New 100-400 lenses
p.13 #1New 100-400 lenses
robert614 wrote:
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 lensWith s built-in TC please
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
Yeah. That was some freak collision. Looked like the two jets stuck to each other. I have been the team a few times. I don't recall ever seeing them flying so close to each other. it was a miracle the crew could eject under such circumstance and survived.
I am still waiting for more review on the 100-400+TC... It's conflicting based on what was reported so far.
Douglas L wrote
robert614 wrote
GraysonLake1987 wrote
robert614 wrote
Pixel Perfect wrote
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.
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
Yeah. That was some freak collision. Looked like the two jets stuck to each other. I have been the team a few times. I don't recall ever seeing them flying so close to each other. it was a miracle the crew could eject under such circumstance and survived.
I am still waiting for more review on the 100-400+TC... It's conflicting based on what was reported so far.
May 18, 2026 at 01:41 PM
p.13 #2New 100-400 lenses
I shot some swallows today with the 200-600 and went back and forth a few times between it and my 300GM/2xTC.
Even with the 2xTC, the 300GM blows away the 2-6 in AF speed and acquisition. Also a large majority of the 2-6 shots are sort of mushy even though the camera shows it tracking along just fine during a given sequence.
This has solidified my decision that getting a new copy of the 200-600 instead of looking at this 100-400GM is not the way to go. This new lens with 1.4TC and its 4 linear focus motors would have to be a dog to not best the 200-600 in AF and IQ.
I accept that there may be a few excellent 200-600 copies out there that will give the 100-400GM/1.4TC a challenge in the IQ department. But there isn't going to be copy variation in the AF performance and that is where the lens really falls apart in my testing.
Now I remember why I had no regrets when I sold my copy years ago.
Will order the 100-400 and see how it is myself.
Even with the 2xTC, the 300GM blows away the 2-6 in AF speed and acquisition. Also a large majority of the 2-6 shots are sort of mushy even though the camera shows it tracking along just fine during a given sequence.
This has solidified my decision that getting a new copy of the 200-600 instead of looking at this 100-400GM is not the way to go. This new lens with 1.4TC and its 4 linear focus motors would have to be a dog to not best the 200-600 in AF and IQ.
I accept that there may be a few excellent 200-600 copies out there that will give the 100-400GM/1.4TC a challenge in the IQ department. But there isn't going to be copy variation in the AF performance and that is where the lens really falls apart in my testing.
Now I remember why I had no regrets when I sold my copy years ago.
Will order the 100-400 and see how it is myself.
May 18, 2026 at 02:07 PM
p.13 #3New 100-400 lenses
I had a very sharp copy of the 200-600, sold it after I bought the 400-800. Bought one back few months ago because I was about to start shooting video with it. Haven't taken one single picture with the second 200-600 yet. Will try it out tomorrow with the Blue Angels, will also try out a battery grip on the A1II. I have never used battery grip before.
I asked the buyer of my 200-600 to let me know if he decided to sell the lens, I would buy it back from him, unfortunately, he sold it already. Same thing with the crazy sharp copy of the 100-400 GM I had, sold it two months ago, emailed the buyer last week to let me know I would buy it back if he decided to sell it, He sold it a week ago.
If the new 100-400+1.4TC is sharper than the 200-600, I will likely get one. But copy variation can be a big factor.
Edited on May 18, 2026 at 02:50 PM · View previous versions
I asked the buyer of my 200-600 to let me know if he decided to sell the lens, I would buy it back from him, unfortunately, he sold it already. Same thing with the crazy sharp copy of the 100-400 GM I had, sold it two months ago, emailed the buyer last week to let me know I would buy it back if he decided to sell it, He sold it a week ago
.If the new 100-400+1.4TC is sharper than the 200-600, I will likely get one. But copy variation can be a big factor.
Edited on May 18, 2026 at 02:50 PM · View previous versions
May 18, 2026 at 02:25 PM
p.13 #4New 100-400 lenses
arbitrage wrote:
... Also a large majority of the 2-6 shots are sort of mushy even though the camera shows it tracking along just fine during a given sequence. ...
Hi there and greetings from germany.
Have you ever tried "Manual Steadyshot" with the 1000mm value when using the 200-600?
With the latest firmware update and that steady shot settings I get very sharp results with my A7RIV an the A1.
Maybe worth a try.
MfG L.E.
... Also a large majority of the 2-6 shots are sort of mushy even though the camera shows it tracking along just fine during a given sequence. ...
Hi there and greetings from germany.
Have you ever tried "Manual Steadyshot" with the 1000mm value when using the 200-600?
With the latest firmware update and that steady shot settings I get very sharp results with my A7RIV an the A1.
Maybe worth a try.
MfG L.E.
May 18, 2026 at 02:49 PM
p.13 #5New 100-400 lenses
Oswald74 wrote:
Hi there and greetings from germany.
Have you ever tried "Manual Steadyshot" with the 1000mm value when using the 200-600?
With the latest firmware update and that steady shot settings I get very sharp results with my A7RIV an the A1.
Maybe worth a try.
MfG L.E.
I've never tried that. I will give it a try.
Also need to check if FW is up to date. Probably not as my friend hasn't used the lens in over a year.
arbitrage wrote
... Also a large majority of the 2-6 shots are sort of mushy even though the camera shows it tracking along just fine during a given sequence. ...Have you ever tried "Manual Steadyshot" with the 1000mm value when using the 200-600?
With the latest firmware update and that steady shot settings I get very sharp results with my A7RIV an the A1.
Maybe worth a try.
MfG L.E.
I've never tried that. I will give it a try.
Also need to check if FW is up to date. Probably not as my friend hasn't used the lens in over a year.
May 18, 2026 at 03:22 PM
p.13 #6New 100-400 lenses
Oswald74 wrote:
Hi there and greetings from germany.
Have you ever tried "Manual Steadyshot" with the 1000mm value when using the 200-600?
With the latest firmware update and that steady shot settings I get very sharp results with my A7RIV an the A1.
Maybe worth a try.
MfG L.E.
What's the rationale of 1000mm unless you have one of the TCs on ?
arbitrage wrote
... Also a large majority of the 2-6 shots are sort of mushy even though the camera shows it tracking along just fine during a given sequence. ...Have you ever tried "Manual Steadyshot" with the 1000mm value when using the 200-600?
With the latest firmware update and that steady shot settings I get very sharp results with my A7RIV an the A1.
Maybe worth a try.
MfG L.E.
What's the rationale of 1000mm unless you have one of the TCs on ?
May 18, 2026 at 03:52 PM
p.13 #7New 100-400 lenses
A few things about the 200-600G are terrible. The AF motors are actually old usm style motors which IIRC Sony call ssw. So with Sony claiming the 100-400 f/4.5 is 3x faster than the old 100-400 GM which is superior to the 200-600G in AF, it would be hard to see how the 100-400 f/4.5 + 1.4x could not bet still faster and more reliable for tracking than the 200-600G. Also, the OS of the 200-600G is miserably bad and finally IQ with the 1.4x drops off noticeably. I get that it's a G series but Sony should not only update the G but keep price keen, but also offer a GM lens in a similar FL range.
150-600 G II 2 XDL motors, 2 stop better OS, improved balance, improved IQ, 0.3x max magnification
200-600 f/5.6 GM 4XDL motors, 4 stops better OS than the old 200-600G, large uplift in IQ with 1.4x TC, 0.25x max magnification at all FL.
Not only this but I'd like to see Tamron or Sigma offer some interesting options. Things I would like to see
150-500 f/5.0
100-500 f/5.6
300-700 f/5.0-6.7
600 f/5.6
500 f/4.5
400 f/3.2
100-300 f/4.0
See I'd be stoked to combine a 100-400 f/4.5 with a 600 f/5.6. The prime would be superb with a 1.4 and you can cover 100 to 840 with excellent IQ.
150-600 G II 2 XDL motors, 2 stop better OS, improved balance, improved IQ, 0.3x max magnification
200-600 f/5.6 GM 4XDL motors, 4 stops better OS than the old 200-600G, large uplift in IQ with 1.4x TC, 0.25x max magnification at all FL.
Not only this but I'd like to see Tamron or Sigma offer some interesting options. Things I would like to see
150-500 f/5.0
100-500 f/5.6
300-700 f/5.0-6.7
600 f/5.6
500 f/4.5
400 f/3.2
100-300 f/4.0
See I'd be stoked to combine a 100-400 f/4.5 with a 600 f/5.6. The prime would be superb with a 1.4 and you can cover 100 to 840 with excellent IQ.
May 18, 2026 at 04:55 PM
p.13 #8New 100-400 lenses
Pixel Perfect wrote:
A few things about the 200-600G are terrible. The AF motors are actually old usm style motors which IIRC Sony call ssw. So with Sony claiming the 100-400 f/4.5 is 3x faster than the old 100-400 GM which is superior to the 200-600G in AF, it would be hard to see how the 100-400 f/4.5 + 1.4x could not bet still faster and more reliable for tracking than the 200-600G. Also, the OS of the 200-600G is miserably bad and finally IQ with the 1.4x drops off noticeably. I get that it's a G series but Sony should not...Show more →
I wonder how much a 200-600 f5.6 GM would cost, USD7000-8000? Since Sony 300 GM works so well with 2X TC, it would be nice if Sony would make a 600mm f5.6 with a 1.4X TC built in. A 600mm f5.6 got to be even sharper than the 300GM+2X TC. I wonder how much such a lens would cost? Of course, we are all dreaming here.
A few things about the 200-600G are terrible. The AF motors are actually old usm style motors which IIRC Sony call ssw. So with Sony claiming the 100-400 f/4.5 is 3x faster than the old 100-400 GM which is superior to the 200-600G in AF, it would be hard to see how the 100-400 f/4.5 + 1.4x could not bet still faster and more reliable for tracking than the 200-600G. Also, the OS of the 200-600G is miserably bad and finally IQ with the 1.4x drops off noticeably. I get that it's a G series but Sony should not...Show more →
I wonder how much a 200-600 f5.6 GM would cost, USD7000-8000? Since Sony 300 GM works so well with 2X TC, it would be nice if Sony would make a 600mm f5.6 with a 1.4X TC built in. A 600mm f5.6 got to be even sharper than the 300GM+2X TC. I wonder how much such a lens would cost? Of course, we are all dreaming here.
May 18, 2026 at 06:40 PM
p.13 #9New 100-400 lenses
I am a hard pass on the 100-400 f4.5
I would have rather had a 100-300 f4 GM that had really great IQ and was reasonable in size and weight. If Sigma is listening, they made a good one back in the day.
I would still love to see a 500mm f4 but I am pretty sure that will never happen.
I would have rather had a 100-300 f4 GM that had really great IQ and was reasonable in size and weight. If Sigma is listening, they made a good one back in the day.
I would still love to see a 500mm f4 but I am pretty sure that will never happen.
May 18, 2026 at 10:15 PM
p.13 #10New 100-400 lenses
Douglas L wrote:
I wonder how much a 200-600 f5.6 GM would cost, USD7000-8000? Since Sony 300 GM works so well with 2X TC, it would be nice if Sony would make a 600mm f5.6 with a 1.4X TC built in. A 600mm f5.6 got to be even sharper than the 300GM+2X TC. I wonder how much such a lens would cost? Of course, we are all dreaming here.
Price could be down around $6.5K I reckon. I would say a 100-400 f/4 GM would have run about $6K, I think they could do a 200-600 f/5.6 for a bit more, $7K tops. Of course Sigma could do it for ~$3.K, half the price of the 300-600 f/4. Hopefully Viltrox releases a 1.4x TC and we can use that on third party lenses and get around Sony's deplorable restriction.
I can but dream.
I wonder how much a 200-600 f5.6 GM would cost, USD7000-8000? Since Sony 300 GM works so well with 2X TC, it would be nice if Sony would make a 600mm f5.6 with a 1.4X TC built in. A 600mm f5.6 got to be even sharper than the 300GM+2X TC. I wonder how much such a lens would cost? Of course, we are all dreaming here.
Price could be down around $6.5K I reckon. I would say a 100-400 f/4 GM would have run about $6K, I think they could do a 200-600 f/5.6 for a bit more, $7K tops. Of course Sigma could do it for ~$3.K, half the price of the 300-600 f/4. Hopefully Viltrox releases a 1.4x TC and we can use that on third party lenses and get around Sony's deplorable restriction.
I can but dream.
May 18, 2026 at 10:21 PM
|
p.13 #11New 100-400 lenses
billsnature wrote:
I am a hard pass on the 100-400 f4.5
I would have rather had a 100-300 f4 GM that had really great IQ and was reasonable in size and weight. If Sigma is listening, they made a good one back in the day.
I would still love to see a 500mm f4 but I am pretty sure that will never happen.
Given how good the Nikon 400 f/4.5 at crazy light weight, they should do a big brother 500 f/4.5 and I'll bet it's still under 1.7kg. That 1/3rd of a stop makes huge difference to price, size and weight but not so much to IQ.
For me the 70-200 f/2.8 GM II is so good with the 1.4x that the resulting 98-280 f/4 is all I need. I get f/2.8 when needed and 0.49x magnification with the 1.4x!
I am a hard pass on the 100-400 f4.5
I would have rather had a 100-300 f4 GM that had really great IQ and was reasonable in size and weight. If Sigma is listening, they made a good one back in the day.
I would still love to see a 500mm f4 but I am pretty sure that will never happen.
Given how good the Nikon 400 f/4.5 at crazy light weight, they should do a big brother 500 f/4.5 and I'll bet it's still under 1.7kg. That 1/3rd of a stop makes huge difference to price, size and weight but not so much to IQ.
For me the 70-200 f/2.8 GM II is so good with the 1.4x that the resulting 98-280 f/4 is all I need. I get f/2.8 when needed and 0.49x magnification with the 1.4x!
May 18, 2026 at 10:25 PM
p.13 #12New 100-400 lenses
I came from A-Mount and startet mirrorless with the A7RIV + 200-600.
That combination was less than ideal.
I read every articel, watched every video, tried everything to get better results, which payd off but I was never satisfied because if you shoot a series of 12 photos, 8 are some sort of blurry.
The best solution other recommended was to turn of OSS and use higher shutter speeds.
Works, but as the 200-600 isn't the fastest lens on the planet you have to live with too high iso.
So it seems that the oss from the lens is the main problem, cause my A1 didn't bring better keeper rate.
Last year I found the manual steady shot settings and I thought that the more oss, the better.
I tried the lens on oss mode 1 and manual steadyshot on 1000mm and I instand got better results and a higher keeper rate!
Even on the 600 F4 this setting does a great job.
With the latest firmware update for the 200-600 it got even better.
I always used 7.1 @ 600mm for sharpness, now 6.3 is very usable.
I set a custom button to turn the manual steady shot to auto when using other lenses, because the oss can go crazy when using 1000mm on a wide angle or macro. Which clearly shows that this setting does something.
Some people told me I was selling snake oil when posting my findings on dpreview or that if a sony lens is attached steady shot is always on auto no matter what setting you dial in.
MfG L.E.
That combination was less than ideal.
I read every articel, watched every video, tried everything to get better results, which payd off but I was never satisfied because if you shoot a series of 12 photos, 8 are some sort of blurry.
The best solution other recommended was to turn of OSS and use higher shutter speeds.
Works, but as the 200-600 isn't the fastest lens on the planet you have to live with too high iso.
So it seems that the oss from the lens is the main problem, cause my A1 didn't bring better keeper rate.
Last year I found the manual steady shot settings and I thought that the more oss, the better.
I tried the lens on oss mode 1 and manual steadyshot on 1000mm and I instand got better results and a higher keeper rate!
Even on the 600 F4 this setting does a great job.
With the latest firmware update for the 200-600 it got even better.
I always used 7.1 @ 600mm for sharpness, now 6.3 is very usable.
I set a custom button to turn the manual steady shot to auto when using other lenses, because the oss can go crazy when using 1000mm on a wide angle or macro. Which clearly shows that this setting does something.
Some people told me I was selling snake oil when posting my findings on dpreview or that if a sony lens is attached steady shot is always on auto no matter what setting you dial in.
MfG L.E.
May 19, 2026 at 12:01 AM
p.13 #13New 100-400 lenses
Pixel Perfect wrote:
I would have rather had a 100-300 f4 GM that had really great IQ and was reasonable in size and weight. If Sigma is listening, they made a good one back in the day.
I would still love to see a 500mm f4 but I am pretty sure that will never happen.Given how good the Nikon 400 f/4.5 at crazy light weight, they should do a big brother 500 f/4.5 and I'll bet it's still under 1.7kg. That 1/3rd of a stop makes huge difference to price, size and weight but not so much to IQ.
For me the 70-200 f/2.8 GM II is so good with the 1.4x that the resulting 98-280 f/4 is all I need. I get f/2.8 when needed and 0.49x magnification with the 1.4x!
Canon used to make a 500mm f4.5. That was a beauty of a lens, very compact and light compared to the 500mmf4. I'd love to see that made by Sony.
billsnature wrote
I am a hard pass on the 100-400 f4.5I would have rather had a 100-300 f4 GM that had really great IQ and was reasonable in size and weight. If Sigma is listening, they made a good one back in the day.
I would still love to see a 500mm f4 but I am pretty sure that will never happen.
For me the 70-200 f/2.8 GM II is so good with the 1.4x that the resulting 98-280 f/4 is all I need. I get f/2.8 when needed and 0.49x magnification with the 1.4x!
Canon used to make a 500mm f4.5. That was a beauty of a lens, very compact and light compared to the 500mmf4. I'd love to see that made by Sony.
May 19, 2026 at 08:32 AM
p.13 #14New 100-400 lenses
Not very useful for pixel peepers like me
https://youtu.be/qN9digwFiQs?si=iN3xOq-BM5ELyvJ0
https://youtu.be/qN9digwFiQs?si=iN3xOq-BM5ELyvJ0
May 19, 2026 at 03:41 PM
p.13 #15New 100-400 lenses
Oswald74 wrote:
I came from A-Mount and startet mirrorless with the A7RIV + 200-600.
That combination was less than ideal.
I read every articel, watched every video, tried everything to get better results, which payd off but I was never satisfied because if you shoot a series of 12 photos, 8 are some sort of blurry.
The best solution other recommended was to turn of OSS and use higher shutter speeds.
Works, but as the 200-600 isn't the fastest lens on the planet you have to live with too high iso.
So it seems that the oss from the lens is the main problem, cause my A1...Show more →
I can easily get sharp shots handheld at 1/40s at 840mm with the 200-600 and have never set the manual steady shot settings.
Trick with slow shutter speeds is to use a burst because any subject movement will cause motion blur. Usually a few shots in the burst will catch a moment when the subject is not moving.
Small little hoppity birds in dark undergrowth are particularly problematic but even they are momentarily stationary occasionally.
I came from A-Mount and startet mirrorless with the A7RIV + 200-600.
That combination was less than ideal.
I read every articel, watched every video, tried everything to get better results, which payd off but I was never satisfied because if you shoot a series of 12 photos, 8 are some sort of blurry.
The best solution other recommended was to turn of OSS and use higher shutter speeds.
Works, but as the 200-600 isn't the fastest lens on the planet you have to live with too high iso.
So it seems that the oss from the lens is the main problem, cause my A1...Show more →
I can easily get sharp shots handheld at 1/40s at 840mm with the 200-600 and have never set the manual steady shot settings.
Trick with slow shutter speeds is to use a burst because any subject movement will cause motion blur. Usually a few shots in the burst will catch a moment when the subject is not moving.
Small little hoppity birds in dark undergrowth are particularly problematic but even they are momentarily stationary occasionally.
May 19, 2026 at 04:45 PM
p.13 #16New 100-400 lenses
Alan Parker wrote:
arbitrage wrote
I just finished watching.70-200/2.8 and 300/2.8 pairing makes more sense to me
With a TC you get 420/4, so why do you need the 100-400/4.5?
Edited on May 22, 2026 at 10:10 AM · View previous versions
May 19, 2026 at 10:28 PM
p.13 #17New 100-400 lenses
scott f wrote:
Pixel Perfect wrote
billsnature wrote
I am a hard pass on the 100-400 f4.5I would have rather had a 100-300 f4 GM that had really great IQ and was reasonable in size and weight. If Sigma is listening, they made a good one back in the day.
I would still love to see a 500mm f4 but I am pretty sure that will never happen.
For me the 70-200 f/2.8 GM II is so good with the 1.4x that the resulting 98-280 f/4 is all I need. I get f/2.8 when needed and 0.49x magnification with the 1.4x!
The 500/4.5L (3kg) is double the weight of the 300GM..
May 19, 2026 at 10:30 PM
p.13 #18New 100-400 lenses
aCuria wrote:
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.70-200/2.8 and 300/2.8 pairing makes more sense to me
With a TC you get 420/4, so why do you need the 400/4.5?
Why, because of price and weight. 400 f/4.5 1.2kg ~ $4.5K, 300 f/2.8 GM + 1.4x ~1.6kg ~$9K in Australia.
Alan Parker wrote
arbitrage wrote
I just finished watching.With a TC you get 420/4, so why do you need the 400/4.5?
Why, because of price and weight. 400 f/4.5 1.2kg ~ $4.5K, 300 f/2.8 GM + 1.4x ~1.6kg ~$9K in Australia.
May 19, 2026 at 11:20 PM
p.13 #19New 100-400 lenses
aCuria wrote:
The 500/4.5L (3kg) is double the weight of the 300GM..
No use quoting ancient DSLR lens weights it has no relevance to what can currently be done. Old 300 f/2.8's hit 2.9kg now we are basically half that. We could easily see a new 500 f/4.5 come in under 1.8kg.
The 500/4.5L (3kg) is double the weight of the 300GM..
No use quoting ancient DSLR lens weights it has no relevance to what can currently be done. Old 300 f/2.8's hit 2.9kg now we are basically half that. We could easily see a new 500 f/4.5 come in under 1.8kg.
May 19, 2026 at 11:22 PM
p.13 #20New 100-400 lenses
Pixel Perfect wrote:
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.70-200/2.8 and 300/2.8 pairing makes more sense to me
With a TC you get 420/4, so why do you need the 400/4.5?Why, because of price and weight. 400 f/4.5 1.2kg ~ $4.5K, 300 f/2.8 GM + 1.4x ~1.6kg ~$9K in Australia.
Your are confused, we were discussing the combination of the 100-400/4.5GM + 300/2.8GM
Sony does not make a 400 f/4.5 prime.
aCuria wrote
Alan Parker wrote
arbitrage wrote
I just finished watching.With a TC you get 420/4, so why do you need the 400/4.5?
Your are confused, we were discussing the combination of the 100-400/4.5GM + 300/2.8GM
Sony does not make a 400 f/4.5 prime.
May 19, 2026 at 11:25 PM