New 100-400 lenses
p.12 #1New 100-400 lenses
robert614 wrote:
Yeah, having the new 100-400mm 4.5 + 2X TC out resolve the 400-800 at 800mm is a big ask. Even a prime 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
I think it's down to lens variation. Steve and I appear to have great 200-600G's and mine is sharp wide open at 600mm on the A1. I've seen 2 other reviews at odds with Steve's finding, so he might have a poor pre-release 100-400. The 200-600 + 1.4 @840 is noticeably weaker than the 400-800 @ 800. I wouldn't be surprised to see the 100-400 + 2x maybe a bit better than the 200-600 + 1.4x but I wouldn't be surprised to see it's no better.
I have little doubt the 100-400 is excellent in IQ with 1.4x, just like a 70-200 GM II and since I don't use a 200-600 + 1.4x on cameras with more than 24MP I wouldn't use the 100-400 + 2x either. However, if the 100-400 + 1.4x is a reliable alternate to the bare 200-600G - ie IQ as good and AF at least as good but it should be better IMO given the massive upgrades in AF motors, then that is what I'm after. Faster a closer focusing when I need speed, and just as much reach when used with a .14x but better FL range.
I shoot Nikon and Sony and have the 800 PF to cover my 800mm option so have no desire in the too slow for me, 400-800 either.
What we are lacking is a faster GM 150/200-600 option. or the mk II 200-600G just needs a huge update in OS, AF, mfd and IQ with 1.4x. Make it a GM if they can't do it at the same price.
Yeah, having the new 100-400mm 4.5 + 2X TC out resolve the 400-800 at 800mm is a big ask. Even a prime 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
I think it's down to lens variation. Steve and I appear to have great 200-600G's and mine is sharp wide open at 600mm on the A1. I've seen 2 other reviews at odds with Steve's finding, so he might have a poor pre-release 100-400. The 200-600 + 1.4 @840 is noticeably weaker than the 400-800 @ 800. I wouldn't be surprised to see the 100-400 + 2x maybe a bit better than the 200-600 + 1.4x but I wouldn't be surprised to see it's no better.
I have little doubt the 100-400 is excellent in IQ with 1.4x, just like a 70-200 GM II and since I don't use a 200-600 + 1.4x on cameras with more than 24MP I wouldn't use the 100-400 + 2x either. However, if the 100-400 + 1.4x is a reliable alternate to the bare 200-600G - ie IQ as good and AF at least as good but it should be better IMO given the massive upgrades in AF motors, then that is what I'm after. Faster a closer focusing when I need speed, and just as much reach when used with a .14x but better FL range.
I shoot Nikon and Sony and have the 800 PF to cover my 800mm option so have no desire in the too slow for me, 400-800 either.
What we are lacking is a faster GM 150/200-600 option. or the mk II 200-600G just needs a huge update in OS, AF, mfd and IQ with 1.4x. Make it a GM if they can't do it at the same price.
May 17, 2026 at 09:08 PM
p.12 #2New 100-400 lenses
Pixel Perfect wrote:
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 lensI think it's down to lens variation. Steve and I appear to have great 200-600G's and mine is sharp wide open at 600mm on the A1. I've seen 2 other reviews at odds with Steve's finding, so he might have a poor pre-release 100-400. The 200-600 + 1.4 @840 is noticeably weaker than the 400-800 @ 800. I wouldn't be surprised to see the 100-400 + 2x maybe a bit better than the 200-600 + 1.4x but I wouldn't be surprised to see it's no better.
I have little doubt the 100-400 is excellent in IQ with 1.4x, just like...Show more →
I would definitely be interested in a 200-600mm GM
robert614 wrote
Yeah, having the new 100-400mm 4.5 + 2X TC out resolve the 400-800 at 800mm is a big ask. Even a prime would struggle. The 400-800mm is pretty darn sharp at 800mmI’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
I have little doubt the 100-400 is excellent in IQ with 1.4x, just like...Show more →
I would definitely be interested in a 200-600mm GM
May 17, 2026 at 11:23 PM
p.12 #3New 100-400 lenses
I just processed the dpreview sample of the duck (or goose) and ducklings (goslings) in PL9 and it is shockingly bad. I hope it's just a case of really bad air quality because there is nothing sharp about any of the images they took with the 100-400 + a7r6.
You can use HexEdit to edit the RAW file and replace '7RM6' with '7RM5' and you will fool PL9 into thinking it is an A7r5 file. No lens module for the 100-400 f/4.5 though.
If anyone else has posted any RAW files let us know where to find them.
You can use HexEdit to edit the RAW file and replace '7RM6' with '7RM5' and you will fool PL9 into thinking it is an A7r5 file. No lens module for the 100-400 f/4.5 though.
If anyone else has posted any RAW files let us know where to find them.
May 18, 2026 at 01:54 AM
p.12 #4New 100-400 lenses
robert614 wrote:
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 lensI think it's down to lens variation. Steve and I appear to have great 200-600G's and mine is sharp wide open at 600mm on the A1. I've seen 2 other reviews at odds with Steve's finding, so he might have a poor pre-release 100-400. The 200-600 + 1.4 @840 is noticeably weaker than the 400-800 @ 800. I wouldn't be surprised to see the 100-400 + 2x maybe a bit better than the 200-600 + 1.4x but I wouldn't be surprised to see it's no better.
I have little doubt the 100-400 is excellent in IQ with 1.4x, just like a 70-200 GM II and since I don't use a 200-600 + 1.4x on cameras with more than 24MP I wouldn't use the 100-400 + 2x either. However, if the 100-400 + 1.4x is a reliable alternate to the bare 200-600G - ie IQ as good and AF at least as good but it should be better IMO given the massive upgrades in AF motors, then that is what I'm after. Faster a closer focusing when I need speed, and just as much reach when used with a .14x but better FL range.
I shoot Nikon and Sony and have the 800 PF to cover my 800mm option so have no desire in the too slow for me, 400-800 either.
What we are lacking is a faster GM 150/200-600 option. or the mk II 200-600G just needs a huge update in OS, AF, mfd and IQ with 1.4x. Make it a GM if they can't do it at the same price.I would definitely be interested in a 200-600mm GM
Reminds me of Sigma 300-600mm f/4. Great lens except it doesn't enjoy native AF performance or teleconverter compatibility with E-mount. If Sony makes something similar, say f/5.6 aperture for weight control, it would be very attractive.
Pixel Perfect wrote
robert614 wrote
Yeah, having the new 100-400mm 4.5 + 2X TC out resolve the 400-800 at 800mm is a big ask. Even a prime would struggle. The 400-800mm is pretty darn sharp at 800mmI’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
I have little doubt the 100-400 is excellent in IQ with 1.4x, just like a 70-200 GM II and since I don't use a 200-600 + 1.4x on cameras with more than 24MP I wouldn't use the 100-400 + 2x either. However, if the 100-400 + 1.4x is a reliable alternate to the bare 200-600G - ie IQ as good and AF at least as good but it should be better IMO given the massive upgrades in AF motors, then that is what I'm after. Faster a closer focusing when I need speed, and just as much reach when used with a .14x but better FL range.
I shoot Nikon and Sony and have the 800 PF to cover my 800mm option so have no desire in the too slow for me, 400-800 either.
What we are lacking is a faster GM 150/200-600 option. or the mk II 200-600G just needs a huge update in OS, AF, mfd and IQ with 1.4x. Make it a GM if they can't do it at the same price.
Reminds me of Sigma 300-600mm f/4. Great lens except it doesn't enjoy native AF performance or teleconverter compatibility with E-mount. If Sony makes something similar, say f/5.6 aperture for weight control, it would be very attractive.
May 18, 2026 at 01:55 AM
p.12 #5New 100-400 lenses
duncangr wrote:
I just processed the dpreview sample of the duck (or goose) and ducklings (goslings) in PL9 and it is shockingly bad. I hope it's just a case of really bad air quality because there is nothing sharp about any of the images they took with the 100-400 + a7r6.
You can use HexEdit to edit the RAW file and replace '7RM6' with '7RM5' and you will fool PL9 into thinking it is an A7r5 file. No lens module for the 100-400 f/4.5 though.
If anyone else has posted any RAW files let us know where to find them.
This one? I think the big goose is almost all out of focus unfortunately, because the middle gosling looks way more in-focus.
The horse, the crow, and the sparrow look much better.
I just processed the dpreview sample of the duck (or goose) and ducklings (goslings) in PL9 and it is shockingly bad. I hope it's just a case of really bad air quality because there is nothing sharp about any of the images they took with the 100-400 + a7r6.
You can use HexEdit to edit the RAW file and replace '7RM6' with '7RM5' and you will fool PL9 into thinking it is an A7r5 file. No lens module for the 100-400 f/4.5 though.
If anyone else has posted any RAW files let us know where to find them.
This one? I think the big goose is almost all out of focus unfortunately, because the middle gosling looks way more in-focus.
The horse, the crow, and the sparrow look much better.
May 18, 2026 at 02:15 AM
p.12 #6New 100-400 lenses
arbitrage wrote:
I just finished watching.
I am starting to believe that Sony just wants people to rock this and the 300GM. It does make for a fantastic pairing. If I actually needed tele lenses like this and had too much money I know what I'd get.
I just finished watching.
I am starting to believe that Sony just wants people to rock this and the 300GM. It does make for a fantastic pairing. If I actually needed tele lenses like this and had too much money I know what I'd get.
May 18, 2026 at 02:31 AM
p.12 #7New 100-400 lenses
duncangr wrote:
I just processed the dpreview sample of the duck (or goose) and ducklings (goslings) in PL9 and it is shockingly bad. I hope it's just a case of really bad air quality because there is nothing sharp about any of the images they took with the 100-400 + a7r6.
You can use HexEdit to edit the RAW file and replace '7RM6' with '7RM5' and you will fool PL9 into thinking it is an A7r5 file. No lens module for the 100-400 f/4.5 though.
If anyone else has posted any RAW files let us know where to find them.
There are some here, but not great either:
https://www.fotopolis.pl/testy/obiektywy/39542-sony-fe-100-400-mm-f-4-5-gm-test-praktyczny-raw-do-pobrania
->
https://files.fotopolis.pl/FE100-400-F4.5_RAW.zip
I just processed the dpreview sample of the duck (or goose) and ducklings (goslings) in PL9 and it is shockingly bad. I hope it's just a case of really bad air quality because there is nothing sharp about any of the images they took with the 100-400 + a7r6.
You can use HexEdit to edit the RAW file and replace '7RM6' with '7RM5' and you will fool PL9 into thinking it is an A7r5 file. No lens module for the 100-400 f/4.5 though.
If anyone else has posted any RAW files let us know where to find them.
There are some here, but not great either:
https://www.fotopolis.pl/testy/obiektywy/39542-sony-fe-100-400-mm-f-4-5-gm-test-praktyczny-raw-do-pobrania
->
https://files.fotopolis.pl/FE100-400-F4.5_RAW.zip
May 18, 2026 at 03:05 AM
p.12 #8New 100-400 lenses
Pixel Perfect wrote:
A link to Dustin Abbott's 100-400 review if not already posted
He pretty much shows the lens' capability using his focusing charts. IMO, it's what I was hoping for
A link to Dustin Abbott's 100-400 review if not already posted
He pretty much shows the lens' capability using his focusing charts. IMO, it's what I was hoping for
May 18, 2026 at 04:41 AM
p.12 #9New 100-400 lenses
Rialto wrote:
You can use HexEdit to edit the RAW file and replace '7RM6' with '7RM5' and you will fool PL9 into thinking it is an A7r5 file. No lens module for the 100-400 f/4.5 though.
If anyone else has posted any RAW files let us know where to find them.This one? I think the big goose is almost all out of focus unfortunately, because the middle gosling looks way more in-focus.
The horse, the crow, and the sparrow look much better.
They do indeed - strange I didn't see those images when I looked earlier.
duncangr wrote
I just processed the dpreview sample of the duck (or goose) and ducklings (goslings) in PL9 and it is shockingly bad. I hope it's just a case of really bad air quality because there is nothing sharp about any of the images they took with the 100-400 + a7r6.You can use HexEdit to edit the RAW file and replace '7RM6' with '7RM5' and you will fool PL9 into thinking it is an A7r5 file. No lens module for the 100-400 f/4.5 though.
If anyone else has posted any RAW files let us know where to find them.
The horse, the crow, and the sparrow look much better.
They do indeed - strange I didn't see those images when I looked earlier.
May 18, 2026 at 04:52 AM
p.12 #10New 100-400 lenses
schlotz wrote:
He pretty much shows the lens' capability using his focusing charts. IMO, it's what I was hoping for
All the charts look great and Jan's pelican images looked like how I expect a GM lens to look but this is ordinary - maybe it was just one of those days were it is hard to get anything sharp.
A7r5/200-600 (mechanical shutter)
A1/100-400GMf/4.5-5.6 + 1.4TC @560mm
Pixel Perfect wrote
A link to Dustin Abbott's 100-400 review if not already postedAll the charts look great and Jan's pelican images looked like how I expect a GM lens to look but this is ordinary - maybe it was just one of those days were it is hard to get anything sharp.
A7r5/200-600 (mechanical shutter)
A1/100-400GMf/4.5-5.6 + 1.4TC @560mm
May 18, 2026 at 05:43 AM
|
p.12 #11New 100-400 lenses
I've asked Jan in the comments on YT if he found the AF faster on the 100-400/1.4TC vs the 300/2.0TC. Will see if he responds. He usually does.
I'm hoping it does a bit better than the 300/2x. I don't expect it to match the 300/1.4TC but somewhere between would be a nice improvement when shooting at that ~600mm focal length.
I did ask Jan in the comments if the 100-400/1.4TC balances better in the hand than the 200-600. He responded that it does but has more girth. I really don't like the front weighted feeling of the 200-600. I'd sold mine years ago but I just borrowed a friend's for this weekend and all my bad memories about that lens have come back. My friend's copy performs just like my copy did. It can get you very sharp 600mm wide open shots when in good light and at close distances like 25-50ft. But it really falls apart in poor light and at further distance. Also, just like my copy the lens does show a noticeable improvement at f/7.1. The AF speed is also pretty sad. My 100-400/5.6 with 1.4TC on is outperforming it for shooting swallows in flight. My 100-400/1.4TC is also sharper than the 200-600 with none of the distance issues.
If the 100-400/5.6 had a smoother zoom then I may just start using it more but I think I will give this 100-400/4.5 a go and see how it compares.
I'm hoping it does a bit better than the 300/2x. I don't expect it to match the 300/1.4TC but somewhere between would be a nice improvement when shooting at that ~600mm focal length.
I did ask Jan in the comments if the 100-400/1.4TC balances better in the hand than the 200-600. He responded that it does but has more girth. I really don't like the front weighted feeling of the 200-600. I'd sold mine years ago but I just borrowed a friend's for this weekend and all my bad memories about that lens have come back. My friend's copy performs just like my copy did. It can get you very sharp 600mm wide open shots when in good light and at close distances like 25-50ft. But it really falls apart in poor light and at further distance. Also, just like my copy the lens does show a noticeable improvement at f/7.1. The AF speed is also pretty sad. My 100-400/5.6 with 1.4TC on is outperforming it for shooting swallows in flight. My 100-400/1.4TC is also sharper than the 200-600 with none of the distance issues.
If the 100-400/5.6 had a smoother zoom then I may just start using it more but I think I will give this 100-400/4.5 a go and see how it compares.
May 18, 2026 at 05:45 AM
p.12 #12New 100-400 lenses
schlotz wrote:
He pretty much shows the lens' capability using his focusing charts. IMO, it's what I was hoping for
Like I said, I'm not worried so much about IQ, it's the AF performance with TC's. Charts are one thing,show me real world subjects and tracking for fast erratic subjects vs the 200-600G. Would be also good to see how it stacks up against the 400 f/2.8 GM and 300 + 1.4x.
Pixel Perfect wrote
A link to Dustin Abbott's 100-400 review if not already postedLike I said, I'm not worried so much about IQ, it's the AF performance with TC's. Charts are one thing,show me real world subjects and tracking for fast erratic subjects vs the 200-600G. Would be also good to see how it stacks up against the 400 f/2.8 GM and 300 + 1.4x.
May 18, 2026 at 06:04 AM
p.12 #13New 100-400 lenses
Rialto wrote:
Reminds me of Sigma 300-600mm f/4. Great lens except it doesn't enjoy native AF performance or teleconverter compatibility with E-mount. If Sony makes something similar, say f/5.6 aperture for weight control, it would be very attractive.
I wish Sony had released a 300-600 f/5.6 GM which was still very sharp with the 1.4x, rather than the 400-800.
Reminds me of Sigma 300-600mm f/4. Great lens except it doesn't enjoy native AF performance or teleconverter compatibility with E-mount. If Sony makes something similar, say f/5.6 aperture for weight control, it would be very attractive.
I wish Sony had released a 300-600 f/5.6 GM which was still very sharp with the 1.4x, rather than the 400-800.
May 18, 2026 at 06:12 AM
p.12 #14New 100-400 lenses
robert614 wrote:
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 lensI think it's down to lens variation. Steve and I appear to have great 200-600G's and mine is sharp wide open at 600mm on the A1. I've seen 2 other reviews at odds with Steve's finding, so he might have a poor pre-release 100-400. The 200-600 + 1.4 @840 is noticeably weaker than the 400-800 @ 800. I wouldn't be surprised to see the 100-400 + 2x maybe a bit better than the 200-600 + 1.4x but I wouldn't be surprised to see it's no better.
I have little doubt the 100-400 is excellent in IQ with 1.4x, just like a 70-200 GM II and since I don't use a 200-600 + 1.4x on cameras with more than 24MP I wouldn't use the 100-400 + 2x either. However, if the 100-400 + 1.4x is a reliable alternate to the bare 200-600G - ie IQ as good and AF at least as good but it should be better IMO given the massive upgrades in AF motors, then that is what I'm after. Faster a closer focusing when I need speed, and just as much reach when used with a .14x but better FL range.
I shoot Nikon and Sony and have the 800 PF to cover my 800mm option so have no desire in the too slow for me, 400-800 either.
What we are lacking is a faster GM 150/200-600 option. or the mk II 200-600G just needs a huge update in OS, AF, mfd and IQ with 1.4x. Make it a GM if they can't do it at the same price.I would definitely be interested in a 200-600mm GM
That would be great. I have Sigma 300-600mm F/4 but 300mm is not wide enough for shooting sports so kinda annoying.
Pixel Perfect wrote
robert614 wrote
Yeah, having the new 100-400mm 4.5 + 2X TC out resolve the 400-800 at 800mm is a big ask. Even a prime would struggle. The 400-800mm is pretty darn sharp at 800mmI’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
I have little doubt the 100-400 is excellent in IQ with 1.4x, just like a 70-200 GM II and since I don't use a 200-600 + 1.4x on cameras with more than 24MP I wouldn't use the 100-400 + 2x either. However, if the 100-400 + 1.4x is a reliable alternate to the bare 200-600G - ie IQ as good and AF at least as good but it should be better IMO given the massive upgrades in AF motors, then that is what I'm after. Faster a closer focusing when I need speed, and just as much reach when used with a .14x but better FL range.
I shoot Nikon and Sony and have the 800 PF to cover my 800mm option so have no desire in the too slow for me, 400-800 either.
What we are lacking is a faster GM 150/200-600 option. or the mk II 200-600G just needs a huge update in OS, AF, mfd and IQ with 1.4x. Make it a GM if they can't do it at the same price.
That would be great. I have Sigma 300-600mm F/4 but 300mm is not wide enough for shooting sports so kinda annoying.
May 18, 2026 at 08:10 AM
p.12 #15New 100-400 lenses
GraysonLake1987 wrote:
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 lensI think it's down to lens variation. Steve and I appear to have great 200-600G's and mine is sharp wide open at 600mm on the A1. I've seen 2 other reviews at odds with Steve's finding, so he might have a poor pre-release 100-400. The 200-600 + 1.4 @840 is noticeably weaker than the 400-800 @ 800. I wouldn't be surprised to see the 100-400 + 2x maybe a bit better than the 200-600 + 1.4x but I wouldn't be surprised to see it's no better.
I have little doubt the 100-400 is excellent in IQ with 1.4x, just like a 70-200 GM II and since I don't use a 200-600 + 1.4x on cameras with more than 24MP I wouldn't use the 100-400 + 2x either. However, if the 100-400 + 1.4x is a reliable alternate to the bare 200-600G - ie IQ as good and AF at least as good but it should be better IMO given the massive upgrades in AF motors, then that is what I'm after. Faster a closer focusing when I need speed, and just as much reach when used with a .14x but better FL range.
I shoot Nikon and Sony and have the 800 PF to cover my 800mm option so have no desire in the too slow for me, 400-800 either.
What we are lacking is a faster GM 150/200-600 option. or the mk II 200-600G just needs a huge update in OS, AF, mfd and IQ with 1.4x. Make it a GM if they can't do it at the same price.I would definitely be interested in a 200-600mm GMThat would be great. I have Sigma 300-600mm F/4 but 300mm is not wide enough for shooting sports so kinda annoying.
I’m in the same boat. I also own the Sigma 300-600. But if Sony made a higher end 200-600. Like a 200-600mm GM with a constant f5.6, I’d sell my Sigma for that lens
robert614 wrote
Pixel Perfect wrote
robert614 wrote
Yeah, having the new 100-400mm 4.5 + 2X TC out resolve the 400-800 at 800mm is a big ask. Even a prime would struggle. The 400-800mm is pretty darn sharp at 800mmI’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
I have little doubt the 100-400 is excellent in IQ with 1.4x, just like a 70-200 GM II and since I don't use a 200-600 + 1.4x on cameras with more than 24MP I wouldn't use the 100-400 + 2x either. However, if the 100-400 + 1.4x is a reliable alternate to the bare 200-600G - ie IQ as good and AF at least as good but it should be better IMO given the massive upgrades in AF motors, then that is what I'm after. Faster a closer focusing when I need speed, and just as much reach when used with a .14x but better FL range.
I shoot Nikon and Sony and have the 800 PF to cover my 800mm option so have no desire in the too slow for me, 400-800 either.
What we are lacking is a faster GM 150/200-600 option. or the mk II 200-600G just needs a huge update in OS, AF, mfd and IQ with 1.4x. Make it a GM if they can't do it at the same price.
I’m in the same boat. I also own the Sigma 300-600. But if Sony made a higher end 200-600. Like a 200-600mm GM with a constant f5.6, I’d sell my Sigma for that lens
May 18, 2026 at 08:49 AM
p.12 #16New 100-400 lenses
robert614 wrote:
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 lensI think it's down to lens variation. Steve and I appear to have great 200-600G's and mine is sharp wide open at 600mm on the A1. I've seen 2 other reviews at odds with Steve's finding, so he might have a poor pre-release 100-400. The 200-600 + 1.4 @840 is noticeably weaker than the 400-800 @ 800. I wouldn't be surprised to see the 100-400 + 2x maybe a bit better than the 200-600 + 1.4x but I wouldn't be surprised to see it's no better.
I have little doubt the 100-400 is excellent in IQ with 1.4x, just like a 70-200 GM II and since I don't use a 200-600 + 1.4x on cameras with more than 24MP I wouldn't use the 100-400 + 2x either. However, if the 100-400 + 1.4x is a reliable alternate to the bare 200-600G - ie IQ as good and AF at least as good but it should be better IMO given the massive upgrades in AF motors, then that is what I'm after. Faster a closer focusing when I need speed, and just as much reach when used with a .14x but better FL range.
I shoot Nikon and Sony and have the 800 PF to cover my 800mm option so have no desire in the too slow for me, 400-800 either.
What we are lacking is a faster GM 150/200-600 option. or the mk II 200-600G just needs a huge update in OS, AF, mfd and IQ with 1.4x. Make it a GM if they can't do it at the same price.I would definitely be interested in a 200-600mm GMThat would be great. I have Sigma 300-600mm F/4 but 300mm is not wide enough for shooting sports so kinda annoying.I’m in the same boat. I also own the Sigma 300-600. But if Sony made a higher end 200-600. Like a 200-600mm GM with a constant f5.6, I’d sell my Sigma for that lens
With s built-in TC please
GraysonLake1987 wrote
robert614 wrote
Pixel Perfect wrote
robert614 wrote
Yeah, having the new 100-400mm 4.5 + 2X TC out resolve the 400-800 at 800mm is a big ask. Even a prime would struggle. The 400-800mm is pretty darn sharp at 800mmI’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
I have little doubt the 100-400 is excellent in IQ with 1.4x, just like a 70-200 GM II and since I don't use a 200-600 + 1.4x on cameras with more than 24MP I wouldn't use the 100-400 + 2x either. However, if the 100-400 + 1.4x is a reliable alternate to the bare 200-600G - ie IQ as good and AF at least as good but it should be better IMO given the massive upgrades in AF motors, then that is what I'm after. Faster a closer focusing when I need speed, and just as much reach when used with a .14x but better FL range.
I shoot Nikon and Sony and have the 800 PF to cover my 800mm option so have no desire in the too slow for me, 400-800 either.
What we are lacking is a faster GM 150/200-600 option. or the mk II 200-600G just needs a huge update in OS, AF, mfd and IQ with 1.4x. Make it a GM if they can't do it at the same price.
With s built-in TC please
May 18, 2026 at 08:57 AM
p.12 #17New 100-400 lenses
Douglas L wrote:
robert614 wrote
GraysonLake1987 wrote
robert614 wrote
Pixel Perfect wrote
robert614 wrote
Yeah, having the new 100-400mm 4.5 + 2X TC out resolve the 400-800 at 800mm is a big ask. Even a prime would struggle. The 400-800mm is pretty darn sharp at 800mmI’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
I have little doubt the 100-400 is excellent in IQ with 1.4x, just like a 70-200 GM II and since I don't use a 200-600 + 1.4x on cameras with more than 24MP I wouldn't use the 100-400 + 2x either. However, if the 100-400 + 1.4x is a reliable alternate to the bare 200-600G - ie IQ as good and AF at least as good but it should be better IMO given the massive upgrades in AF motors, then that is what I'm after. Faster a closer focusing when I need speed, and just as much reach when used with a .14x but better FL range.
I shoot Nikon and Sony and have the 800 PF to cover my 800mm option so have no desire in the too slow for me, 400-800 either.
What we are lacking is a faster GM 150/200-600 option. or the mk II 200-600G just needs a huge update in OS, AF, mfd and IQ with 1.4x. Make it a GM if they can't do it at the same price.
Don’t get greedy 😄
That would be an awesome lens! But I’ve kinda given up hope of Sony ever releasing a lens with a built TC. I hope I’m wrong though
Did you hear about the two Growlers that collided during an airshow in Idaho? Luckily all four pilots were able to eject
May 18, 2026 at 09:16 AM
p.12 #18New 100-400 lenses
robert614 wrote:
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 lensI think it's down to lens variation. Steve and I appear to have great 200-600G's and mine is sharp wide open at 600mm on the A1. I've seen 2 other reviews at odds with Steve's finding, so he might have a poor pre-release 100-400. The 200-600 + 1.4 @840 is noticeably weaker than the 400-800 @ 800. I wouldn't be surprised to see the 100-400 + 2x maybe a bit better than the 200-600 + 1.4x but I wouldn't be surprised to see it's no better.
I have little doubt the 100-400 is excellent in IQ with 1.4x, just like a 70-200 GM II and since I don't use a 200-600 + 1.4x on cameras with more than 24MP I wouldn't use the 100-400 + 2x either. However, if the 100-400 + 1.4x is a reliable alternate to the bare 200-600G - ie IQ as good and AF at least as good but it should be better IMO given the massive upgrades in AF motors, then that is what I'm after. Faster a closer focusing when I need speed, and just as much reach when used with a .14x but better FL range.
I shoot Nikon and Sony and have the 800 PF to cover my 800mm option so have no desire in the too slow for me, 400-800 either.
What we are lacking is a faster GM 150/200-600 option. or the mk II 200-600G just needs a huge update in OS, AF, mfd and IQ with 1.4x. Make it a GM if they can't do it at the same price.I would definitely be interested in a 200-600mm GMThat would be great. I have Sigma 300-600mm F/4 but 300mm is not wide enough for shooting sports so kinda annoying.I’m in the same boat. I also own the Sigma 300-600. But if Sony made a higher end 200-600. Like a 200-600mm GM with a constant f5.6, I’d sell my Sigma for that lens
Canon is rumored to make 300-600mm F/5.6 soon.
GraysonLake1987 wrote
robert614 wrote
Pixel Perfect wrote
robert614 wrote
Yeah, having the new 100-400mm 4.5 + 2X TC out resolve the 400-800 at 800mm is a big ask. Even a prime would struggle. The 400-800mm is pretty darn sharp at 800mmI’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
I have little doubt the 100-400 is excellent in IQ with 1.4x, just like a 70-200 GM II and since I don't use a 200-600 + 1.4x on cameras with more than 24MP I wouldn't use the 100-400 + 2x either. However, if the 100-400 + 1.4x is a reliable alternate to the bare 200-600G - ie IQ as good and AF at least as good but it should be better IMO given the massive upgrades in AF motors, then that is what I'm after. Faster a closer focusing when I need speed, and just as much reach when used with a .14x but better FL range.
I shoot Nikon and Sony and have the 800 PF to cover my 800mm option so have no desire in the too slow for me, 400-800 either.
What we are lacking is a faster GM 150/200-600 option. or the mk II 200-600G just needs a huge update in OS, AF, mfd and IQ with 1.4x. Make it a GM if they can't do it at the same price.
Canon is rumored to make 300-600mm F/5.6 soon.
May 18, 2026 at 09:33 AM
p.12 #19New 100-400 lenses
GraysonLake1987 wrote:
robert614 wrote
GraysonLake1987 wrote
robert614 wrote
Pixel Perfect wrote
robert614 wrote
Yeah, having the new 100-400mm 4.5 + 2X TC out resolve the 400-800 at 800mm is a big ask. Even a prime would struggle. The 400-800mm is pretty darn sharp at 800mmI’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
I have little doubt the 100-400 is excellent in IQ with 1.4x, just like a 70-200 GM II and since I don't use a 200-600 + 1.4x on cameras with more than 24MP I wouldn't use the 100-400 + 2x either. However, if the 100-400 + 1.4x is a reliable alternate to the bare 200-600G - ie IQ as good and AF at least as good but it should be better IMO given the massive upgrades in AF motors, then that is what I'm after. Faster a closer focusing when I need speed, and just as much reach when used with a .14x but better FL range.
I shoot Nikon and Sony and have the 800 PF to cover my 800mm option so have no desire in the too slow for me, 400-800 either.
What we are lacking is a faster GM 150/200-600 option. or the mk II 200-600G just needs a huge update in OS, AF, mfd and IQ with 1.4x. Make it a GM if they can't do it at the same price.
Unfortunately, I’m too invested in Sony to contemplate switching. But if they do, maybe it’ll light a fire under Sony to one up them
May 18, 2026 at 10:11 AM
p.12 #20New 100-400 lenses
GraysonLake1987 wrote:
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 lensI think it's down to lens variation. Steve and I appear to have great 200-600G's and mine is sharp wide open at 600mm on the A1. I've seen 2 other reviews at odds with Steve's finding, so he might have a poor pre-release 100-400. The 200-600 + 1.4 @840 is noticeably weaker than the 400-800 @ 800. I wouldn't be surprised to see the 100-400 + 2x maybe a bit better than the 200-600 + 1.4x but I wouldn't be surprised to see it's no better.
I have little doubt the 100-400 is excellent in IQ with 1.4x, just like a 70-200 GM II and since I don't use a 200-600 + 1.4x on cameras with more than 24MP I wouldn't use the 100-400 + 2x either. However, if the 100-400 + 1.4x is a reliable alternate to the bare 200-600G - ie IQ as good and AF at least as good but it should be better IMO given the massive upgrades in AF motors, then that is what I'm after. Faster a closer focusing when I need speed, and just as much reach when used with a .14x but better FL range.
I shoot Nikon and Sony and have the 800 PF to cover my 800mm option so have no desire in the too slow for me, 400-800 either.
What we are lacking is a faster GM 150/200-600 option. or the mk II 200-600G just needs a huge update in OS, AF, mfd and IQ with 1.4x. Make it a GM if they can't do it at the same price.I would definitely be interested in a 200-600mm GMThat would be great. I have Sigma 300-600mm F/4 but 300mm is not wide enough for shooting sports so kinda annoying.I’m in the same boat. I also own the Sigma 300-600. But if Sony made a higher end 200-600. Like a 200-600mm GM with a constant f5.6, I’d sell my Sigma for that lensCanon is rumored to make 300-600mm F/5.6 soon.
I don't belive it was anything more than another vaporing rumor.
The problem with the 200-600 is that it is a little slow, AF is not tops, but more importantly it is too cheap. It needs better optics to handle TC, better tangential (closer to sagittal) MTF, better AF, and a better tripod collar. I'd pay $8K+ for 200-600/5.6 w/1.4x since it would be a long term lens. I might even accept a 200-600/6.3 with internal 1.25x TC, effectively 750/8.
Unfortunately there are too many cheapskates out there and also too many wimps that don't want to handle another 500g.
EBH
robert614 wrote
GraysonLake1987 wrote
robert614 wrote
Pixel Perfect wrote
robert614 wrote
Yeah, having the new 100-400mm 4.5 + 2X TC out resolve the 400-800 at 800mm is a big ask. Even a prime would struggle. The 400-800mm is pretty darn sharp at 800mmI’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
I have little doubt the 100-400 is excellent in IQ with 1.4x, just like a 70-200 GM II and since I don't use a 200-600 + 1.4x on cameras with more than 24MP I wouldn't use the 100-400 + 2x either. However, if the 100-400 + 1.4x is a reliable alternate to the bare 200-600G - ie IQ as good and AF at least as good but it should be better IMO given the massive upgrades in AF motors, then that is what I'm after. Faster a closer focusing when I need speed, and just as much reach when used with a .14x but better FL range.
I shoot Nikon and Sony and have the 800 PF to cover my 800mm option so have no desire in the too slow for me, 400-800 either.
What we are lacking is a faster GM 150/200-600 option. or the mk II 200-600G just needs a huge update in OS, AF, mfd and IQ with 1.4x. Make it a GM if they can't do it at the same price.
I don't belive it was anything more than another vaporing rumor.
The problem with the 200-600 is that it is a little slow, AF is not tops, but more importantly it is too cheap. It needs better optics to handle TC, better tangential (closer to sagittal) MTF, better AF, and a better tripod collar. I'd pay $8K+ for 200-600/5.6 w/1.4x since it would be a long term lens. I might even accept a 200-600/6.3 with internal 1.25x TC, effectively 750/8.
Unfortunately there are too many cheapskates out there and also too many wimps that don't want to handle another 500g.
EBH
May 18, 2026 at 10:27 AM