Would you mind summarizing your review in addition to providing the link? I would appreciate enough information for me to decide whether to spend the time reading further at your separate site and feel like your post added some sort of value here, not just to your Facebook page.
I don’t mean this pejoratively, i am just unfamiliar with your reviews and simply am loathe to click thru without some indication of what to expect. My assumption is that may be a common sentiment thus this post. Feel free to ignore it.
I understand it might be onerous to post in two places but presumably you’ve got a summary you could cut and paste here?
I took the liberty to copy paste the FB post of Alex Phan, linked to above, here:
"Let talk about the new Sony 400mm f/2.8 G Master. To date, it is the is the lightest (6.38lbs), fastest focusing due to the new lens design featuring XD Linear Focus (google it up if you don't know what that is). It has 23 elements in 17 groups with 3 fluorite lens elements and 1 ED glass element.
AF focus is instant once you point up to your subject. It is super fast, sharp, beautiful bokeh and accurate. You can truly enjoy the full 20 fps. I also love the new Lens Function Ring. With a slightly touch/turn, it will toggle from Full Frame to crop mode.
Handheld shooting on this lens is a joy. It is so light. With the center of gravity back toward the body, it balances more with the A9. I don't feel a thing after a long day out in the field with the lens.
I can't really find any negative things to talk about this lens except the price ($2k more than Canon version). Here are my take:
Pros:
* super light
* the lens is balanced with A9 for handheld.
* Super fast AF.
* Sharp
* Full benefit of 20 fps
* You can re-use all of your foot replacement from big White lens.
* Ability to use both of Sony 1.4x/2x TC with no loss in AF speed.
Cons:
*EXPENSIVE
*Easy to get scratch. First day, already scratch while my Canon white lens, i haven't scratch it yet (after 3 yrs usage). Not sure how..
"
Part 2: Live EVF AF video:
"Part 3: Samples/opinions
I spend the last couple days out in the field but mother nature wasn't on my side; hence i can't really get more images or push the lens to the limit. I'll update more on this lens later.
The question you might ask: Is this lens worth it? is it better than using Canon 400IS ii with adapter? is it really that much faster? sharper? lighter? what is the bottom line? am i recommend it?
First of all, it is way faster that 400IS ii with MC11 in term of focusing and initial subject acquiring. It is also 2 lbs lighter than Canon 400IS ii. That is huge.
As for sharpness, it looks the same to me. Corner to corner sharpness is a bit better.
Now, here is something bother me a bit. I didn't have the "WOW" moment when using this lens. I mean i can get the same result with 400IS ii. I just have to work a little more, lift a bit more weight in the gym but at the end of the day, 400IS ii is also pretty damn good.
IF you're already have 400IS ii, keep it and use it. Save the money for something else.
IF you're after the absolute best, fastest, lightest, this lens is for you.
I'm more than happy to recommend this lens. Sony did an excellent job with this lens. I enjoy shooting with it.
"
Holger wrote:
I took the liberty to copy paste the FB post of Alex Phan, linked to above, here:
"Let talk about the new Sony 400mm f/2.8 G Master. To date, it is the is the lightest (6.38lbs), fastest focusing due to the new lens design featuring XD Linear Focus (google it up if you don't know what that is). It has 23 elements in 17 groups with 3 fluorite lens elements and 1 ED glass element.
AF focus is instant once you point up to your subject. It is super fast, sharp, beautiful bokeh and accurate. You can truly enjoy the full 20 fps. I also love the new Lens Function Ring. With a slightly touch/turn, it will toggle from Full Frame to crop mode.
Handheld shooting on this lens is a joy. It is so light. With the center of gravity back toward the body, it balances more with the A9. I don't feel a thing after a long day out in the field with the lens.
I can't really find any negative things to talk about this lens except the price ($2k more than Canon version). Here are my take:
Pros:
* super light
* the lens is balanced with A9 for handheld.
* Super fast AF.
* Sharp
* Full benefit of 20 fps
* You can re-use all of your foot replacement from big White lens.
* Ability to use both of Sony 1.4x/2x TC with no loss in AF speed.
Cons:
*EXPENSIVE
*Easy to get scratch. First day, already scratch while my Canon white lens, i haven't scratch it yet (after 3 yrs usage). Not sure how..
"
Part 2: Live EVF AF video:
"Part 3: Samples/opinions
I spend the last couple days out in the field but mother nature wasn't on my side; hence i can't really get more images or push the lens to the limit. I'll update more on this lens later.
The question you might ask: Is this lens worth it? is it better than using Canon 400IS ii with adapter? is it really that much faster? sharper? lighter? what is the bottom line? am i recommend it?
First of all, it is way faster that 400IS ii with MC11 in term of focusing and initial subject acquiring. It is also 2 lbs lighter than Canon 400IS ii. That is huge.
As for sharpness, it looks the same to me. Corner to corner sharpness is a bit better.
Now, here is something bother me a bit. I didn't have the "WOW" moment when using this lens. I mean i can get the same result with 400IS ii. I just have to work a little more, lift a bit more weight in the gym but at the end of the day, 400IS ii is also pretty damn good.
IF you're already have 400IS ii, keep it and use it. Save the money for something else.
IF you're after the absolute best, fastest, lightest, this lens is for you.
I'm more than happy to recommend this lens. Sony did an excellent job with this lens. I enjoy shooting with it.
"
For those who owned 100400GM & 428GM, have you compared the sharpness of the image both using a9+2x teleconverter combo?
I haven't found anything online that compare the sharpness b/w the 2 lens with a9+2x combo, it would be much appreciated if some1 would post Raw files of 100400GM+2x @ f11 vs 428GM+2x @ f5.6, f8, f11
Unfortunately, there isn't any public events held or lens available in stock for demonstration purposes for the 428GM here in Melbourne, Australia.
I'm waiting on my FE 400 f2.8.
Have shot a lot with the 100-400 & 1.4 TC and found on that rig crispness was somewhat better than the 20-600 & 1.4 TC (my copy of that was too soft for me and I sold it). Lately have been shooting with the 100-400 & 2x TC fully racked out and when the light is good and there are enough pixels on the bird the result is very acceptable to my eye.
Other folk report different results so there's probably copy variation (or expectation variation lol).
I'm in Melbourne too.
I have an EF 400mm IS MKI. It is so heavy as be to unusable except on a tripod. My 400GM is sharper, even takes the 2.0 TC well, and will AF with blazing speed. I can also handhold it for quite a while-Truly a game changer.
Now a year later as I finally have my lens, I wouldn’t call it super light.
Being in an advanced age bracket I nevertheless can handhold it on my A9,
albeit not for very long.
shadow9d9 wrote:
I'm sorry, but 2900 grams is anything but light.
I think it’s meant to be taken in context. It’s relatively light compared to other 400/2.8 lenses. I shot this lens and an a9 next to a shooter with a 1D series and Canon 400/2.8 IS (mk I). His rig was literally more than twice the weight of the Sony combo. That’s a significant difference, I’d say.
white wrote:
One thing that amazed me was how much better the corner resolution was on the 400GM using 1.4x / 2x than on my previous Canon 400II.
First, I am not sure how true that assertion is and second, I seriously doubt that folks that use that lens care much about the corner performance. FYI, I had that Canon 400mm f/2.8 Mark II lens and used it a lot on my Sony cameras. And yes, the GM 400mm is a superb lens.
mitesh wrote:
I think it’s meant to be taken in context. It’s relatively light compared to other 400/2.8 lenses. I shot this lens and an a9 next to a shooter with a 1D series and Canon 400/2.8 IS (mk I). His rig was literally more than twice the weight of the Sony combo. That’s a significant difference, I’d say.
Exactly. I used to carry a 1dx2 and 400 2.8 IS v1. I can handhold my a9/400 2.8GM for a football game resting it between plays as needed, but totally possible. Not so much with the older Canon lens. To be fair, the newer Canon lens also is significantly lighter than the old version.
AGeoJO wrote:
First, I am not sure how true that assertion is and second, I seriously doubt that folks that use that lens care much about the corner performance. FYI, I had that Canon 400mm f/2.8 Mark II lens and used it a lot on my Sony cameras. And yes, the GM 400mm is a superb lens.
First, it is absolutely true, I have owned both and a 2x on the Canon 400II was disappointing soft in the corners. I was thrilled the Sony was not.
Second, if the images shot have details in the corners you do care. A lot of bird shooters may not notice but if you do a long landscape view or a city scape with detail into the corner you will definitely care and notice.
Not that the Sony is perfect; I see more purple fringing in extreme highlights in the Sony over Canon that does not automatically get removed in the LR chromatic correction. It can be ultimately removed with a bit more effort and time. This highlight issue is not apparent on the 600GM
Alex Phan wrote:
and after a year, i still love my 400GM with 2x TC. I have 600GM now but still pick up the 400GM due to it size and the f/2.8 during golden hour shot.
In your opinion, if shooting longer than 800(aka using the 600 with 1.4 and 2x) was not a priority, do you think the 400 + 2x is a solid performer combo? I'd use it with the A7R4 and A9.
I'm debating the 400 for the extra stop and versatility, but if it doesn't perform superbly with the 2x, then I may reconsider....and if I delay long enough, the 500f4 might be out.
