100-400 doesn't replace 200-600 unless the former has a built in TC and high IQ, more suited to an f/4. I do 100% agree that we need a newer, better 1xx-600. I'm sure they can do it but what price will be allowed?
B&H told me June 11th is the arrival date (I canceled my pre-order though). Anyway, do you have 200-600 and a TC? Most people will be interested in this comparison Both AF and sharpness
Peire wrote:
It seems that my Sony GM 100-400/4.5 is arriving next tuesday.I'm still not 100% convinced though.
oakrrl wrote:
Also going to pass. I'd hoped for a refresh of 100-400 at about same weight, size - hoping it could become my birding lens.
..../quote]
I feel the same. The OG 100-400 is my standard three lens big backpack kit. With the telescoping for focal length being a feature not a bug. I would pay more for better slow 100-400 and an upgraded 24-105.
If I'm going out with one large lens it's going to be longer than 400mm. If I'm usually using a TC I'm going with the 400-800 instead.
I'm never close enough to animals with 400mm, but maybe that's a skill issue.
I read through the recent pages and didn’t see this exact angle addressed, so apologies if I missed it.
One reviewer made the case that for field sports on newer Sony bodies, you could run the 1.4x in good light, pull it at halftime, and then just shoot the new 100-400 at f/4.5 under lights without much issue. He was pretty explicit that with current Sony sensors, f/4.5 under lights is no longer a big problem.
That got my attention because I’ve typically switched over to a faster but shorter lens once the light drops. If I could just stay on one lens all game and only remove the TC, that would be a huge win.
For those of you actually shooting under lights on bodies like the A7V: is that realistic in practice, or does it turn into a denoise-every-frame workflow where 2.8 still really is the practical answer? I’ve mostly been using the 50-150/2 once the light goes (and having to limit my positions), so I’m trying to figure out whether f/4.5 is genuinely workable now or still more theory than reality.
I find it interesting. I will revisit it in the future. But looking at the size, I just don’t see it being used enough. Not a bad lens at all. Just not a good fit for my needs because of the size…kinda bummed frankly…
JP-Eugene wrote:
I read through the recent pages and didn’t see this exact angle addressed, so apologies if I missed it.
One reviewer made the case that for field sports on newer Sony bodies, you could run the 1.4x in good light, pull it at halftime, and then just shoot the new 100-400 at f/4.5 under lights without much issue. He was pretty explicit that with current Sony sensors, f/4.5 under lights is no longer a big problem.
That got my attention because I’ve typically switched over to a faster but shorter lens once the light drops. If I could just stay on one lens all game and only remove the TC, that would be a huge win.
For those of you actually shooting under lights on bodies like the A7V: is that realistic in practice, or does it turn into a denoise-every-frame workflow where 2.8 still really is the practical answer? I’ve mostly been using the 50-150/2 once the light goes (and having to limit my positions), so I’m trying to figure out whether f/4.5 is genuinely workable now or still more theory than reality.
It comes down to the lights on the field. Typical high school lighting is poor on the opposite side of that coin is the NFL. So, it depends. ƒ4.5 will work fine for the lit pro-soccer field (collage campus) I shoot at but the local high school field it will not cut the mustard and that demands the 400 2.8.
schlotz wrote:
It comes down to the lights on the field. Typical high school lighting is poor on the opposite side of that coin is the NFL. So, it depends. ƒ4.5 will work fine for the lit pro-soccer field (collage campus) I shoot at but the local high school field it will not cut the mustard and that demands the 400 2.8.
That jives with how I felt; high school, not-great lighting. Thanks for confirming.
schlotz wrote:
It comes down to the lights on the field. Typical high school lighting is poor on the opposite side of that coin is the NFL. So, it depends. ƒ4.5 will work fine for the lit pro-soccer field (collage campus) I shoot at but the local high school field it will not cut the mustard and that demands the 400 2.8.
That Nikon 120-300 f/2.8 + built-in 1.4 would be very appealing I'm guessing.
JP-Eugene wrote:
I read through the recent pages and didn’t see this exact angle addressed, so apologies if I missed it.
One reviewer made the case that for field sports on newer Sony bodies, you could run the 1.4x in good light, pull it at halftime, and then just shoot the new 100-400 at f/4.5 under lights without much issue. He was pretty explicit that with current Sony sensors, f/4.5 under lights is no longer a big problem.
That got my attention because I’ve typically switched over to a faster but shorter lens once the light drops. If I could just stay on one lens all game and only remove the TC, that would be a huge win.
For those of you actually shooting under lights on bodies like the A7V: is that realistic in practice, or does it turn into a denoise-every-frame workflow where 2.8 still really is the practical answer? I’ve mostly been using the 50-150/2 once the light goes (and having to limit my positions), so I’m trying to figure out whether f/4.5 is genuinely workable now or still more theory than reality.
f/2.8 is still going to be the better option 10 out of 10 times for night games.
That said, I do agree with the broader point that shooting at f/4.5 today is not the same as shooting at f/4.5 five or ten years ago. Between better sensors and how good AI denoise has become, the practical ceiling has moved quite a bit, at least for anyone who doesn’t need to transmit straight out of camera during the event.
I’ve shot some night games with the A1 II and 200-600 on poorly lit youth fields, and the results were completely usable for anything short of a large poster-size print. Even then, I think I could have tweaked my edits to make the visible noise become part of the image rather than a distraction.
Honestly, I think this lens may end up being slept on simply because it’s f/4.5 instead of f/4. I've seen many comments on various platforms where people are saying this should have been f/4. In real-world use, that difference is negligible both for exposure and background separation. It reminds me of the $0.99 pricing effect...$2.99 feels meaningfully cheaper than $3.00, even though most of us would walk right past a penny on the ground without thinking twice.
I am still having a hard time deciding on this lens. On one hand, I want it. Having a 100-400mm f4.5 sounds great for subject separation and when the light gets low. Add a TC 1.4 and you get a 140-560mm f6.3 that should be just as good as the 200-600mm f6.3. It will also be a bit lighter, have a bit bigger zoom range, and take front and rear filters. Add a TC 2x and you have a 200-800mm f9, which is hopefully as good as the 400-800mm at 800mm (sounds like we need a bit more testing here to know for sure) and will definitely be lighter and have a much bigger zoom range.
On the other hand, it's hard to say from the initial reviews if it's substantially better than the 200-600mm and 400-800mm. Adding a 4lb and 4k+ lens that doesn't at least fully replace my 200-600mm is a hard sell.
As for the f4.5 aperture, if this lens were a 7lb+ 8k+ f4 zoom, I would not be interested in it at all. So I actually see the f4.5 as an advantage in this case. The only thing that may have added interest to me is if they added an internal TC, even if it added like 1/2 pound to the weight and a few hundred to the cost, if it improved IQ vs an external TC it would have been a value add to me.
I'm with you. A built-in TC even at a 2k more price, I'd have jumped on it. As you mentioned adding 1.4 TC should be better than 200-600 in sharpness and focus speed. I'm waiting for more customer reviews.
DWOfPaul wrote:
I am still having a hard time deciding on this lens. On one hand, I want it. Having a 100-400mm f4.5 sounds great for subject separation and when the light gets low. Add a TC 1.4 and you get a 140-560mm f6.3 that should be just as good as the 200-600mm f6.3. It will also be a bit lighter, have a bit bigger zoom range, and take front and rear filters. Add a TC 2x and you have a 200-800mm f9, which is hopefully as good as the 400-800mm at 800mm (sounds like we need a bit more testing here to know for sure) and will definitely be lighter and have a much bigger zoom range.
On the other hand, it's hard to say from the initial reviews if it's substantially better than the 200-600mm and 400-800mm. Adding a 4lb and 4k+ lens that doesn't at least fully replace my 200-600mm is a hard sell.
As for the f4.5 aperture, if this lens were a 7lb+ 8k+ f4 zoom, I would not be interested in it at all. So I actually see the f4.5 as an advantage in this case. The only thing that may have added interest to me is if they added an internal TC, even if it added like 1/2 pound to the weight and a few hundred to the cost, if it improved IQ vs an external TC it would have been a value add to me. ...Show more →
DWOfPaul wrote:
I am still having a hard time deciding on this lens. On one hand, I want it. Having a 100-400mm f4.5 sounds great for subject separation and when the light gets low. Add a TC 1.4 and you get a 140-560mm f6.3 that should be just as good as the 200-600mm f6.3. It will also be a bit lighter, have a bit bigger zoom range, and take front and rear filters. Add a TC 2x and you have a 200-800mm f9, which is hopefully as good as the 400-800mm at 800mm (sounds like we need a bit more testing here to know for sure) and will definitely be lighter and have a much bigger zoom range.
On the other hand, it's hard to say from the initial reviews if it's substantially better than the 200-600mm and 400-800mm. Adding a 4lb and 4k+ lens that doesn't at least fully replace my 200-600mm is a hard sell.
As for the f4.5 aperture, if this lens were a 7lb+ 8k+ f4 zoom, I would not be interested in it at all. So I actually see the f4.5 as an advantage in this case. The only thing that may have added interest to me is if they added an internal TC, even if it added like 1/2 pound to the weight and a few hundred to the cost, if it improved IQ vs an external TC it would have been a value add to me. ...Show more →
From the samples I've seen, the IQ is better than my 200-600. Not blowing it out of the water, but it's better. That's a win because the 200-600 already has remarkable IQ for a telephoto zoom in that range. The AF of the 200-600 is good, but it's not great. It struggles during soccer and football when the light gets dim. When you add a TC in poor light, AF gets pretty bad and borderline useless. The AF/tracking of the 100-400 is going to run circles around the 200-600 under all conditions, with and without a TC.
For me, the added light gathering ability is the main reason people will buy this lens. F/4.5 vs 6.3 is a significant difference in real world use. The AF performance and the more useful zoom range for sports are tied for second. The IQ and bokeh are a distant third when I consider the 200-600 vs this lens.
DWOfPaul wrote:
I am still having a hard time deciding on this lens. On one hand, I want it. Having a 100-400mm f4.5 sounds great for subject separation and when the light gets low. Add a TC 1.4 and you get a 140-560mm f6.3 that should be just as good as the 200-600mm f6.3. It will also be a bit lighter, have a bit bigger zoom range, and take front and rear filters. Add a TC 2x and you have a 200-800mm f9, which is hopefully as good as the 400-800mm at 800mm (sounds like we need a bit more testing here to know for sure) and will definitely be lighter and have a much bigger zoom range.
On the other hand, it's hard to say from the initial reviews if it's substantially better than the 200-600mm and 400-800mm. Adding a 4lb and 4k+ lens that doesn't at least fully replace my 200-600mm is a hard sell.
As for the f4.5 aperture, if this lens were a 7lb+ 8k+ f4 zoom, I would not be interested in it at all. So I actually see the f4.5 as an advantage in this case. The only thing that may have added interest to me is if they added an internal TC, even if it added like 1/2 pound to the weight and a few hundred to the cost, if it improved IQ vs an external TC it would have been a value add to me. ...Show more →
Not a snowball's chance in hell with the 2x it gets close to the 400-800 IMO. 200-600 + 1.4x is week at 840mm despite being very good sans TC. 100-400 + 1.4x @560 appears about as good as the bare 200-600 @600. I expect 100-400 + 2x @800 to be similar to 200-600 + 1.4x @ 840.
The only Sony lens that does very well with the 2x is the 300 f/2.8. Even the 400 f/2.8 and 600 f/4 with 2x are noticeably weaker than Nikon's equivalents and behind the 300.
Both AF and sharpness 