Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 GM Image Thread
p.32 #1Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 GM Image Thread
More Bushtits
Sony ILCE-7RM2 + FE 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 GM OSS (SEL100400GM) @ 400 mm, f/5.6, 1/1000 s, ISO 400.
K-H.
Sony ILCE-7RM2 + FE 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 GM OSS (SEL100400GM) @ 400 mm, f/5.6, 1/1000 s, ISO 400.
K-H.
Dec 22, 2019 at 03:15 PM
p.32 #2Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 GM Image Thread
First trip out with this.... I've got the 200-600 but the long minimum distance was driving me nuts having come from a canon 100-400.... welp, the shorter distance sure payed off today.
 |
||
 |
||
 |
Dec 22, 2019 at 03:25 PM
p.32 #3Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 GM Image Thread
I've shot the 100-400 from MFD to miles away and it's great all in between.
A couple from a couple days ago.
A couple from a couple days ago.
Dec 23, 2019 at 09:28 PM
p.32 #4Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 GM Image Thread
Since I'm new here I'll make a contribution to this thread...I love this lens
 |
||
 |
||
|
Dec 24, 2019 at 04:11 PM
p.32 #5Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 GM Image Thread
Photo cross posted in the Sony FE Image Thread and taken at 8:43 AM.
Looking at Snowy Egrets in breeding plumage.
Cropped, tripod mounted 100-400mm GM set to 206mm and A7rIII; silent shutter.
ISO 100, f5.6, 1/50 second.
Exposure corrected -0.95 Stops.
May 11, 2019
At Gatorland, Orlando or Kissimmee, FL.
Rich
Looking at Snowy Egrets in breeding plumage.
Cropped, tripod mounted 100-400mm GM set to 206mm and A7rIII; silent shutter.
ISO 100, f5.6, 1/50 second.
Exposure corrected -0.95 Stops.
May 11, 2019
At Gatorland, Orlando or Kissimmee, FL.
Rich
Dec 27, 2019 at 04:02 AM
p.32 #6Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 GM Image Thread
I previously used a 100-400 and 1.4x on self-drive safari in Southern Africa and it was an excellent choice for the trip. I found the 1.4x AF to be mediocre on my A7r iii so I tended to mostly crop instead. The issue was I did not like the lens for the rest of my shooting, and I rarely get to go on safari. I’m much more of a 70-200 2.8 type of shooter. I‘m somewhat weight and size limited so my normal travel kit is a 70-200 and 12-24.
Naturally, as soon as I sold my safari lens I immediately booked another “once-in-a-lifetime” safari. Funny how that works.
I don’t really want to own a ~$2000 lens that I rarely use, so I was thinking of purchasing a x2 TC for the 70-200 2.8. In addition to being cheaper, it would be a much smaller and lighter kit than two large lenses.
I know it’s a very difficult question to answer, but does anyone have an approximate performance comparison between a 100-400 and 70-200 x2? I think I’d be fine with 80-90% of the performance but much than that I’d probably buy a 200-600.
Thanks
Edited on Dec 27, 2019 at 12:37 PM · View previous versions
Naturally, as soon as I sold my safari lens I immediately booked another “once-in-a-lifetime” safari. Funny how that works.
I don’t really want to own a ~$2000 lens that I rarely use, so I was thinking of purchasing a x2 TC for the 70-200 2.8. In addition to being cheaper, it would be a much smaller and lighter kit than two large lenses.
I know it’s a very difficult question to answer, but does anyone have an approximate performance comparison between a 100-400 and 70-200 x2? I think I’d be fine with 80-90% of the performance but much than that I’d probably buy a 200-600.
Thanks
Edited on Dec 27, 2019 at 12:37 PM · View previous versions
Dec 27, 2019 at 12:25 PM
RoamingScott
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
p.32 #7Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 GM Image Thread
Garbage palekid wrote:
I previously used a 100-400 and 1.4x on self-drive safari and it was an excellent choice for the trip. I found the 1.4x AF to be mediocre on my A7r iii so I tended to mostly crop instead. The issue was I did not like the lens for the rest of my shooting, and I rarely get to go on safari. I’m much more of a 70-200 2.8 type of shooter.
I don’t really want to own a ~$2000 lens that I rarely use, so I was thinking of purchasing a x2 TC for the 70-200 2.8. In addition...Show more →
Don't buy a 200-600 for your R3, they don't play well together.
I previously used a 100-400 and 1.4x on self-drive safari and it was an excellent choice for the trip. I found the 1.4x AF to be mediocre on my A7r iii so I tended to mostly crop instead. The issue was I did not like the lens for the rest of my shooting, and I rarely get to go on safari. I’m much more of a 70-200 2.8 type of shooter.
I don’t really want to own a ~$2000 lens that I rarely use, so I was thinking of purchasing a x2 TC for the 70-200 2.8. In addition...Show more →
Don't buy a 200-600 for your R3, they don't play well together.
Dec 27, 2019 at 12:33 PM
p.32 #8Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 GM Image Thread
That is extremely valuable information, thank you. I’ll do some research; I just assumed it would work as well with my body as any other.
Dec 27, 2019 at 12:38 PM
p.32 #9Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 GM Image Thread
RoamingScott wrote:
I don’t really want to own a ~$2000 lens that I rarely use, so I was thinking of purchasing a x2 TC for the 70-200 2.8. In addition to being cheaper, it would be a much smaller and lighter kit than two large lenses.
I know it’s a very difficult question to answer, but does anyone have an approximate performance comparison between a 100-400 and 70-200 x2? I think I’d be fine with 80-90% of the performance but much than that I’d probably buy a 200-600.Don't buy a 200-600 for your R3, they don't play well together.
Hi Scott,
Are you saying for BIF they don't play well together particularly with the TCs? I have no problem for stationary or relatively stationary subject matter with the combination. I still have to play with the combination with moving targets.
Rich
Edited on Dec 27, 2019 at 12:54 PM · View previous versions
Garbage palekid wrote
I previously used a 100-400 and 1.4x on self-drive safari and it was an excellent choice for the trip. I found the 1.4x AF to be mediocre on my A7r iii so I tended to mostly crop instead. The issue was I did not like the lens for the rest of my shooting, and I rarely get to go on safari. I’m much more of a 70-200 2.8 type of shooter.I don’t really want to own a ~$2000 lens that I rarely use, so I was thinking of purchasing a x2 TC for the 70-200 2.8. In addition to being cheaper, it would be a much smaller and lighter kit than two large lenses.
I know it’s a very difficult question to answer, but does anyone have an approximate performance comparison between a 100-400 and 70-200 x2? I think I’d be fine with 80-90% of the performance but much than that I’d probably buy a 200-600.
Hi Scott,
Are you saying for BIF they don't play well together particularly with the TCs? I have no problem for stationary or relatively stationary subject matter with the combination. I still have to play with the combination with moving targets.
Rich
Edited on Dec 27, 2019 at 12:54 PM · View previous versions
Dec 27, 2019 at 12:51 PM
RoamingScott
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
p.32 #10Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 GM Image Thread
The overwhelming anecdotal experiences reported here for the 200-600 are:
A7R3 - Many focusing issues
A7R4 - Decent for static or slow subjects, but a known issue at the long end with AF
A9/A9ii - The body this lens was built for
If you're curious about the R3 and TCs, the 1.4 is the only one to consider, again from me reading lots and lots of posts about it
naturephoto1 wrote:
I don’t really want to own a ~$2000 lens that I rarely use, so I was thinking of purchasing a x2 TC for the 70-200 2.8. In addition to being cheaper, it would be a much smaller and lighter kit than two large lenses.
I know it’s a very difficult question to answer, but does anyone have an approximate performance comparison between a 100-400 and 70-200 x2? I think I’d be fine with 80-90% of the performance but much than that I’d probably buy a 200-600.Don't buy a 200-600 for your R3, they don't play well together.Hi Scott,
Are you saying for BIF they don't play well together? I have no problem for stationary or relatively stationary subject matter with the combination. I still have to play with the combination with moving targets.
Rich
A7R3 - Many focusing issues
A7R4 - Decent for static or slow subjects, but a known issue at the long end with AF
A9/A9ii - The body this lens was built for
If you're curious about the R3 and TCs, the 1.4 is the only one to consider, again from me reading lots and lots of posts about it
naturephoto1 wrote:
RoamingScott wrote
Garbage palekid wrote
I previously used a 100-400 and 1.4x on self-drive safari and it was an excellent choice for the trip. I found the 1.4x AF to be mediocre on my A7r iii so I tended to mostly crop instead. The issue was I did not like the lens for the rest of my shooting, and I rarely get to go on safari. I’m much more of a 70-200 2.8 type of shooter.I don’t really want to own a ~$2000 lens that I rarely use, so I was thinking of purchasing a x2 TC for the 70-200 2.8. In addition to being cheaper, it would be a much smaller and lighter kit than two large lenses.
I know it’s a very difficult question to answer, but does anyone have an approximate performance comparison between a 100-400 and 70-200 x2? I think I’d be fine with 80-90% of the performance but much than that I’d probably buy a 200-600.
Are you saying for BIF they don't play well together? I have no problem for stationary or relatively stationary subject matter with the combination. I still have to play with the combination with moving targets.
Rich
Dec 27, 2019 at 12:53 PM
|
p.32 #11Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 GM Image Thread
RoamingScott wrote:
The overwhelming anecdotal experiences reported here for the 200-600 are:
A7R3 - Many focusing issues
A7R4 - Decent for static or slow subjects, but a known issue at the long end with AF
A9/A9ii - The body this lens was built for
If you're curious about the R3 and TCs, the 1.4 is the only one to consider, again from me reading lots and lots of posts about it
I don’t really want to own a ~$2000 lens that I rarely use, so I was thinking of purchasing a x2 TC for the 70-200 2.8. In addition to being cheaper, it would be a much smaller and lighter kit than two large lenses.
I know it’s a very difficult question to answer, but does anyone have an approximate performance comparison between a 100-400 and 70-200 x2? I think I’d be fine with 80-90% of the performance but much than that I’d probably buy a 200-600.Don't buy a 200-600 for your R3, they don't play well together.Hi Scott,
Are you saying for BIF they don't play well together? I have no problem for stationary or relatively stationary subject matter with the combination. I still have to play with the combination with moving targets.
Rich
Hi Scott,
I am hoping to get an A9 sometime in the future.
Below are a series of images taken with the 200-600mm and A7rIII at different f stops many of which stopped down enough to hide focusing issues and these are all landscapes and not animals. However, I will be using this combination and my 100-400mm GM with my A7rII while I am visiting in Florida including photographing Birds.
Rich
Tripod mounted 200-600mm at 600mm with A7rIII; Cropped; f6.3
Tripod mounted 200-600mm at 600mm with A7rIII; Cropped; f11
Tripod mounted 200-600mm at 452mm with A7rIII; f11
Tripod mounted 200-600mm at 600mm with A7rIII; f13
Tripod mounted 200-600mm at 295mm with A7rIII; f13
Tripod mounted 200-600mm at 368mm with A7rIII; f11
Tripod mounted 200-600mm at 600mm with A7rIII; f11
The overwhelming anecdotal experiences reported here for the 200-600 are:
A7R3 - Many focusing issues
A7R4 - Decent for static or slow subjects, but a known issue at the long end with AF
A9/A9ii - The body this lens was built for
If you're curious about the R3 and TCs, the 1.4 is the only one to consider, again from me reading lots and lots of posts about it
naturephoto1 wrote
RoamingScott wrote
Garbage palekid wrote
I previously used a 100-400 and 1.4x on self-drive safari and it was an excellent choice for the trip. I found the 1.4x AF to be mediocre on my A7r iii so I tended to mostly crop instead. The issue was I did not like the lens for the rest of my shooting, and I rarely get to go on safari. I’m much more of a 70-200 2.8 type of shooter.I don’t really want to own a ~$2000 lens that I rarely use, so I was thinking of purchasing a x2 TC for the 70-200 2.8. In addition to being cheaper, it would be a much smaller and lighter kit than two large lenses.
I know it’s a very difficult question to answer, but does anyone have an approximate performance comparison between a 100-400 and 70-200 x2? I think I’d be fine with 80-90% of the performance but much than that I’d probably buy a 200-600.
Are you saying for BIF they don't play well together? I have no problem for stationary or relatively stationary subject matter with the combination. I still have to play with the combination with moving targets.
Rich
Hi Scott,
I am hoping to get an A9 sometime in the future.
Below are a series of images taken with the 200-600mm and A7rIII at different f stops many of which stopped down enough to hide focusing issues and these are all landscapes and not animals. However, I will be using this combination and my 100-400mm GM with my A7rII while I am visiting in Florida including photographing Birds.
Rich
Tripod mounted 200-600mm at 600mm with A7rIII; Cropped; f6.3
Tripod mounted 200-600mm at 600mm with A7rIII; Cropped; f11
Tripod mounted 200-600mm at 452mm with A7rIII; f11
Tripod mounted 200-600mm at 600mm with A7rIII; f13
Tripod mounted 200-600mm at 295mm with A7rIII; f13
Tripod mounted 200-600mm at 368mm with A7rIII; f11
Tripod mounted 200-600mm at 600mm with A7rIII; f11
Dec 27, 2019 at 01:31 PM
p.32 #12Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 GM Image Thread
Sony ILCE-9 FE 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 GM OSS by Ronny Olsson, on Flickr
Sony ILCE-9 FE 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 GM OSS by Ronny Olsson, on Flickr
Sony ILCE-9 FE 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 GM OSS by Ronny Olsson, on Flickr
Dec 27, 2019 at 01:40 PM
p.32 #13Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 GM Image Thread
From tonight during the game.
Dec 29, 2019 at 09:36 PM
p.32 #14Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 GM Image Thread
Love mine though I don't use it a lot lately.
20180731-DSC01607 by RSchwenn, on Flickr
20180826-DSC04124 by RSchwenn, on Flickr
DSC06513 by RSchwenn, on Flickr
20180731-DSC01607 by RSchwenn, on Flickr20180826-DSC04124 by RSchwenn, on FlickrDSC06513 by RSchwenn, on FlickrDec 29, 2019 at 09:45 PM
p.32 #15Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 GM Image Thread
Love mine because it easily fits in my Mountain Smith day bag along with a couple other lenses.
It's really the only zoom I use (or own in full frame).
It's really the only zoom I use (or own in full frame).
Dec 29, 2019 at 09:51 PM
p.32 #16Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 GM Image Thread
AR306326 by Marcus Beasley, on Flickr
AR306297 by Marcus Beasley, on Flickr
AR306302 by Marcus Beasley, on FlickrDec 30, 2019 at 10:56 AM
p.32 #17Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 GM Image Thread
a7RIII and the 100-400.
|
||
 |
||
|
|
||
 |
||
|
|
||
 |
||
|
Jan 01, 2020 at 02:29 PM
p.32 #18Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 GM Image Thread
Sony ILCE-9 + FE 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 GM OSS by Ronny Olsson, on Flickr
Sony ILCE-9 + FE 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 GM OSS by Ronny Olsson, on Flickr
Jan 03, 2020 at 03:12 PM
p.32 #19Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 GM Image Thread
Photo cross posted in the Sony FE Image Thread and taken at 9:21 AM.
Looking at 3 Nestling Great Egrets.
Cropped; tripod mounted FE 100-400mm GM set to 400mm and A7rIII camera, silent shutter.
ISO 100, f5.6, 1/500 second.
Exposure corrected +0.71 Stops.
May 11, 2019
At Gatorland, Kissimmee, FL.
Rich
Looking at 3 Nestling Great Egrets.
Cropped; tripod mounted FE 100-400mm GM set to 400mm and A7rIII camera, silent shutter.
ISO 100, f5.6, 1/500 second.
Exposure corrected +0.71 Stops.
May 11, 2019
At Gatorland, Kissimmee, FL.
Rich
Jan 05, 2020 at 06:56 AM
p.32 #20Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 GM Image Thread
This year, we had a particularly long fall foliage period in Quebec, Canada. Shot using Sony A7r iii and FE 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 GM OSS at 100mm, f8, 1/250s.
Autumn in Quebec, Canada
Autumn in Quebec, Canada
Jan 05, 2020 at 04:29 PM