This topic is in the 2017 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2017AF performance of GM 100-400mm for BIF
p.1 #1AF performance of GM 100-400mm for BIF
FedEx delivered a loaner of that lens from Sony last Friday. I played around with it and I was truly impressed by its sharpness and the speed/accuracy of the AF for pretty much stationary targets. So, this morning I took that lens out to a local burrowing owls site to evaluate its AF performance, mostly for its "owls in flight" capability. My camera is the A7r II as I am still resisting in getting the A9 
.
For larger birds with more predictable flight path, such as for Sandhill cranes at Bosque del Apache, my adapted Canon lens with Metabones didn't have any problems, acquiring focus and tracking focus of them. These owls are fairly small, fast and they flight path are erratic and unpredictable. Last Sunday, my adapted Canon lens struggled big time. In general, the first image from a sequential burst was sharp and that only about 50% of the time but the subsequent images are 100% out-of-focus
.
Like anticipated, perching owls are easy to "capture"; no problem there. I did have both my 1.4X TC and 2X TC. The 1.4X, which I used pretty much all the time performed admirably. I didn't notice much of a decrease in AF speed using that relative to the bare lens. The PDAF worked just great. The AF of the A7r II reverted to the "simple" selectable mode only with AF-S when I mounted the FE 2X. That TC made the effective aperture of the setup to be f/11 and that's beyond the limit of the A7r II and that's when the A9 would come in handiy. But since I only had the A7r II, I put the 1.4X TC back on and used it for the rest of the time.
I did a few bursts but the best sequence is this one. Here, the first two images are perfectly in focus. Yay! What happened to the third and fourth images? I didn't catch them..... The owl flew so fast and flew out of my frame after the first two. From the few I partially got, the tail or the wings or the claw only, they look sharp. So, that's far cry better than the Canon plus Metabones from last Sunday.
I used the same AF mode for both Sundays; the green mode on the Metabones and the AF wide mode on the body for last Sunday and this Sunday, the AF wide mode. I considered using the AF-Lock-on mode but somehow it felt a tad to sluggish and to make the comparison between the two days to be more on equal footing, that's the only mode I used, at least for the BIF portion anyway.
I took some 250 shots in total; not always of owl in flights, of course. So, firing the camera after the owl took off, especially at 5fps reduced the number of keepers. There are a few sequences when I anticipated the owl to take off and I started machine-gunning the but the owl just stayed put and oblivious to the situation, adding a lot to the stationary images. Oh, well, that's wildlife photography and it is beyond your control.
I used to have a gimbal head back then to do exactly this but I gave up pretty much everything when I switched to Sony. I could guarantee you that with a proper support, such as a gimbal head, the capture rate would increase. In addition, the 5fps of the A7r II is really paltry for this kind of photography and of course, the AF performance of this body leaves a lot to be desired. An A9 would kick some serious b*tt with this lens. Still, I would like to see an A9r with the AF similar to that of the A9 with about 8 or 9 fps. Furthermore, I am dreading the day that I have to pack the lens and return it back.....
Please feel free to ask any questions and post feedback/comments. Thank you!
Still perching
Just took off
In full flight
.For larger birds with more predictable flight path, such as for Sandhill cranes at Bosque del Apache, my adapted Canon lens with Metabones didn't have any problems, acquiring focus and tracking focus of them. These owls are fairly small, fast and they flight path are erratic and unpredictable. Last Sunday, my adapted Canon lens struggled big time. In general, the first image from a sequential burst was sharp and that only about 50% of the time but the subsequent images are 100% out-of-focus
. Like anticipated, perching owls are easy to "capture"; no problem there. I did have both my 1.4X TC and 2X TC. The 1.4X, which I used pretty much all the time performed admirably. I didn't notice much of a decrease in AF speed using that relative to the bare lens. The PDAF worked just great. The AF of the A7r II reverted to the "simple" selectable mode only with AF-S when I mounted the FE 2X. That TC made the effective aperture of the setup to be f/11 and that's beyond the limit of the A7r II and that's when the A9 would come in handiy. But since I only had the A7r II, I put the 1.4X TC back on and used it for the rest of the time.
I did a few bursts but the best sequence is this one. Here, the first two images are perfectly in focus. Yay! What happened to the third and fourth images? I didn't catch them....
. The owl flew so fast and flew out of my frame after the first two. From the few I partially got, the tail or the wings or the claw only, they look sharp. So, that's far cry better than the Canon plus Metabones from last Sunday. I used the same AF mode for both Sundays; the green mode on the Metabones and the AF wide mode on the body for last Sunday and this Sunday, the AF wide mode. I considered using the AF-Lock-on mode but somehow it felt a tad to sluggish and to make the comparison between the two days to be more on equal footing, that's the only mode I used, at least for the BIF portion anyway.
I took some 250 shots in total; not always of owl in flights, of course. So, firing the camera after the owl took off, especially at 5fps reduced the number of keepers. There are a few sequences when I anticipated the owl to take off and I started machine-gunning the but the owl just stayed put and oblivious to the situation, adding a lot to the stationary images. Oh, well, that's wildlife photography and it is beyond your control.
I used to have a gimbal head back then to do exactly this but I gave up pretty much everything when I switched to Sony. I could guarantee you that with a proper support, such as a gimbal head, the capture rate would increase. In addition, the 5fps of the A7r II is really paltry for this kind of photography and of course, the AF performance of this body leaves a lot to be desired. An A9 would kick some serious b*tt with this lens. Still, I would like to see an A9r with the AF similar to that of the A9 with about 8 or 9 fps. Furthermore, I am dreading the day that I have to pack the lens and return it back.....
Please feel free to ask any questions and post feedback/comments. Thank you!
 |
||
 © AGeoJO 2017 |
||
 |
Still perching
|
||
 © AGeoJO 2017 |
||
|
Just took off
|
||
 © AGeoJO 2017 |
||
|
In full flight
Aug 06, 2017 at 03:43 PM
p.1 #2AF performance of GM 100-400mm for BIF
Very nice sequence. The 100-400 is definitely next on my list. But as you reported, my fear is the AF of the A7Rii being too sluggish to take full advantage of the 100-400 for anything like BIF or sports.
I am mostly a landscape guy, so it's not a huge problem for me, but the more I see/hear about the A9 and Sony's latest glass, the more I am starting to want the A9, or something like an A7R3 with improved tracking AF.
For now, I'm holding still and waiting for the dust to settle a bit more on the 100-400.
Btw, did you experience the "pulsing AF" that some people observed with the A7R2 in AF-C?
I am mostly a landscape guy, so it's not a huge problem for me, but the more I see/hear about the A9 and Sony's latest glass, the more I am starting to want the A9, or something like an A7R3 with improved tracking AF.
For now, I'm holding still and waiting for the dust to settle a bit more on the 100-400.
Btw, did you experience the "pulsing AF" that some people observed with the A7R2 in AF-C?
Aug 06, 2017 at 04:02 PM
p.1 #4AF performance of GM 100-400mm for BIF
puckman wrote:
Very nice sequence. The 100-400 is definitely next on my list. But as you reported, my fear is the AF of the A7Rii being too sluggish to take full advantage of the 100-400 for anything like BIF or sports.
I am mostly a landscape guy, so it's not a huge problem for me, but the more I see/hear about the A9 and Sony's latest glass, the more I am starting to want the A9, or something like an A7R3 with improved tracking AF.
For now, I'm holding still and waiting for the dust to settle a bit more on the 100-400.
Btw, did...Show more →
I wouldn't call myself an avid bird photographer either although I enjoy it when I am doing it. I wouldn't mind carrying heavy gear (within limits, of course), moving around from one location to another or waiting for a few hours to get the right moment or sequence or what not. Like you mentioned, the ideal camera for me is the A9r or A7r III. As far as the lens concerned, yes, I will go for the GM 100-400mm lens but not right away either. I will wait until the newness has worn off a little.
No, I didn't experience any pulsating or pulsing with the GM lens, which I did on a few occasions with the Canon EF on Metabones.
Thanks for your comment,
Joshua
bobbytan wrote:
Pretty nice sequence, Joshua!
Thank you very much, Bobby! Are we going to try again next Sunday
Very nice sequence. The 100-400 is definitely next on my list. But as you reported, my fear is the AF of the A7Rii being too sluggish to take full advantage of the 100-400 for anything like BIF or sports.
I am mostly a landscape guy, so it's not a huge problem for me, but the more I see/hear about the A9 and Sony's latest glass, the more I am starting to want the A9, or something like an A7R3 with improved tracking AF.
For now, I'm holding still and waiting for the dust to settle a bit more on the 100-400.
Btw, did...Show more →
I wouldn't call myself an avid bird photographer either although I enjoy it when I am doing it. I wouldn't mind carrying heavy gear (within limits, of course), moving around from one location to another or waiting for a few hours to get the right moment or sequence or what not. Like you mentioned, the ideal camera for me is the A9r or A7r III. As far as the lens concerned, yes, I will go for the GM 100-400mm lens but not right away either. I will wait until the newness has worn off a little
.No, I didn't experience any pulsating or pulsing with the GM lens, which I did on a few occasions with the Canon EF on Metabones.
Thanks for your comment,
Joshua
bobbytan wrote:
Pretty nice sequence, Joshua!
Thank you very much, Bobby! Are we going to try again next Sunday
Aug 06, 2017 at 04:12 PM
p.1 #5AF performance of GM 100-400mm for BIF
Thanks Joshua for the report.
I think an a6500 with the FE 100-400 lens should be a significant improvement over the A7rII.
That's based on my experience with the a6300 and FE 70-300 lens.
In terms of sensor pixel pitch a 24MP APS-C sensor gives better resolution than the A7rII sensor for the same lens.
K-H.
Edited on Aug 06, 2017 at 04:31 PM · View previous versions
I think an a6500 with the FE 100-400 lens should be a significant improvement over the A7rII.
That's based on my experience with the a6300 and FE 70-300 lens.
In terms of sensor pixel pitch a 24MP APS-C sensor gives better resolution than the A7rII sensor for the same lens.
K-H.
Edited on Aug 06, 2017 at 04:31 PM · View previous versions
Aug 06, 2017 at 04:23 PM
p.1 #7AF performance of GM 100-400mm for BIF
k-h.a.w wrote:
Thanks Joshua for the report.
I think an a6500 with the FE 100-400 lens should be a significant improvement over the A7rII.
That's based on my experience with the a6300 and FE 70-300 lens.
K-H.
Thank you for your comment, K-H.,
As I noticed, the AF of the A7r II was handicapped by the limit of the A7r II when the 100-400mm lens was used with the FE 2X TC. Do you know the low light limit of the AF on the A6500? Will it still track at f/11, like the A9?
Joshua
Thanks Joshua for the report.
I think an a6500 with the FE 100-400 lens should be a significant improvement over the A7rII.
That's based on my experience with the a6300 and FE 70-300 lens.
K-H.
Thank you for your comment, K-H.,
As I noticed, the AF of the A7r II was handicapped by the limit of the A7r II when the 100-400mm lens was used with the FE 2X TC. Do you know the low light limit of the AF on the A6500? Will it still track at f/11, like the A9?
Joshua
Aug 06, 2017 at 04:29 PM
p.1 #8AF performance of GM 100-400mm for BIF
birdied wrote:
Beautiful shots .
Birdie
Thank you very much, Roberta! This lens just made it on my short list for CR.
Joshua
Beautiful shots .
Birdie
Thank you very much, Roberta! This lens just made it on my short list for CR
.Joshua
Aug 06, 2017 at 04:33 PM
p.1 #9AF performance of GM 100-400mm for BIF
Thanks Joshua. I don't know.
Let me point out though that an a6300/6500 with the FE 100-400 and 1.4x extender will give you similar resolution as the A9 and the 2x extender. Pretty close. And you could keep an f/8 aperture.
K-H.
Let me point out though that an a6300/6500 with the FE 100-400 and 1.4x extender will give you similar resolution as the A9 and the 2x extender. Pretty close. And you could keep an f/8 aperture.
K-H.
Aug 06, 2017 at 04:40 PM
p.1 #10AF performance of GM 100-400mm for BIF
I tried to keep the bird in focus, but as you said; wildlife photography is beyond your control
 |
||
| http://i.imgur.com/QHhyPeZ.jpg | ||
|
Aug 06, 2017 at 05:16 PM
p.1 #11AF performance of GM 100-400mm for BIF
k-h.a.w wrote:
Thanks Joshua. I don't know.
Let me point out though that an a6300/6500 with the FE 100-400 and 1.4x extender will give you similar resolution as the A9 and the 2x extender. Pretty close. And you could keep an f/8 aperture.
K-H.
Thank you, K-H.! I will contact Sony tomorrow and who knows maybe they will be able to send me both bodies, on loan, of course
. We will see what they say.
vegasti wrote:
I tried to keep the bird in focus, but as you said; wildlife photography is beyond your control
Thanks Joshua. I don't know.
Let me point out though that an a6300/6500 with the FE 100-400 and 1.4x extender will give you similar resolution as the A9 and the 2x extender. Pretty close. And you could keep an f/8 aperture.
K-H.
Thank you, K-H.! I will contact Sony tomorrow and who knows maybe they will be able to send me both bodies, on loan, of course
. We will see what they say.vegasti wrote:
I tried to keep the bird in focus, but as you said; wildlife photography is beyond your control
Aug 06, 2017 at 05:44 PM
p.1 #12AF performance of GM 100-400mm for BIF
I honestly think for this type of work there are only 3 bodies to keep up the 6300,6500 and A9
Aug 06, 2017 at 06:24 PM
p.1 #13AF performance of GM 100-400mm for BIF
GMPhotography wrote:
I honestly think for this type of work there are only 3 bodies to keep up the 6300,6500 and A9
Guy,
I concur entirely but as of today, I only have the A7r II as my only camera body. I know that the AF of the A9 would clobber that of the A7r II and yet, its AF performance is still surprisingly excellent and held up OK. Thanks!
I honestly think for this type of work there are only 3 bodies to keep up the 6300,6500 and A9
Guy,
I concur entirely but as of today, I only have the A7r II as my only camera body
. I know that the AF of the A9 would clobber that of the A7r II and yet, its AF performance is still surprisingly excellent and held up OK. Thanks!Aug 06, 2017 at 07:12 PM
p.1 #14AF performance of GM 100-400mm for BIF
Yea it will do okay no question and you certainly will get great images. Problem really is staying on track and actually having the chance to grab the immediate capture almost immediately which a animal , bird or human could have a slight change in look that you may miss. Not that I promote spray and pray technique but those short bursts can be really helpful. We need a FF powerhouse that's not a A9 at it's price level.
Aug 06, 2017 at 07:29 PM
p.1 #15AF performance of GM 100-400mm for BIF
AGeoJO wrote:
Guy,
I concur entirely but as of today, I only have the A7r II as my only camera body. I know that the AF of the A9 would clobber that of the A7r II and yet, its AF performance is still surprisingly excellent and held up OK. Thanks!
Thanks for this report. It sounds like the A7RII would work just fine for shooting wildlife on the ground which is my hope. Of course, once the next gen high res body comes along it will get even better.
GMPhotography wrote
I honestly think for this type of work there are only 3 bodies to keep up the 6300,6500 and A9I concur entirely but as of today, I only have the A7r II as my only camera body
. I know that the AF of the A9 would clobber that of the A7r II and yet, its AF performance is still surprisingly excellent and held up OK. Thanks!Thanks for this report. It sounds like the A7RII would work just fine for shooting wildlife on the ground which is my hope. Of course, once the next gen high res body comes along it will get even better.
Aug 06, 2017 at 08:13 PM
p.1 #16AF performance of GM 100-400mm for BIF
The A6500 using AF-C with Lock-on with the FE 100-400 would seem to be the best. Stabilization is great. With the 1.4 TC on the A6500, I find myself too close and needing to back off a bit. Mostly, my technique just needs to improve and I need to find more opportunity to get BIF. But my use so far leaves me little doubt that this combo will do BIF really well.
Thanks for this test Joshua.
Thanks for this test Joshua.
Aug 06, 2017 at 08:40 PM
p.1 #17AF performance of GM 100-400mm for BIF
rji2goleez wrote:
The A6500 using AF-C with Lock-on with the FE 100-400 would seem to be the best. Stabilization is great. With the 1.4 TC on the A6500, I find myself too close and needing to back off a bit. Mostly, my technique just needs to improve and I need to find more opportunity to get BIF. But my use so far leaves me little doubt that this combo will do BIF really well.
Thanks for this test Joshua.
Bob,
Are you using 'lock-on center" or "lock-on flexible" with the A6500?
The A6500 using AF-C with Lock-on with the FE 100-400 would seem to be the best. Stabilization is great. With the 1.4 TC on the A6500, I find myself too close and needing to back off a bit. Mostly, my technique just needs to improve and I need to find more opportunity to get BIF. But my use so far leaves me little doubt that this combo will do BIF really well.
Thanks for this test Joshua.
Bob,
Are you using 'lock-on center" or "lock-on flexible" with the A6500?
Aug 06, 2017 at 08:45 PM
p.1 #18AF performance of GM 100-400mm for BIF
GMPhotography wrote:
Yea it will do okay no question and you certainly will get great images. Problem really is staying on track and actually having the chance to grab the immediate capture almost immediately which a animal , bird or human could have a slight change in look that you may miss. Not that I promote spray and pray technique but those short bursts can be really helpful. We need a FF powerhouse that's not a A9 at it's price level.
Agreed, but at a cost and I may still breakdown and get the A9.....
virtualrain wrote:
Guy,
I concur entirely but as of today, I only have the A7r II as my only camera body. I know that the AF of the A9 would clobber that of the A7r II and yet, its AF performance is still surprisingly excellent and held up OK. Thanks!Thanks for this report. It sounds like the A7RII would work just fine for shooting wildlife on the ground which is my hope. Of course, once the next gen high res body comes along it will get even better.
Thank you for stopping by. The combo of A7r II and GM 100-400mm lens will do basically all kind of wildlife photography. The keeper rate for BIF, which is really the hardest, would not be so good as with the A9. As I mentioned before and based on my first hand experience, even with an adapted Canon lens for larger birds and birds that fly at a predictable path, will be doing just fine. Just the owls are small and they fly erratically.
Yea it will do okay no question and you certainly will get great images. Problem really is staying on track and actually having the chance to grab the immediate capture almost immediately which a animal , bird or human could have a slight change in look that you may miss. Not that I promote spray and pray technique but those short bursts can be really helpful. We need a FF powerhouse that's not a A9 at it's price level.
Agreed, but at a cost
and I may still breakdown and get the A9.....virtualrain wrote:
AGeoJO wrote
GMPhotography wrote
I honestly think for this type of work there are only 3 bodies to keep up the 6300,6500 and A9I concur entirely but as of today, I only have the A7r II as my only camera body
. I know that the AF of the A9 would clobber that of the A7r II and yet, its AF performance is still surprisingly excellent and held up OK. Thanks!Thank you for stopping by. The combo of A7r II and GM 100-400mm lens will do basically all kind of wildlife photography. The keeper rate for BIF, which is really the hardest, would not be so good as with the A9. As I mentioned before and based on my first hand experience, even with an adapted Canon lens for larger birds and birds that fly at a predictable path, will be doing just fine. Just the owls are small and they fly erratically.
Aug 06, 2017 at 11:16 PM
p.1 #19AF performance of GM 100-400mm for BIF
rji2goleez wrote:
The A6500 using AF-C with Lock-on with the FE 100-400 would seem to be the best. Stabilization is great. With the 1.4 TC on the A6500, I find myself too close and needing to back off a bit. Mostly, my technique just needs to improve and I need to find more opportunity to get BIF. But my use so far leaves me little doubt that this combo will do BIF really well.
Thanks for this test Joshua.
I will have the lens until next Monday; so, I still can go back there and try out the Lock-on AF mode. Now that I know that this GM lens performs better than the Canon version AF-wise, I don't have to use only the Wide AF mode next time around. There are a few other things I would like to try out, too. Yes, the A6500 combined with this GM lens looks more and more appealing for wildlife photography. Thank you for your feedback, Bob!
Fred Miranda wrote:
Thanks for this test Joshua.Bob,
Are you using 'lock-on center" or "lock-on flexible" with the A6500?
I believe the difference between the two is more is more in the initial focus acquisition; the tracking capability should be the same as it locks on to the target after that. Frankly, I never used the Lock-on Center mode.
The A6500 using AF-C with Lock-on with the FE 100-400 would seem to be the best. Stabilization is great. With the 1.4 TC on the A6500, I find myself too close and needing to back off a bit. Mostly, my technique just needs to improve and I need to find more opportunity to get BIF. But my use so far leaves me little doubt that this combo will do BIF really well.
Thanks for this test Joshua.
I will have the lens until next Monday; so, I still can go back there and try out the Lock-on AF mode. Now that I know that this GM lens performs better than the Canon version AF-wise, I don't have to use only the Wide AF mode next time around. There are a few other things I would like to try out, too. Yes, the A6500 combined with this GM lens looks more and more appealing for wildlife photography. Thank you for your feedback, Bob!
Fred Miranda wrote:
rji2goleez wrote
The A6500 using AF-C with Lock-on with the FE 100-400 would seem to be the best. Stabilization is great. With the 1.4 TC on the A6500, I find myself too close and needing to back off a bit. Mostly, my technique just needs to improve and I need to find more opportunity to get BIF. But my use so far leaves me little doubt that this combo will do BIF really well.Thanks for this test Joshua.
Are you using 'lock-on center" or "lock-on flexible" with the A6500?
I believe the difference between the two is more is more in the initial focus acquisition; the tracking capability should be the same as it locks on to the target after that. Frankly, I never used the Lock-on Center mode
.Aug 07, 2017 at 12:18 AM
p.1 #20AF performance of GM 100-400mm for BIF
Thanks for the test! Looks great, and really nice shots.
This is a tough one. And as usual, it comes down to needs vs budget and timing. I know I would have a hard time going back to 24mp from the glory of what the A7rII provides. But, no doubt, while AF is solid on the A7rII (the first mirrorless that made me confident to ditch DSLR; I'm mainly one-shot AF)-- in the intervening years since release (guess that 6-12 month successor never materialized as some were so insistent on) Sony AF has gone up a generation or two.
I can only imagine the A9 is getting its premium prices because it offers some wild tech: AF, no-blackout, 20fps. When we get an A7III, I suspect we'll see the AF more or less come along for the ride, but the no-blackout and crazy FPS won't. We could get an A7rIII with the resolution and AF, but obviously not the FPS/no-blackout.
I'd love the A9 AF, but that's basically the only thing I want in the body. I don't want the marginal size/weight increase, don't need anything near 20 fps, and while the no-blackout is cool... I don't need it for my work (though I'd love it).
I see it more like a glimpse of the future. That AF is coming our way, as the A6300/6500, and now A9 have showed us.
This is a tough one. And as usual, it comes down to needs vs budget and timing. I know I would have a hard time going back to 24mp from the glory of what the A7rII provides. But, no doubt, while AF is solid on the A7rII (the first mirrorless that made me confident to ditch DSLR; I'm mainly one-shot AF)-- in the intervening years since release (guess that 6-12 month successor never materialized as some were so insistent on) Sony AF has gone up a generation or two.
I can only imagine the A9 is getting its premium prices because it offers some wild tech: AF, no-blackout, 20fps. When we get an A7III, I suspect we'll see the AF more or less come along for the ride, but the no-blackout and crazy FPS won't. We could get an A7rIII with the resolution and AF, but obviously not the FPS/no-blackout.
I'd love the A9 AF, but that's basically the only thing I want in the body. I don't want the marginal size/weight increase, don't need anything near 20 fps, and while the no-blackout is cool... I don't need it for my work (though I'd love it).
I see it more like a glimpse of the future. That AF is coming our way, as the A6300/6500, and now A9 have showed us.
Aug 07, 2017 at 02:39 AM