Douglas L wrote:
Jan Wegener's video was just released:
I just finished watching.
His findings are right on par with Steve Perry. Jan and Steve have become my most reliable and trusted reviewers on YT. Because they shoot what I shoot.
It really sounds like the benefit of this lens over 200-600 or 100-400/5.6 is the rendering. More so than any huge sharpness upgrade. TCs do well but just like Steve, Jan found the 200-600 at 600 and the 400-800 at 800 to slightly outperform this lens at those equivalent focal lengths using the 1.4TC and 2.0TC respectively. But Jan shows they are very close.
Just like Steve, Jan's conclusion was that this is most likely going to be added to his kit.
duncangr wrote:
Did I hear him say he is buying some Sony gear!
Yes you did.
But then does he really not own all these other lenses he is using in the comparisons? Or does Sony AUS just send him those other lenses each time he does his reviews??
I know his main system is Canon but seems whenever he reviews Sony and Nikon he has all the other glass on hand to compare to.
His findings are right on par with Steve Perry. Jan and Steve have become my most reliable and trusted reviewers on YT. Because they shoot what I shoot.
It really sounds like the benefit of this lens over 200-600 or 100-400/5.6 is the rendering. More so than any huge sharpness upgrade. TCs do well but just like Steve, Jan found the 200-600 at 600 and the 400-800 at 800 to slightly outperform this lens at those equivalent focal lengths using the 1.4TC and 2.0TC respectively. But Jan shows they are very close.
Just like Steve, Jan's conclusion was that this is most likely going to be added to his kit. ...Show more →
I will keep watching. If the general consciences is that the new 100-400+TC is no sharper than the 200-600 or the 400-800, for what I shoot, there is not much appeal to me for $4300. So between that and the "A1II killer" A7RVI, I saved myself $9000.
I think this is a great lens as an alternative to the 300 f/2.8 for sports where you could benefit from the zoom range. I don't think it is a lens to supplement a 400-800mm or 600mm for wildlife to carry with one of those lenses. There was a rumored 100-400mm G lens coming. The Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 GM pairs better with the 400-800mm for a two lens setup for wildlife in my opinion, unless you want a much lighter wallet and a much heavier load to carry. The 400-800mm with the 100-400mm f/4.5 and two bodies would fill up my Guragear pack without room for anything else.
EB-1 wrote:
Isn't the new lens an extra model rather than a replacement for the 100-400/5.6?
EBH
Guess it will come down to how the individual perceives it. I believe many view this as a new class of lens vs a direct replacement to the original 100-400 ƒ4.5-5.6.
Given my intended uses, I'm in both camps
CPWarner wrote:
I think this is a great lens as an alternative to the 300 f/2.8 for sports where you could benefit from the zoom range. I don't think it is a lens to supplement a 400-800mm or 600mm for wildlife to carry with one of those lenses. There was a rumored 100-400mm G lens coming. The Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 GM pairs better with the 400-800mm for a two lens setup for wildlife in my opinion, unless you want a much lighter wallet and a much heavier load to carry. The 400-800mm with the 100-400mm f/4.5 and two bodies would fill up my Guragear pack without room for anything else....Show more →
I don't shoot sports or wildlife other than birds. I think the new lens may have a lot of appeal to folks who can use this focal range at F4.5. I shoots birds and airplanes. If the 100-400+2XTC is equally sharp as the 400-800, I can see myself getting one, 200-800mm is a lot more versatile than 400-800. I am still waiting for more in depth reviews and comparison.
After pixel peeping photos from these GM superteles I conclude that, for center performances, I can only tell one lens is sharper than another if they are compared side-by-side shooting the same subject. If I look at one standalone photo, I will probably just think "sharp enough ¯\_(° ˗° )_/¯" and have nothing more to say.
Corner performances might differ these lenses more, but corners are rarely in focus. And many reviewers think the horizon or faraway landscape are good test targets for sharpness but these all lack the high-frequency signals in these photos to let truly sharp lenses stand out from just decent ones.
May 17, 2026 at 09:16 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
I think this lens is a thoughtful addition to the Sony lineup, which now has a lot of options and price points. Once upon a time with Sony you either had the ultra expensive 400 f/2.8 and 600 f/4 GM lenses or you had the inexpensive 200-600 f/5.6-6.3 G, with nothing in between. I used to complain about that pretty vociferously. Why can't they give us something in between.
Now there are three new in between options in between and all three can be compelling depending on whay you shoot:
First there was the 300 f/2.8 GM, which is a really good option--small and light and takes TC's well. It is the most expensive at $6,600, but still way cheaper than the 400 f/2.8 or 600 f/4.
Then they added the 400-800 f/6.3-8 G, which gives very nice extended reach with a slower aperture and a very nice $2,700 price tage.
Now we have the 100-400 f/4.5 GM, which fits between the other two in price point at $4,300, but looks to be a quite nice offering. No, it is isn't as good as the 300 GM prime, but that isn't really a reasonale expectation in my opinion, it is cheaper and more flexible and the still looks to be a good performer.
In my view Sony, has a really strong super telephoto lineup at this point: Three great primes 300 f/2.8, 400 f/2.8, and 600 f/4, and three really nice zooms 100-400 f/4.5, 200-600 f/5.6-6.3, and 400-800 f/6.3-8 and you can make a quite decent kit for your budget no matter your budget.
If your budget constrained then the 200-600 f/5.6-6.3 is still a nice option.
If you can spend more than that you can begin to step up nice with adding a TC to the 70-200 f/2.8 and getting the 400-800 f/6.3-8, which will work nicely as long as you have good light.
If you can spend a bit more then this 100-400 f/4.5 and the TCs will get you a nice wide range of coverage and close to the three zooms with just one, so lots of coverage with excellent coverage at the shorter focal lengths.
If you have a bit more to spend and would benefit and want to shoot in lower light, then the 300 f/2.8 GM offering a lot of capability, especially with the TCs.
Or you can start to add multiple lenses and a strong pairing would be this 100-400 f/4.5 and the 400-800 f/6.3-8 for about the same price as the 300 f/2.8 GM. You obviously get the tradeoff of a lot more flexibility in focal length range and a slower aperture, and larger size vs. a lot less flexibility. This is basically the zoom vs. prime trade off.
If you have a bit more than $7,000, say $10,000 or so to spend then you can start pairing a zoom with a prime. Adding the 300 f/2.8 GM to the 400-800 f/6.3-8 can be a compelling combo for some people I would expect as the strengths and weakness offset.
And if you aren't budget limited then I think this new 100-400 f/4.5 GM paired with a 600 f/4 is going to be the go to birding setup for a lot of folks.
This is a great set of lenses and provides a ton of capability. I still find the Nikon lineup with its lenses with built-in TCs and PF primes to be stronger, but Sony's lineup without either of those things is really strong.
Steve's comments above are totally on point for me. I used to own excellent copies of both the 200-600 and 400-800 and the IQ was plenty good enough for me. Sold them when I got the 300 f2.8 but as great as that lens is with the 1.4X and 2X I'm getting lazy when it come to switching out TC's and still ending up with one focal length. I'm going to give this new 100-400 a try. If the IQ with TCs is equal to the 2-6 / 4-8 that is good enough for me. I've downloaded every full image I could find from this new lens and the IQ looks great. The pics I've seen have that "GM look".
Douglas L wrote:
I don't shoot sports or wildlife other than birds. I think the new lens may have a lot of appeal to folks who can use this focal range at F4.5. I shoots birds and airplanes. If the 100-400+2XTC is equally sharp as the 400-800, I can see myself getting one, 200-800mm is a lot more versatile than 400-800. I am still waiting for more in depth reviews and comparison.
The key to your comment is "IF the 100-400 + 2X TC is equally sharp to the 400-800", you would replace the 400-800 with it. So as I said, it does not work as a supplement to the 400-800. Keeping equally sharp to the 400-800 with the 2X is going to be difficult. I agree though if that does happen I would also consider it as an alternative to the 400-800.
For my use (travel and landscape with occasional birds) a relatively small and light 100-400/5.6 would be just the ticket. Especially if the image quality was second to none. Bring it in at 1,000 grams and $2,000 and I think Sony would make a killing. This huge new 100-400 is only for a select few wildlife/sports photographers.
They won't make a killing by selling a lens under cost, so maybe I'd go for a redesigned 100-400/5.6 or 100-500/7.1 around $3000. A 100-400/5.6 with the compromises to make it more cheaply is a bad idea.
But then does he really not own all these other lenses he is using in the comparisons? Or does Sony AUS just send him those other lenses each time he does his reviews??
I know his main system is Canon but seems whenever he reviews Sony and Nikon he has all the other glass on hand to compare to.
Sony send the gear out but they have to send it back. I lent him my gear for his original A1/200-600 reviews.
I do recall him saying that he really needs 120 fps ha ha. 40fps on the R1 isn't apparently not enough.
One thing Jan didn't say much about in the video and I asked specifically was AF speed for tracking in fast action vs the 200-600G. In his opinion the 100-400 + 1.4x was better with improved consistency. IQ was going to be close IMO as the 200-600G is actually very good at 600mm and only really shows weakness with a 1.4x where the 400-800 @ 800 is much better than the 200-600+1.4x @840, yet the 200-600 in the 400-600 range is just as good as the 400-800 in the same range.
Also the 100-400 f/4.5 is sharp corner-to-corner wide open even, which is great as it is a great lens for landscape.
I'm thinking of selling my Nikon 400 f/4.5 and 200-600G to get the 100-400 f/4.5.
I still think Sony needs either new 200-600G or a say a 150-600GM a bit how Sigma did Sports and contemporary versions of their 150-600. The GM could go all out on AF speed and IQ with a 1.4x TC and offer superior mfd, much better OS.
Douglas L wrote:
I don't shoot sports or wildlife other than birds. I think the new lens may have a lot of appeal to folks who can use this focal range at F4.5. I shoots birds and airplanes. If the 100-400+2XTC is equally sharp as the 400-800, I can see myself getting one, 200-800mm is a lot more versatile than 400-800. I am still waiting for more in depth reviews and comparison.
Not a chance the 100-400 + 2x is as good as the 400-800 in IQ IMO and the AF will be noticeably weaker. There is no free lunch especially with a 2x TC.
Steve Perry's own testing on the Nikon 400 f/4.5 which is very good shows IQ with the 2x is not in the same league as the 800 PF and the 400-800 @ 800 is pretty damn close to the prime. The 600 PF + 1.4 is very close to the 800 PF though.
I would never use a 2x on a zoom and I have superb zooms that eats 1.4x TCs for breakfast, but falls short with a 2x. People were saying you could use a 70-200 f/2.8 GM II with 2x and replace the 100-400GMand it's just not true. However, as a 98-280 f/4 it's an excellent option so for me replaces a 100-300 f/4 as an option.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Not a chance the 100-400 + 2x is as good as the 400-800 in IQ and the AF will be noticeably weaker. There is no free lunch especially with a 2x TC.
Steve Perry's own testing on the Nikon 400 f/4.5 which is very good shows IQ with the 2x is not in the same league as the 800 PF and the 400-800 @ 800 is pretty damn close to the prime. The 600 PF + 1.4 is very close to the 800 PF.
I would never use a 2x on a zoom and I have superb zooms that eats 1.4x TCs for breakfast, but falls short with a 2x. People were saying you could use a 70-200 f/2.8 GM II with 2x and replace the 100-400GMand it's just not true. Hwever as a 98-280 f/4 it's an excellent option so for me replaces a 100-300 f/4 as an option....Show more →
Yeah, having the new 100-400mm 4.5 + 2X TC out resolve the 400-800 at 800mm is a big ask. Even a prime + 2X TC would struggle. The 400-800mm is pretty darn sharp at 800mm
I’m hoping the 100-400mm 4.5 + 1.4x TC is sharper than the 200-600 at 600mm. But there seems to be differing opinions about that in the videos I’ve seen thus far. Or some copy variation in play
Hopefully things will become clearer once folks start getting their hands on the lens
. The 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 GM is a great lens for landscape.