p.2 #1 · DxOmark: FE 100-400mm GM, compact and optically excellent
It only outperforms the Canon at the extreme ends of the range the Canon as good through the middle of the range.
I know this is a great all round lens, but would love to test it with my CY 100mm 3.5 and Canon FDn 200mm f4 for landscapes. I'm sure it would be close. As those options out compete Canon and Sony's 70-200 f4 zooms stopped down.
p.2 #2 · DxOmark: FE 100-400mm GM, compact and optically excellent
Considering how good the EOS 100-400ii is ~the now former benchmark~ any out performance of the Canon is just a fantastic accomplishment by Sony.
Have to agree with Guy, overall (me thinking specifically of the 12-24 as I write this) Sony has dramatically improved on all fronts (my words not Guy's) and in many ways simply beating the competition.
p.2 #3 · DxOmark: FE 100-400mm GM, compact and optically excellent
Sony at some point lets call it wth the GM24-70-and 85 decided to take a quantum leap forward and it's showing. I have a blistering sharp 85 1.8 for 600 bucks. That's a freaking steal on any level. Given the A9 whatever high res sensor follows is going to be the one to get. It just keeps getting better, yea the 12-24 is not cheap but I never seen a super wide zoom ever beat a prime ever.
MedicineMan404 wrote:
Considering how good the EOS 100-400ii is ~the now former benchmark~ any out performance of the Canon is just a fantastic accomplishment by Sony.
Have to agree with Guy, overall (me thinking specifically of the 12-24 as I write this) Sony has dramatically improved on all fronts (my words not Guy's) and in many ways simply beating the competition.
p.2 #4 · DxOmark: FE 100-400mm GM, compact and optically excellent
I wanted a wide for the rare opportunity of landscaping though I live at 300-400+ mm...the nicest surprise I found with the 12-24 was the weight. Too many times in the past (i.e. Tam 15-30) I'd skip packing due to weight. Not so with the 12-24.
Now with that mentality ---always counting milligrams-- think of the 8 ounces save over Canons 100-400. 8 ounces is no little feat.
p.2 #6 · DxOmark: FE 100-400mm GM, compact and optically excellent
darbo wrote:
They're rating the FE 100-400 GM on the a7R II as sharper than the EF 100-400L II on the 5DS R. Impressive. Very impressive.
I've given up trying to make any sense out of the DXO scores. I'm waiting for Roger and the LensRental team to give us something more quantitative and detailed to chew on. I'm gradually selling off some of my Canon and Fuji gear to expand my Sony system, but they'll have to pry my cold, dead hands off my 1D X/200-400mm system.
p.2 #7 · DxOmark: FE 100-400mm GM, compact and optically excellent
dhachey wrote:
I've given up trying to make any sense out of the DXO scores. I'm waiting for Roger and the LensRental team to give us something more quantitative and detailed to chew on. I'm gradually selling off some of my Canon and Fuji gear to expand my Sony system, but they'll have to pry my cold, dead hands off my 1D X/200-400mm system.
Just asking, because I don't remember if this was solved, didn't they had some troubles with the 70-200 that they suspected it was due to the double AF system of the lens (two independent lens blocks moving at the same time)? Maybe the same issue happens with this lens...
p.2 #8 · DxOmark: FE 100-400mm GM, compact and optically excellent
dhachey wrote:
I've given up trying to make any sense out of the DXO scores. I'm waiting for Roger and the LensRental team to give us something more quantitative and detailed to chew on. I'm gradually selling off some of my Canon and Fuji gear to expand my Sony system, but they'll have to pry my cold, dead hands off my 1D X/200-400mm system.
You are not alone... . Keep in mind that they test/evaluate the lenses on the native camera body. Most of the time, it is the flagship body of a particular brand in terms of MP count. So, tested on the A7r II, their results look "better" or score a higher point than a particular Canon lens on a native Canon body. I am not saying that it is right or wrong but it is just the way it is. Or the Canon 5Ds R is inferior; the two cameras are just different. Although technically, the two different lenses should have been compared on the exact same body to come up with a more fair (or is that fairer?) comparison. Case in point - the last Canon body I used my Canon 400mm f/2.8 IS Mark II was Canon 5D Mark III. While the results coming of that camera were excellent but compared to the results of the same lens using a Sony A7r II, the images look ever so slightly "less" or ever so slightly duller. It is hard for me to put the difference in words but the difference is there and tangible to the eye but tough to describe. The results of the exact same lens look not only crisper but also contrastier; maybe it has to do with the difference in DR between the two bodies. I am sure that the DR factor plays a role and a significant one at that, too.
In other words, I am not counting proven Canon EF super tele either prime nor zoom out to deliver the goods on Sony E-mount cameras. AF-wise, of course, adapted lenses are lagging behind a little bit but with the continuous physical improvement of smart adapters and their firmware, I am still riding high on those long Canon lenses. I could even use and combine both Canon own and Sony FE tele extenders and still get AF up to 1,120mm. I will try out 1,600mm tomorrow at a real birding site.
p.2 #9 · DxOmark: FE 100-400mm GM, compact and optically excellent
dhachey wrote:
I've given up trying to make any sense out of the DXO scores. I'm waiting for Roger and the LensRental team to give us something more quantitative and detailed to chew on. I'm gradually selling off some of my Canon and Fuji gear to expand my Sony system, but they'll have to pry my cold, dead hands off my 1D X/200-400mm system.
If you put in the work to make that prophecy a reality, it may actually contribute to your death. Here's how I imagine the conversation between the investigating detectives would go.
COP 1: Looks like an accident.
COP 2: Yep, slip and fall. Probably hit his head here.
COP 1: You'd think he would've dropped that camera and lens to try to catch himself.
COP 2: You'd think. Hey, what do you think he was doing with it in the shower, anyway?
p.2 #10 · DxOmark: FE 100-400mm GM, compact and optically excellent
dhachey wrote:
I've given up trying to make any sense out of the DXO scores. I'm waiting for Roger and the LensRental team to give us something more quantitative and detailed to chew on. I'm gradually selling off some of my Canon and Fuji gear to expand my Sony system, but they'll have to pry my cold, dead hands off my 1D X/200-400mm system.
I could be wrong but I believe Roger at LensRentals cannot test 400mm on his optical bench.
p.2 #11 · DxOmark: FE 100-400mm GM, compact and optically excellent
dhachey wrote:
I've given up trying to make any sense out of the DXO scores. I'm waiting for Roger and the LensRental team to give us something more quantitative and detailed to chew on. I'm gradually selling off some of my Canon and Fuji gear to expand my Sony system, but they'll have to pry my cold, dead hands off my 1D X/200-400mm system.
You and me both. I am sitting on a Canon 100-400 II, Canon 400/5.6, and Canon 500/4 II. I want more tests. I prefer to test it myself, but I need a subject that will test the lens. Static shots of static objects won't do it, and DxO certainly won't do it.
p.2 #15 · DxOmark: FE 100-400mm GM, compact and optically excellent
dgpfotografia wrote:
Just asking, because I don't remember if this was solved, didn't they had some troubles with the 70-200 that they suspected it was due to the double AF system of the lens (two independent lens blocks moving at the same time)? Maybe the same issue happens with this lens...
I'm not sure I understand your question. I have two adapted Canon 70-200mm lenses that work flawlessly on the A7R2.
p.2 #16 · DxOmark: FE 100-400mm GM, compact and optically excellent
Handels wrote:
Is there a genius that would know what the MFD would become on this lens with a 25mm extension tube and what subsequent magnification would be?
Using Cambridge in Color (http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/macro-extension-tubes-closeup.htm) it goes from .35 mag at about 1 meter to .41 mag at about 2 meters. That's not great but i'm wondering if perhaps it's user error with the calculator.
If it were an old style lens, focusing by moving the whole optic block back and forth, it would be very easy to calculate the effect of an extension tube on the MFD. Modern lenses, specially zooms, are much more complicated, Different groups of optical elements move independently each other inside and often the overall length doesn’t change at all.
Most likely, the 100-400 focal range of this Sony is true only at infinity but as you’re focusing nearer, the focal length shortens progressively. Maybe something like 80-310 at MFD, for instance.
To assess the effect of an extension tube on a lens with internal focusing we’d need to know more data, like the magnification at MFD of each focal setting.
Anyway, a 25mm. extension has little effect on the MFD of a long telephoto, be it 300 or 400mm. It’s of course more noticeable on a 100mm. lens.
p.2 #17 · DxOmark: FE 100-400mm GM, compact and optically excellent
Thanks
artur5 wrote:
If it were an old style lens, focusing by moving the whole optic block back and forth, it would be very easy to calculate the effect of an extension tube on the MFD. Modern lenses, specially zooms, are much more complicated, Different groups of optical elements move independently each other inside and often the overall length doesn’t change at all.
Most likely, the 100-400 focal range of this Sony is true only at infinity but as you’re focusing nearer, the focal length shortens progressively. Maybe something like 80-310 at MFD, for instance.
To assess the effect of an extension tube on a lens with internal focusing we’d need to know more data, like the magnification at MFD of each focal setting.
Anyway, a 25mm. extension has little effect on the MFD of a long telephoto, be it 300 or 400mm. It’s of course more noticeable on a 100mm. lens.
Let’s kind of keep this here for right now – I haven’t published it because I’m still a little uncertain about the results. Sony has suggested that a change in cover glass thickness might improve the results some. Not dramatically, but some, off-axis. This lens also has to focusing motors and we have to focus it electronically via a camera to test. I’m not absolutely certain that ‘setting it at infinity focus on the camera’ and ‘manually focusing on a an object at infinity’ are absolutely the same. So take these lab results with a grain of salt. On the other hand, they do seem to agree with what we see in real world results. ...Show more →
My question was if they are now sure if Olaf can work with this double AF motor system Sony has...
Looking at Fred's test in other thread, this lens looks really interesting for landscape work, not up to the CY 100-300, but interesting if you want to shoot casually some other stuff and not just mountains. The Sony 70-200 GM never looked that interesting to me for landscape work (90% of my photography).
My question was if they are now sure if Olaf can work with this double AF motor system Sony has...
Looking at Fred's test in other thread, this lens looks really interesting for landscape work, not up to the CY 100-300, but interesting if you want to shoot casually some other stuff and not just mountains. The Sony 70-200 GM never looked that interesting to me for landscape work (90% of my photography).
Regards,
David
We are, we solved the 70-200mm mystery long ago. It wasn't a mystery, everything worked as it should, but I ended up testing 60 some copies before we really were comfortable with it because Sony understandably doesn't want to share their secret AF algorithms so we had to figure things out ourselves. The bottom line is our original tests were correct, I just wasn't comfortable with them because Sony kept insisting there must be a problem, they knew it was better than that.
I've started testing 100- 400s, but so far have just done a few and just at 100 and 200mm. It's a back burner project so I won't have results for a few weeks, probably. We've got some rush paying customers, and I'm debugging and assembling a spectrometer so this is going to be slow coming out.
p.2 #20 · DxOmark: FE 100-400mm GM, compact and optically excellent
RCicala wrote:
We are, we solved the 70-200mm mystery long ago. It wasn't a mystery, everything worked as it should, but I ended up testing 60 some copies before we really were comfortable with it because Sony understandably doesn't want to share their secret AF algorithms so we had to figure things out ourselves. The bottom line is our original tests were correct, I just wasn't comfortable with them because Sony kept insisting there must be a problem, they knew it was better than that.
I've started testing 100- 400s, but so far have just done a few and just at 100 and 200mm. It's a back burner project so I won't have results for a few weeks, probably. We've got some rush paying customers, and I'm debugging and assembling a spectrometer so this is going to be slow coming out.
This is still a bit confusing though... On one hand, you're saying your tests were accurate... on the other, you're saying Sony knows it's better. So is it better than you tested or not? If not, has Sony's view changed or you've just agreed to disagree on the results?
. Keep in mind that they test/evaluate the lenses on the native camera body. Most of the time, it is the flagship body of a particular brand in terms of MP count. So, tested on the A7r II, their results look "better" or score a higher point than a particular Canon lens on a native Canon body. I am not saying that it is right or wrong but it is just the way it is. Or the Canon 5Ds R is inferior; the two cameras are just different. Although technically, the two different lenses should have been compared on the exact same body to come up with a more fair (or is that fairer?) comparison. Case in point - the last Canon body I used my Canon 400mm f/2.8 IS Mark II was Canon 5D Mark III. While the results coming of that camera were excellent but compared to the results of the same lens using a Sony A7r II, the images look ever so slightly "less" or ever so slightly duller. It is hard for me to put the difference in words but the difference is there and tangible to the eye but tough to describe. The results of the exact same lens look not only crisper but also contrastier; maybe it has to do with the difference in DR between the two bodies. I am sure that the DR factor plays a role and a significant one at that, too.