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.2 #1AF performance of GM 100-400mm for BIF
Thanks for the write-up, Joshua. The A9 is out of my budget and I would be paying for some features (20FPS is one of them) that I don't need. An A99II in e mount for $3200 would be very nice.
Douglas
Douglas
Aug 07, 2017 at 04:03 AM
p.2 #2AF performance of GM 100-400mm for BIF
Fred Miranda wrote:
Thanks for this test Joshua.Bob,
Are you using 'lock-on center" or "lock-on flexible" with the A6500?
I've been playing with both. In my use and for BIF, center lock on seems to give me a head start to lock on target in the center at which point AF follows anywhere in the frame. I've had some issues where in lock on Flexible, it locks on to something other than target. It seems highly dependent on background.
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've been playing with both. In my use and for BIF, center lock on seems to give me a head start to lock on target in the center at which point AF follows anywhere in the frame. I've had some issues where in lock on Flexible, it locks on to something other than target. It seems highly dependent on background.
Aug 07, 2017 at 04:48 AM
p.2 #3AF performance of GM 100-400mm for BIF
kdrk888 wrote:
Thanks for the write-up, Joshua. The A9 is out of my budget and I would be paying for some features (20FPS is one of them) that I don't need. An A99II in e mount for $3200 would be very nice.
Douglas
Douglas, assuming the rumored specs of the D850 (46MP, 8+ fps) are correct, Nikon is following the A99ii approach (i.e. high MP plus fast fps). I doubt Sony merely reacts to what the competition does, but I think the D850 together with the popularity of the a99ii among a-mount loyalists has shown that there is a market for a higher than 24MP FF cam with faster than the traditional 5-6fps (D810, a7rii), but slower than the speed demon class (a9/D5/1DX). I'd love to get my hand on such a "neat compromise" e-mount cam.
Thanks for the write-up, Joshua. The A9 is out of my budget and I would be paying for some features (20FPS is one of them) that I don't need. An A99II in e mount for $3200 would be very nice.
Douglas
Douglas, assuming the rumored specs of the D850 (46MP, 8+ fps) are correct, Nikon is following the A99ii approach (i.e. high MP plus fast fps). I doubt Sony merely reacts to what the competition does, but I think the D850 together with the popularity of the a99ii among a-mount loyalists has shown that there is a market for a higher than 24MP FF cam with faster than the traditional 5-6fps (D810, a7rii), but slower than the speed demon class (a9/D5/1DX). I'd love to get my hand on such a "neat compromise" e-mount cam.
Aug 07, 2017 at 05:25 AM
p.2 #4AF performance of GM 100-400mm for BIF
justruss wrote:
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...Show more →
Thank you for your comment, Russ! Since I do a fair amount of wildlife photography, the lure of the A9 is hard to resist. But I hear your points loud and clear and I believe Sony is working on the camera as we speak.
kdrk888 wrote:
Thanks for the write-up, Joshua. The A9 is out of my budget and I would be paying for some features (20FPS is one of them) that I don't need. An A99II in e mount for $3200 would be very nice.
Douglas
Douglas, thank you for your comment. Yes, an A99 II in e-mount would be just about perfect. Well, I am getting a bit greedy, they might as well bump up the MP of that camera to about 60 or so
.
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...Show more →
Thank you for your comment, Russ! Since I do a fair amount of wildlife photography, the lure of the A9 is hard to resist. But I hear your points loud and clear and I believe Sony is working on the camera as we speak.
kdrk888 wrote:
Thanks for the write-up, Joshua. The A9 is out of my budget and I would be paying for some features (20FPS is one of them) that I don't need. An A99II in e mount for $3200 would be very nice.
Douglas
Douglas, thank you for your comment. Yes, an A99 II in e-mount would be just about perfect. Well, I am getting a bit greedy, they might as well bump up the MP of that camera to about 60 or so
.Aug 07, 2017 at 08:03 AM
p.2 #5AF performance of GM 100-400mm for BIF
rji2goleez wrote:
Thanks for this test Joshua.Bob,
Are you using 'lock-on center" or "lock-on flexible" with the A6500?I've had some issues where in lock on Flexible, it locks on to something other than target. It seems highly dependent on background.
I've noticed this on the A7RII as well...
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've noticed this on the A7RII as well...
Aug 07, 2017 at 08:21 AM
p.2 #6AF performance of GM 100-400mm for BIF
I have used lock on center in the past. It tends to go to the closest subject to camera
Aug 07, 2017 at 08:41 AM
p.2 #7AF performance of GM 100-400mm for BIF
@AGeoJO, how is the sharpness, image stabilization, and bokeh of the Sony 100-400 compared to your Canon equivalents?
Aug 07, 2017 at 11:42 AM
p.2 #8AF performance of GM 100-400mm for BIF
scrappydog wrote:
@AGeoJO@, how is the sharpness, image stabilization, and bokeh of the Sony 100-400 compared to your Canon equivalents?
That GM lens is really sharp and at least of the same optical performance as that of the Canon 100-400mm Mark II. I do not have an optical bench to compare the two side-by-side and my opinion is based on real-life usage of both. You cannot go wrong with either one in this respect, IMHO. The same goes in the image stabilization and bokeh. What wins me over is, as you may have guessed it, the AF performance of the GM. There was simply no comparison between the two for tracking of fast moving targets. For stationary targets, the Canon EF with Metabones works OK although the GM lens, being a native lens, is super fast in that department but the difference is not that significant. Thanks!
@AGeoJO@, how is the sharpness, image stabilization, and bokeh of the Sony 100-400 compared to your Canon equivalents?
That GM lens is really sharp and at least of the same optical performance as that of the Canon 100-400mm Mark II. I do not have an optical bench to compare the two side-by-side and my opinion is based on real-life usage of both. You cannot go wrong with either one in this respect, IMHO. The same goes in the image stabilization and bokeh. What wins me over is, as you may have guessed it, the AF performance of the GM. There was simply no comparison between the two for tracking of fast moving targets. For stationary targets, the Canon EF with Metabones works OK although the GM lens, being a native lens, is super fast in that department but the difference is not that significant. Thanks!
Aug 07, 2017 at 12:03 PM
p.2 #9AF performance of GM 100-400mm for BIF
Now for more to become in stock. Waiting on mine to arrive for a Costa Rica trip in september.
Aug 07, 2017 at 01:34 PM
p.2 #10AF performance of GM 100-400mm for BIF
Same for me too. I agree that the background contrast is hugely important. It is less problematic if blue sky but if you have heterogeneity and high contrast trees or other structures..
Fred Miranda wrote:
Thanks for this test Joshua.Bob,
Are you using 'lock-on center" or "lock-on flexible" with the A6500?I've had some issues where in lock on Flexible, it locks on to something other than target. It seems highly dependent on background.I've noticed this on the A7RII as well...
Fred Miranda wrote:
rji2goleez wrote
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?
Aug 07, 2017 at 02:10 PM
p.2 #11AF performance of GM 100-400mm for BIF
AGeoJO wrote:
That GM lens is really sharp and at least of the same optical performance as that of the Canon 100-400mm Mark II. I do not have an optical bench to compare the two side-by-side and my opinion is based on real-life usage of both. You cannot go wrong with either one in this respect, IMHO. The same goes in the image stabilization and bokeh. What wins me over is, as you may have guessed it, the AF performance of the GM. There was simply no comparison between the two for tracking of fast moving targets. For stationary targets, the Canon...Show more →
Thanks for the info. I'm not necessarily looking for lab results; I much prefer real-life reports by knowledgable photographers who have seen the raw files and have used the lens with challenging subjects. It looks like I have a new lens to buy!
That GM lens is really sharp and at least of the same optical performance as that of the Canon 100-400mm Mark II. I do not have an optical bench to compare the two side-by-side and my opinion is based on real-life usage of both. You cannot go wrong with either one in this respect, IMHO. The same goes in the image stabilization and bokeh. What wins me over is, as you may have guessed it, the AF performance of the GM. There was simply no comparison between the two for tracking of fast moving targets. For stationary targets, the Canon...Show more →
Thanks for the info. I'm not necessarily looking for lab results; I much prefer real-life reports by knowledgable photographers who have seen the raw files and have used the lens with challenging subjects. It looks like I have a new lens to buy!
Aug 07, 2017 at 03:02 PM
p.2 #12AF performance of GM 100-400mm for BIF
Very nice Joshua! IMO, those owls are not the easiest subject to shoot for any cameras AF.
I'm hoping we have something to shoot when I return from work in a few weeks to be able to meet up with you and Bobby again. I was very disappointed to miss the opportunity this past weekend.
~Greg
I'm hoping we have something to shoot when I return from work in a few weeks to be able to meet up with you and Bobby again. I was very disappointed to miss the opportunity this past weekend.
~Greg
Aug 07, 2017 at 09:18 PM
p.2 #13AF performance of GM 100-400mm for BIF
codyconway wrote:
Now for more to become in stock. Waiting on mine to arrive for a Costa Rica trip in september.
I will take this lens with me on the same trip, among others. Thanks for your comment!
scrappydog wrote:
Thanks for the info. I'm not necessarily looking for lab results; I much prefer real-life reports by knowledgable photographers who have seen the raw files and have used the lens with challenging subjects. It looks like I have a new lens to buy!
You are welcome! Well, hang on to you wallet then 
.
gvg45 wrote:
Very nice Joshua! IMO, those owls are not the easiest subject to shoot for any cameras AF.
I'm hoping we have something to shoot when I return from work in a few weeks to be able to meet up with you and Bobby again. I was very disappointed to miss the opportunity this past weekend.
~Greg
Thank you, Gregg! Yes, it is not easy to catch them in flight. I have be honest that I do have a few bad sequences, suffering both from OOF and/or from parts of the owl being chopped off, etc. As far as the AF performance concerned though and considering the only so-so performance of the A7r II I used, I am pretty pleased with the results.
If you feel like it, please join us next Sunday. I will let you know further via PM or email. Being there a few times, I started getting familiar wth their behavior and maybe I can anticipate the timing better. I am in the process of lining something up that performs better AF-wise than my existing camera. Let's see what happens.
Now for more to become in stock. Waiting on mine to arrive for a Costa Rica trip in september.
I will take this lens with me on the same trip, among others. Thanks for your comment!
scrappydog wrote:
AGeoJO wrote
That GM lens is really sharp and at least of the same optical performance as that of the Canon 100-400mm Mark II. I do not have an optical bench to compare the two side-by-side and my opinion is based on real-life usage of both. You cannot go wrong with either one in this respect, IMHO. The same goes in the image stabilization and bokeh. What wins me over is, as you may have guessed it, the AF performance of the GM. There was simply no comparison between the two for tracking of fast moving targets. For stationary targets, the Canon EF with Metabones works OK although the GM lens, being a native lens, is super fast in that department but the difference is not that significant. Thanks! You are welcome! Well, hang on to you wallet then .gvg45 wrote:
Very nice Joshua! IMO, those owls are not the easiest subject to shoot for any cameras AF.
I'm hoping we have something to shoot when I return from work in a few weeks to be able to meet up with you and Bobby again. I was very disappointed to miss the opportunity this past weekend.
~Greg
Thank you, Gregg! Yes, it is not easy to catch them in flight. I have be honest that I do have a few bad sequences, suffering both from OOF and/or from parts of the owl being chopped off, etc. As far as the AF performance concerned though and considering the only so-so performance of the A7r II I used, I am pretty pleased with the results.
If you feel like it, please join us next Sunday. I will let you know further via PM or email. Being there a few times, I started getting familiar wth their behavior and maybe I can anticipate the timing better. I am in the process of lining something up that performs better AF-wise than my existing camera. Let's see what happens.
Aug 07, 2017 at 10:05 PM