Stefan Official wrote:
At the same time, this means that if you are looking for a Canon lens that truly matches the Sony 100–400 GM in terms of optical quality, flexibility, and overall system options, there is essentially no real alternative beyond the RF 100–500 L.
I guess you have not read comments from Canon owners of the EF 100-400 f5.6 II that have used it on RF mount bodies and find it to be an excellent choice.
Stefan Official wrote:
This is not a subjective opinion – there are numerous tests, MTF measurements, and direct comparisons available online that clearly demonstrate this difference.
Please post links to those numerous tests.
Dustin Abbot's opinion:
Sony 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 G Master's image quality at 400mm is slightly softer, though not by any significant margin. Contrast is roughly the same as 200mm (better in a few points on the frame), but the fine details aren’t quite as finely resolved. This is the point where the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II shows the greatest advantage, delivering an overall brighter image with equal settings. The Sony is as good in the center of the frame, but the Canon is noticeably sharper mid-frame and delivers slightly better resolution and contrast in the corners.
Would you notice this without them side by side? Probably not. So, glass half full take: the Sony 100-400GM delivers very similar image quality to the lens I consider to be the best in the class. Glass half empty? The Sony costs $300 more and yet isn’t quite as good optically. Does any of this matter if you just shoot Sony? Not one bit. The 100-400GM is a very good lens optically (though not better than the 200-600G) despite having a higher price.
So while my time with the 100-400GM led me to believe that it is a competent, well-executed package, I must also acknowledge the fact that price for the lens is on the steep side at $2500 USD. That’s an additional $500 over the 200-600G and even $300 higher than the Canon EF 100-400mm F4.5-5.6L IS II, which is very possibly the best lens in the category at the moment....Show more →
Z250SA wrote:
That 100-400 limit is very limiting on the Canon side, RF 100-400 or one of the EF´s. With the adapter the EF v2, though good optically, is rather cumbersome.
What is limiting about having the choice of three different Canon 100-400 lenses
Ltgk20 wrote:
I'm pretty sure the A7v allows mapping pre-capture to a button as I have it mapped to my movie button on my A1ii (C1 on the A7v). To another post, about 2 buttons vs. 3, I'm also pretty sure C1, AF-On and AEL can all be assigned to back button focus.
Imagemaster wrote:
Please post links to those numerous tests.
Dustin Abbot's opinion:
You can save your laughter; your texts have zero content and arguments.
It is very easy to form your own opinion on this topic. There are plenty of tests, charts, and real-world examples publicly available. The most sensible approach is to download the available RAW samples and compare and evaluate the results yourself.
My impression is that many comments here are very brief and lack real arguments. Often it sounds more like people are defending a system because they use it themselves, rather than because they have compared it objectively.
I personally used Canon for many years, including a 100–400 mm lens. I am currently working with Sony. If Canon’s lens lineup were more open and more diverse, I would certainly take another look at Canon. At the moment, however, the system is less interesting to me.
The Canon RF 100–400 mm is not a counterpart to a Sony GM lens in terms of quality or ambition. It is clearly positioned as a lightweight, affordable consumer zoom rather than a high-end professional telephoto. If you are looking for a 100–400 mm lens at GM or professional level, there is currently no direct equivalent in the native RF system.
The RF system is also limited when it comes to fast ultra-wide-angle lenses. A concrete example is the Sony 14mm f/1.8 GM – an extremely fast and compact ultra-wide lens that is ideal for night, aurora, and astrophotography. A comparable native RF lens simply does not exist at the moment.
Sony is also consistently expanding its lineup of f/2.0 lenses. In this segment, development within the Sony system is currently noticeably more dynamic.
Another factor is the lens mount. Sony uses a shorter flange focal distance, which can offer design advantages when it comes to building more compact lenses. Sony has pushed closer to the physical limits and left fewer reserves, but gains the benefit of being able to design lenses that are slightly more compact by nature. This is also an important reason why I currently work with Sony.
biggles2002 wrote:
Canon:
* You need Opengate
* Heavily invested in Canon lenses
Sony :
* If you want thirdparty lenses
* You get access to Sonys internal zooms like 200-600 or 400-800
* If you want Tilting and sviveling lcd screen
Valid points. Also worth noting Sony battery life and generally lower lens prices. For those interrested in technology, Sony has faster sensor with wider dynamic range. While 200-600G and 400-800G are tempting in their class, I consider Sony lens line-up being strongest in GM primes and std zooms.
Still I do not expect any (sensible) Canon shooter jumping to Sony because of A7V. Opengate has been discussed much. Interesting to see if it Sony can/want add it to A7V via firmware update. Personally, if I had to choose, I put 10x more emphasis on cameras having pre capture.
I see the comments about the lack of a viable high quality 100-400 on Canon, but I'm not sure that's fair. Sony's 100-400 GM has a diameter of 3.7 inches a length of 8.07 and weights 3.1 lbs. Canon's 100-500 has a diameter of 3.7 inches, a length of 8.2 and a weight of 3 lbs. It's always seemed to me is that Canon built a high quality 100-400, but added another 100mm to it, albeit slow. I see these lenses as direct competitors (Canon adds an extra 100mm, but loses some practical usability with TCs).
Again, I'm a Sony shooter, but if my 100-400 was the exact same size and weight and aperture range (at least in the 100-400 range), but had an additional 100mm, I'd like it.
I would choose the Sony because there I can use the Tamron 50-400 which is a fantastically versatile lens with an IQ which is really near the 100-400 GM.
Ltgk20 wrote:
I see the comments about the lack of a viable high quality 100-400 on Canon, but I'm not sure that's fair. Sony's 100-400 GM has a diameter of 3.7 inches a length of 8.07 and weights 3.1 lbs. Canon's 100-500 has a diameter of 3.7 inches, a length of 8.2 and a weight of 3 lbs. It's always seemed to me is that Canon built a high quality 100-400, but added another 100mm to it, albeit slow. I see these lenses as direct competitors (Canon adds an extra 100mm, but loses some practical usability with TCs).
Again, I'm a Sony shooter, but if my 100-400 was the exact same size and weight and aperture range (at least in the 100-400 range), but had an additional 100mm, I'd like it....Show more →
Sony offers all of this as well — and in several areas even more.
A very good example is the Tamron 150–500mm F5–6.7, available for Sony E-mount. At the long end it is actually slightly faster than the Canon RF 100–500 F4.5-7.1: at 499 mm the lens is still at f/6.3; only at exactly 500 mm does it stop down to f/6.7.
Autofocus performance is very fast and reliable and, in real-world use, on par with the Sony 100–400. It is fast enough to photograph swallows in flight with a very high keeper rate. I have gained extensive hands-on experience with this lens myself.
In terms of sharpness, it performs at a level that can reasonably be compared to the Sony 200–600. Especially considering its price of around €1,000, the lens is often underestimated, despite being an outstanding performer. Optically and in terms of overall performance, you could easily put a Sony badge on it and no one would question it.
Another major strength is the very short minimum focusing distance, which is exceptional for a lens in this class. Dragonflies can be photographed frame-filling without any issues — something many telephoto lenses struggle with, including the Sony 200–600.
The Tamron 150–500mm uses an 82 mm filter thread (Canon 77mm), deliberately breaking Tamron’s long-standing design concept. This was one of the first clear signs that the lens was engineered completely from the ground up, without being constrained by legacy standards.
The only real downside is the image stabilizer. While it is good, Sony’s native OSS lenses still have a slight edge in this area, particularly in terms of viewfinder stability.
Stefan Official wrote:
You can save your laughter; your texts have zero content and arguments.
It seems you have trouble reading your own comments and just ignore comments you don't like. Again you repeat there are plenty of tests, etc., yet you seem unable or unwilling to provide links to those. Is that because you can't or you are just spouting off useless claims?
It is very easy to form your own opinion on this topic. There are plenty of tests, charts, and real-world examples publicly available. The most sensible approach is to download the available RAW samples and compare and evaluate the results yourself.
Still waiting for those links to those NUMEROUS tests, charts, and real-world examples. Too NUMEROUS to post I guess.
The Canon RF 100–400 mm is not a counterpart to a Sony GM lens in terms of quality or ambition. It is clearly positioned as a lightweight, affordable consumer zoom rather than a high-end professional telephoto. If you are looking for a 100–400 mm lens at GM or professional level, there is currently no direct equivalent in the native RF system.
And it has already been pointed out that the Canon EF 100-400 II is as good as the Sony or better when used with an adapter on an RF body.
You think Sony is better and that Sony would be your choice is fine, but don't go around claiming there are all these sites comparison-testing the two zooms when you can/t or won/t provide those NUMEROUS links.
Too lazy to search Google yourself? Otherwise, I'm afraid I have to say you don't contribute much. You have time to write the same thing over and over again. Welcome to my ignore list.
Stefan Official wrote:
Too lazy to search Google yourself? Otherwise, I'm afraid I have to say you don't contribute much. You have time to write the same thing over and over again. Welcome to my ignore list.
I knew you wouldn't produce the goods. Heap big smoke.
An important difference for me (photography) is the reduction to 12-bit in the R6III when using the faster modes (electronic shutter).
Every RGB-channel in the RAW has than roughly only 4000 values (12-bit) compared to 16000 values with 14-bit (Sony A7V).
This would be my personal deciding argument for the A7V when used for wildlife-photography.
I would go with what best feels in your hands as spec wise the cameras and 100-400s are nearly identical.
Interested to know why you preferred the 100-400 over the 100-500? I was thinking to upgrade myself, mostly for the extra 100mm and to leave the adapter behind
What is limiting about having the choice of three different Canon 100-400 lenses
