Douglas L wrote:
After watching Steve Perry's video, and now know the size of this lens, my interest in this lens just dropped 75%. If this lens+1.4TC is not better than the 200-600, there is not much for me to look for. Need to watch more reviews though.
Agree. Was hoping for something as good (w/1.4x) as the 200-600 plus a little lighter and better balance.
I’m going to have to decide if I want to go with this over my 300mm 2.8 GM. I love that lens but switching teleconverters is annoying and because I do a mixture of landscape and wildlife I end up switching between my 24-70 GM II, 70-200 GM II, and 300mm 2.8 (with various teleconverters) frequently. This lens is bigger and heavier than the 300mm but with it I could realistically just use a 24-70 GM II on one body and the 100-400 on another and have my bases covered for wildlife and landscape.
Swimming_trouble_718 wrote:
I’m going to have to decide if I want to go with this over my 300mm 2.8 GM. I love that lens but switching teleconverters is annoying and because I do a mixture of landscape and wildlife I end up switching between my 24-70 GM II, 70-200 GM II, and 300mm 2.8 (with various teleconverters) frequently. This lens is bigger and heavier than the 300mm but with it I could realistically just use a 24-70 GM II on one body and the 100-400 on another and have my bases covered for wildlife and landscape.
Any other 300mm 2.8 owners in the same boat?...Show more →
I am not going to trade the 300 for this. The 300 is still an f/2.8 lens natively. With a 1.4TC, it is a 420 f/4 (longer and faster than the 100-400 f/4) and a 600 f/5.6 (longer and faster than the 100-400+1.4TC). The 300 will also be easier to carry with you. I really fail to see the appeal. I said it earlier here, but if they followed Canon with the 200-400 f/4 with built in 1.4TC, I could see it.
Swimming_trouble_718 wrote:
I’m going to have to decide if I want to go with this over my 300mm 2.8 GM. I love that lens but switching teleconverters is annoying and because I do a mixture of landscape and wildlife I end up switching between my 24-70 GM II, 70-200 GM II, and 300mm 2.8 (with various teleconverters) frequently. This lens is bigger and heavier than the 300mm but with it I could realistically just use a 24-70 GM II on one body and the 100-400 on another and have my bases covered for wildlife and landscape.
Any other 300mm 2.8 owners in the same boat?...Show more →
As a 300mm GM owner I was looking to trade for this new lens. I use the 1.4x almost exclusively on the 300mm for small bird in flight stuff because it's still fast. The downside is that the MFD is 6.6' @ 300mm. Not sure what it is 420mm but it not a good choice for my use cases some of which involve macro and dragonflies. Was hoping this lens would match the .35x magnification of the current 100-400mm GM but it falls short in that area
I’m think I’m gonna pass on this one for the time being. I recently purchased a Sigma 300-600. So I wasn’t really in the market anyway. But I was definitely curious about it
I agree with Steve Perry. Probably this lens’ strongest attribute is the rendering. Something I’ve noticed in Sony’s latest offerings. The 400-800mm also renders very well IMO
Looking forward to seeing some real world photos from you early adopters! 😊
Swimming_trouble_718 wrote:
For whatever it’s worth in Mark Galers video he tests the 100-400 with the 2x at 600mm vs the 300 2.8 GM with the 2x and the sharpness is very similar
Yeah, Duston Abbott reports the 100-400 w.1.4x is sharper in the center than the 200-600. Obviously there is likely some sample variations and probably best to wait for further reports.
Douglas L wrote:
After watching Steve Perry's video, and now know the size of this lens, my interest in this lens just dropped 75%. If this lens+1.4TC is not better than the 200-600, there is not much for me to look for. Need to watch more reviews though.
I think that makes sense if you’re primarily shooting birds, where reach is everything and the 200-600mm is hard to beat for the money.
But for safari, I see the 100-400mm f/4.5 as a very different tool. The strength isn’t just maximum reach — it’s flexibility. On safari you’re often shooting mammals at changing distances, sometimes close to the vehicle, sometimes in low light, sometimes moving quickly, and sometimes you need to zoom wider fast. In that context, 100-400mm with a faster aperture could be a much more useful than 200-600mm.
robert_in_ca wrote:
I think that makes sense if you’re primarily shooting birds, where reach is everything and the 200-600mm is hard to beat for the money.
But for safari, I see the 100-400mm f/4.5 as a very different tool. The strength isn’t just maximum reach — it’s flexibility. On safari you’re often shooting mammals at changing distances, sometimes close to the vehicle, sometimes in low light, sometimes moving quickly, and sometimes you need to zoom wider fast. In that context, 100-400mm with a faster aperture could be a much more useful than 200-600mm.
I went on a safari a couple years ago, and this would have covered all my needs well except for birds. I would probably rent one if I went to another safari location mostly focused on larger wildlife and mammals.
Just had a look at this one, and I think it nails it. This is a more telephoto version of 50-150 in terms of layout and demographic. It's almost like a GM+ lineup that Sony is now putting out there, amazing but so so niche.
BrianP wrote:
I am not going to trade the 300 for this. The 300 is still an f/2.8 lens natively. With a 1.4TC, it is a 420 f/4 (longer and faster than the 100-400 f/4) and a 600 f/5.6 (longer and faster than the 100-400+1.4TC). The 300 will also be easier to carry with you. I really fail to see the appeal. I said it earlier here, but if they followed Canon with the 200-400 f/4 with built in 1.4TC, I could see it.
The 300mm is definitely an amazing lens. My only gripe with it is that it’s a prime and I’m much more of a zoom lens person. While this lens is longer, heavier, and not as bright the ability to simplify my set up with a 24-70 GM II on one body and the 100-400 4.5 on another for landscape/wildlife is very tempting. Currently I’m switching between the 24-70 GM II, 70-200 GM II, and the 300 GM with various teleconverters between two different bodies and it gets to be a lot. That’s the huge appeal for me. I do have to wonder if the 300mm 2.8 is really $2500 more of a lens compared with this?
Alternatively I’ve considered using the tamron 25-200 on one body and the 300 GM on another but that seems like a big step back (although the rendering of the tamron 25-200 has impressed me)
That hood is huge!..... I use a soft wrap around hood for my 200-600 so that when stored its not so big. Need to figure out size comparison with no hood.
I was hopeful but not expecting it to be smaller. Now that I have the Viltrox 85 and 100GM macro I could sell the 70-200gmii and 200-600 for this but will have to really think about it at this size
After watching a few videos on this lens, I am seeing this as an alternative to the 200-600 and 400-800. It is a similar size to those lenses, and with TC's can produce similar focal ranges and seems to be sharp with the TC's. In some ways it provides advantages to the 200-600 and 400-800. It seems to be as sharp or sharper with a 1.4X compared to the 200-600mm per Dustin Abbott. It then has a broader focal range than the 400-800mm with the 2x. Interesting, but does not seem to be a replacement for the old 100-400mm given the size.
. If this lens+1.4TC is not better than the 200-600, there is not much for me to look for. Need to watch more reviews though.