photography my husband and I do. In the end, I know I made the right decision moving to the 7D Mark II. I gave the E-M1 a good try, but just never gelled with it. I'm much more comfortable with the Canon.

Hi Judy,
7DII... I have come close a number of times, and still might. But to really give the 7DII a fair try I would have to buy one and the 100-400II along with it, and then see which works better and which gives me the more pleasing results.... and that means money. Oh well, as an old friend used to say, "it's ONLY money".

So, you also got the 100-400II or are you still using the 400/5.6?


More samples, including BiFs here:
https://www.flickr.com …/albums/7215765​9863679710

I'm still using the 400 f5.6L. I'd love to get the 100-400mm II, but I'd have to sell the 400mm and I'm not sure I want to do that. I might look at the Sigma 150-600 Contemporary. People have been getting nice results with it and the price is a little easier to swallow.

JM_2 wrote in post #17765041
I'm still using the 400 f5.6L. I'd love to get the 100-400mm II, but I'd have to sell the 400mm and I'm not sure I want to do that. I might look at the Sigma 150-600 Contemporary. People have been getting nice results with it and the price is a little easier to swallow.

The shared photos in the Sigma 150-600mmC thread are not as nice as the Canon 400m f5.6. Of course that could have nothing to do with the lens...but then again, it could.

JM_2 wrote in post #17765041
I'm still using the 400 f5.6L. I'd love to get the 100-400mm II, but I'd have to sell the 400mm and I'm not sure I want to do that. I might look at the Sigma 150-600 Contemporary. People have been getting nice results with it and the price is a little easier to swallow.

I love my Sigma 150-600 C on my 50D. I am getting results that are at least as good as I got from the rented mark one 100-400's.

Alan

I continue to enjoy this setup and am looking forward to spring! Here is a quickie out my upstairs window, (check the eye!). Didn't have time to adjust anything... called point and shoot.