Not is same order. The exif is pulled using exiftool. I hope they are accurate. Don't believe the distance information as linear motor doesn't report it properly. The swallow tailed kite is using PS super resolution. So the crop is wrong too. Rest of the information should be fine. I also have used Topaz Denoise on most images.
p.3 #2 · Sony E 70-350mm G for A7R4 / A1 vs. 100-400 GM?
Jemini wrote:
Does it help? http://wildbirdimages.com/70350/
Not is same order. The exif is pulled using exiftool. I hope they are accurate. Don't believe the distance information as linear motor doesn't report it properly. The swallow tailed kite is using PS super resolution. So the crop is wrong too. Rest of the information should be fine. I also have used Topaz Denoise on most images.
Yes thanks. Super resolution and Denoise AI are very useful on pictures at high ISO and heavily cropped.
p.3 #3 · Sony E 70-350mm G for A7R4 / A1 vs. 100-400 GM?
onthebeam wrote:
Michael, trying to get my arms around this. . . Does this mean you would shoot in regular mode and just crop out the vignetted black areas around image later? If I'm understanding you, rather than a 26.2MP file in APS-C mode, even after cropping out the black, I'd still have a bigger file than 26.2?
EDIT--I looked at the post you linked to from 2020. See you did get a file up into the 30s. How do you best determine best whether you've gotten rid of the full vignette? I guess it would be worth testing. Shoot same static scene of tripod on APS-C, then without, then crop later and compare files. . .
I did see a couple examples of that online yet shot at 70mm where the image practically filled to full frame. I'd be using this lens primarily at longer focal lengths, 200-350 more often than not....Show more →
Let me explain what I did. Yes I shot it in FF mode and then cropped out the blackness. Whether I cropped out all the vignette you can see from the images I posted. I tried to do that but mainly cropped what was blacked out because of coverage. The last image, the turtle on the large pipe was shot FF at 350. I then cropped it to 4x5 equivalent, which is what you see. The original dimensions are 7024x5619, which in my calculations comes out to 39.47mp. Of course I had to reduce it for FM. And too YMMV depending on the crop used. If you crop it 3x2 you would get 32.9 mp, on the rIV. I was thinking about getting the Tamron 150-500, but at 4 pounds I may just stick with this lens. I find it quite sharp and very responsive.
p.3 #4 · Sony E 70-350mm G for A7R4 / A1 vs. 100-400 GM?
Fboss wrote:
Yes thanks. Super resolution and Denoise AI are very useful on pictures at high ISO and heavily cropped.
I haven't used any NR tools except PS until recently. Topaz works for many pictures, not all of them. Super resolution is not great IMO. I'm just trying it. These are great for personal use for sure.
p.3 #5 · Sony E 70-350mm G for A7R4 / A1 vs. 100-400 GM?
Did first test today of Sony 70-350 in crop mode on A7R4, first in comparison to Tamron 70-180 in crop mode. Next, compared Sony 70-350 to native Sony 100-400 at matching focal lengths.
The 75-300 was not as sharp as either of the other lenses as I tried to match the max 270mm of the Tamron in crop mode, and then to approximate the 100-400 at its native 300mm, and also at 400mm.
Finally, I tested the Sony on its own at its max 525mm in crop mode.
These were not scientific tests yet it was clear the copy I was testing is not of the sharpness of some of the examples shown by other users.
Amazon shipped it to me in a plain plastic bag with zero protection, not even bubble wrap! That was a shocker yet I still doubt that futzed up the lens. The orange box was mostly unscathed despite its roller coaster ride from Mr. Bezos house to mine.
Like others have done, I'm going to audition a second copy, and maybe even shoot it against the Sony 70-300. For now, suddenly my 100-400 doesn't seem so heavy and cumbersome after all! Despite it being so much heavier than the 70-350, it felt comfortable and balanced.
p.3 #6 · Sony E 70-350mm G for A7R4 / A1 vs. 100-400 GM?
The Sony 100-400 GM is a very special lens. Likely the best in this focal range zoom ever produced by any manufacturer. It is fast to focus, and not oversized or over weight. It is one lens that I am confident that I will never sell. You are going to be very challenged finding something that competes with it.
p.3 #7 · Sony E 70-350mm G for A7R4 / A1 vs. 100-400 GM?
I own A7r4, A6000, A6600 & 70-350 E, 200-600 FE and rented the Sony 70-300 FE.
70-300 had horrible AF on the A6000 (didn't have the other cameras at the time). Or it was just not sharp. Looking back, compared the other 2 lens, it has no place.
Between the 200-600 and 70-350, I'd grab the 200-600 every time for birding. My favorite photos are probably 90% at 600mm (900 equiv in crop mode) when using the 2-6. With the 70-350, I'm pretty much 100% at 350 and always wanting more reach for birding.
70-350 is great for other outdoor uses, landscape & larger mammals, but compared to the 2-6 the difference is clear.
p.3 #8 · Sony E 70-350mm G for A7R4 / A1 vs. 100-400 GM?
I just added two lenses to compare today:
Canon 70-200 f4 IS with Sigma MC-11 converter to Sony A7R4
Canon 300 f4 IS with Sigma MC-11 converter to Sony A7R4
Canon 300 f4 IS with 1.4X TC, with Sigma MC-11 converter to Sony A7R4
Now, the Sony 70-350 looks better in comparison to these two Canons I held on to when switching to Sony last year. Sony 70-350 is sharper than either. The Canon 300 with 1.4X plus Sigma MC-11 slow to focus although without the 1.4X did much better.
Finally,I tested the Sony 100-400 at 400 against the Canon with 1.4X equalling 420mm. Completely blew it away and meaningfully bested each of the Sony 70-350 shots, too.
I have a second Sony 70-350 on order to replace this one that Amazon sent in a plastic bag, literally!
p.3 #9 · Sony E 70-350mm G for A7R4 / A1 vs. 100-400 GM?
onthebeam wrote:
I just added two lenses to compare today:
Canon 70-200 f4 IS with Sigma MC-11 converter to Sony A7R4
Canon 300 f4 IS with Sigma MC-11 converter to Sony A7R4
Canon 300 f4 IS with 1.4X TC, with Sigma MC-11 converter to Sony A7R4
Now, the Sony 70-350 looks better in comparison to these two Canons I held on to when switching to Sony last year. Sony 70-350 is sharper than either. The Canon 300 with 1.4X plus Sigma MC-11 slow to focus although without the 1.4X did much better.
Finally,I tested the Sony 100-400 at 400 against the Canon with 1.4X equalling 420mm. Completely blew it away and meaningfully bested each of the Sony 70-350 shots, too.
I have a second Sony 70-350 on order to replace this one that Amazon sent in a plastic bag, literally! ...Show more →
Your experience doesn't match mine of course. Anything is possible. My 100-400 could've been a bad copy, your 70-350 is a bad copy or even my 70-350 is a special piece (I like to believe this ). Anyway I tested 100-400 against Nikon 300 f/4 PF and 100-400 was sharper. It was almost equal to 500PF. My 200-600 is slightly softer than 500PF (now sold)
Anyway I was looking for a lighter lens that can reach around 500mm and I'm very happy. It didn't matter to me even if 100-400 is slightly sharper. For me 100-400 cannot be the only WL lens and it's not a everyday walk around lens. So 70-350+200-600 suits me best.
Below is one of the tests I did. Both shots are on tripod using wireless remote and OSS off.
Please note that my setup was not 100% parallel to the wall. So in 70-350 shot left side is sharper and 100-400 the right side. Both looks same at the center. Both shot in crop mode on A9. 100-400 was set at 342mm. It was also interesting that 70-350 don't have much breathing (if at all). What do you think?
Both processed using ACR using neutral picture style with ZERO sharpening. So they look soft. What do you think?
Actual frame using 70-350
Left side of the frame @ 100% (neutral style, zero sharpening using ACR)
Center of the frame @ 100% (neutral style, zero sharpening using ACR)
Right side of the frame @ 100% (neutral style, zero sharpening using ACR)
p.3 #10 · Sony E 70-350mm G for A7R4 / A1 vs. 100-400 GM?
onthebeam wrote:
I just added two lenses to compare today:
Canon 70-200 f4 IS with Sigma MC-11 converter to Sony A7R4
Canon 300 f4 IS with Sigma MC-11 converter to Sony A7R4
Canon 300 f4 IS with 1.4X TC, with Sigma MC-11 converter to Sony A7R4
Now, the Sony 70-350 looks better in comparison to these two Canons I held on to when switching to Sony last year. Sony 70-350 is sharper than either. The Canon 300 with 1.4X plus Sigma MC-11 slow to focus although without the 1.4X did much better.
Finally,I tested the Sony 100-400 at 400 against the Canon with 1.4X equalling 420mm. Completely blew it away and meaningfully bested each of the Sony 70-350 shots, too.
I have a second Sony 70-350 on order to replace this one that Amazon sent in a plastic bag, literally! ...Show more →
and here's the center of the frame between 70-350 and 200-600 (same setup and processing as above). 200-600 was set at 362mm. You can see 70-350 has more magnification! 200-600's 600mm is close to 525mm at closest distance. So no surprise.
70-350 vs 200-600 center of the frame, neutral style zero sharpening
p.3 #11 · Sony E 70-350mm G for A7R4 / A1 vs. 100-400 GM?
Jemini wrote:
Your experience doesn't match mine of course. Anything is possible. My 100-400 could've been a bad copy, your 70-350 is a bad copy or even my 70-350 is a special piece (I like to believe this ). Anyway I tested 100-400 against Nikon 300 f/4 PF and 100-400 was sharper. It was almost equal to 500PF. My 200-600 is slightly softer than 500PF (now sold)
Anyway I was looking for a lighter lens that can reach around 500mm and I'm very happy. It didn't matter to me even if 100-400 is slightly sharper. For me 100-400 cannot be the only WL lens and it's not a everyday walk around lens. So 70-350+200-600 suits me best.
Below is one of the tests I did. Both shots are on tripod using wireless remote and OSS off.
Please note that my setup was not 100% parallel to the wall. So in 70-350 shot left side is sharper and 100-400 the right side. Both looks same at the center. Both shot in crop mode on A9. 100-400 was set at 342mm. It was also interesting that 70-350 don't have much breathing (if at all). What do you think?
Both processed using ACR using neutral picture style with ZERO sharpening. So they look soft. What do you think?
Impressive! I do have a second copy of the 70-350 on the way and now will test against the Tamron 70-300 that came today. I didn't expect to be impressed with it but it is tack sharp!
p.3 #12 · Sony E 70-350mm G for A7R4 / A1 vs. 100-400 GM?
onthebeam wrote:
Impressive! I do have a second copy of the 70-350 on the way and now will test against the Tamron 70-300 that came today. I didn't expect to be impressed with it but it is tack sharp!
Good to know Tamron is excellent. They can't do anything wrong these days. I'll be curious to see ur results from second copy of 70-350. Please post images if possible.
p.3 #13 · Sony E 70-350mm G for A7R4 / A1 vs. 100-400 GM?
Jemini wrote:
Good to know Tamron is excellent. They can't do anything wrong these days. I'll be curious to see ur results from second copy of 70-350. Please post images if possible.
Heading out of town and will just miss delivery so won't get to see it for awhile, unfortunately . . .
p.3 #14 · Sony E 70-350mm G for A7R4 / A1 vs. 100-400 GM?
For what it's worth, I just got a second copy of 70-350 that is excellent. Close to as sharp as my 200-600 at same focal length and also in crop mode. For outdoor photography with lots of walking and on an R3 body, I don't feel need for anything else. Would be even better on the R4.
p.3 #15 · Sony E 70-350mm G for A7R4 / A1 vs. 100-400 GM?
I received my second copy of the 70-350. It performed like the first, thus neither copy was sharp as I'd hoped. Thus, I've decided to keep the Tamron 70-300. Although it has a disadvantage of no built in IS, with my A7R4 it's doing pretty much as well at lower shutter speeds as the 70-350 has.
In my experience with two copies of the 70-350, the Tamron is a bit sharper in the areas where place my subjects, all but the corners. Since it's a full frame lens, it's APS-C range extends to 105-450mm, too.
p.3 #16 · Sony E 70-350mm G for A7R4 / A1 vs. 100-400 GM?
onthebeam wrote:
I received my second copy of the 70-350. It performed like the first, thus neither copy was sharp as I'd hoped. Thus, I've decided to keep the Tamron 70-300. Although it has a disadvantage of no built in IS, with my A7R4 it's doing pretty much as well at lower shutter speeds as the 70-350 has.
In my experience with two copies of the 70-350, the Tamron is a bit sharper in the areas where place my subjects, all but the corners. Since it's a full frame lens, it's APS-C range extends to 105-450mm, too.
I didn't know there's such a gap between copies. I must be lucky that I got a good piece. Mine was refurbished from Amazon. I saw a video talking about the advantage of the refurbished lenses. He claim th see lenses are manually tested and tuned by hand in comparison to factory manufactured copies. I like to believe that
p.3 #17 · Sony E 70-350mm G for A7R4 / A1 vs. 100-400 GM?
dinoancestry wrote:
I own A7r4, A6000, A6600 & 70-350 E, 200-600 FE and rented the Sony 70-300 FE.
70-300 had horrible AF on the A6000 (didn't have the other cameras at the time). Or it was just not sharp. Looking back, compared the other 2 lens, it has no place.
Between the 200-600 and 70-350, I'd grab the 200-600 every time for birding. My favorite photos are probably 90% at 600mm (900 equiv in crop mode) when using the 2-6. With the 70-350, I'm pretty much 100% at 350 and always wanting more reach for birding.
70-350 is great for other outdoor uses, landscape & larger mammals, but compared to the 2-6 the difference is clear....Show more →
Since the FE 70-300G was mentioned in the context of this thread, I like to add my experience with this lens on the A6600.I have used the FE 70-300 first on a A6000 for about 1 1/2 years with very good results. Upgraded to the A6600 and the lens works even better. AF is fast and accurate, sharpness is good to excellent over the entire range. I shoot in JPEG and RAW, however I mostly only process the JPEG file.
I just uploaded to my flickr account a few shots of a male House Finch from yesterday (https://www.flickr.com/photos/jowul/51184024475/in/photostream/). All images, particularly the most recent image comp_DSC05934_ji was taken Handheld, elbows leaning on a ledge, f5.6, 300mm, 1/60, ISO 160. It is NOT cropped. I believe I can say that my lens is a "good" copy with pleasing colours and good sharpness. All this to say that there are variations with any lenses, some more than others. The FE 100-400 GM is certainly a very special lens, on my wish list also for its minimal focus distance.
p.3 #19 · Sony E 70-350mm G for A7R4 / A1 vs. 100-400 GM?
jowul wrote:
Since the FE 70-300G was mentioned in the context of this thread, I like to add my experience with this lens on the A6600.I have used the FE 70-300 first on a A6000 for about 1 1/2 years with very good results. Upgraded to the A6600 and the lens works even better. AF is fast and accurate, sharpness is good to excellent over the entire range. I shoot in JPEG and RAW, however I mostly only process the JPEG file.
I just uploaded to my flikcr account a few shots of a male House Finch from yesterday (https://www.flickr.com/photos/jowul/51184024475/in/photostream/). All images, particularly the most recent image comp_DSC05934_ji was taken Handheld, elbows leaning on a ledge, f5.6, 300mm, 1/60, ISO 160. It is NOT cropped. I believe I can say that my lens is a "good" copy with pleasing colours and good sharpness. All this to say that there are variations with any lenses, some more than others. The FE 100-400 GM is certainly a very special lens, on my wish list also for its minimal focus distance....Show more →
I'm sure 70-300 is a nice lens. Most current lenses will do great job if handled properly. 70-350 is not a replacement for 100-400. But a great lens to shoot in crop mode. Easy to carry around during casual walk or biking. Below shot is during a walk with baby (no chance to carry big lens)
Fox squirrel. A9 and E 70-350mm F4.5-6.3 G OSS @ 1/1250sec, f/6.3, ISO 2000, 10.3MP(3936X2624), Focal length 335mm, Effective FL 500mm
). Anyway I tested 100-400 against Nikon 300 f/4 PF and 100-400 was sharper. It was almost equal to 500PF. My 200-600 is slightly softer than 500PF (now sold)
