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.
This lens is simply too big for me to handhold or carry around for any length of time.
I felt original 100-400 was good, but a bit overpriced. So while I was waiting for 100-400 II, for bird photography I bought an OM-1 II. IMO the OM autofocus for birds is better than Sony (on my A7RV, which isn't ideal anyway due to its slowish fps). The IQ on OM-1 II with the 50-200 2.8 lens (100-400 FFE) is superb, and nearly no IQ IQ degradation with 1.4 TC, still very useable with 2.0 TC - giving it up 800 mm reach. Superb stabilization. Weight of OM camera + lens is 1849 gm.
Sony A7RV still has better dynamic range, and of course higher pixel count lets me crop. For these reasons I was hoping to go to the new 100-400 + TCs for birding and ditch the OM - but weight is unusable (A7RV + 100-400 II = 2563 gm), high price make this a no-go for me
Well I shoot mostly pro sports have the 300 2.8 and the 200-600 the more I hear about this lens the more I want it. I can get away with shooting this at night which I can't do with the 200-600. Zoom when shooting sports is huge. I had the 400 2.8 and was told by my company for pro football don't use the converter with the 300 and hopefully this lens I will never hear that.
davidsee wrote:
Well I shoot mostly pro sports have the 300 2.8 and the 200-600 the more I hear about this lens the more I want it. I can get away with shooting this at night which I can't do with the 200-600. Zoom when shooting sports is huge. I had the 400 2.8 and was told by my company for pro football don't use the converter with the 300 and hopefully this lens I will never hear that.
Yeah that makes sense. I don’t shoot sports so I only use my long lenses to shoot birds and other wildlife so I’d be using it with the 2x 100% of the time.
If I get the 300 f2.8 it will also be used with the 2x most of the time. Honestly if they made a 600 f5.6 I would get it instead.
For me size and weight is the most important thing since when I go out shooting for birds I usually do it while hiking and I never bring a tripod or monopod.
While I can handle the 400-800 all day I feel extra dead after 5+ hours of hiking with that thing.
I guess it's a good thing all the existing 100-400s out there don't spontaneously combust once the new one is available for pre-order. Warts and all it's still a nice option and comes at an incredible discount to the new version (when bought used).
The lens creep sounds like a potentially mild annoyance
I was watching Duade Paton’s video when he mentioned it at about the 30:40min mark
Lowering the lens down to your side as you often do, allows the zoom ring to creep out to 400mm. Of course there are a few ways to combat that. The most obvious being set the ring to “tight”. But it sounds like in that setting, the zoom ring isn’t buttery smooth. Which has become one of the hallmarks of Sony’s internally zooming lenses. And one of the big reasons to forego the compactness of an external zoom
Also, seeing it’s a “Smooth/tight” switch rather than a ring. Where in the latter, you can dial in a specific amount of tension. As opposed to a switch which is either on/off
The other option is maintaining pressure on the ring with your fingers. But that doesn’t sound very desirable to me
On the plus side, it appears pointing the lens upwards will make the ring zoom out to 400mm 😄
For me, this lens is a good fit for me. Pre-ordered 5 minutes after i saw the video release today. I travel alot and focus on wildlife photography. I do alot of birding around where I live as well. My main lens is a Sony 400mm f2.8 with a 1.4x TC sometimes. I have taken it on Safari, to Patagonia, Costa Rica, and many other places. It is fantastic, but I do miss some shots not being a zoom. I have had the 200-600 in the past, but didnt really like it. Got back from antarctica where I rented the 100-400 4.5-5.6 and it worked out great. The size and weight on the new 100-400 4.5 should be perfect for the main lens I will use on trips. Probably going to sell my 400 2.8 and my 70-200 2.8. Might looked to get a 600 f4 or even the 400-800.
corposant wrote:
I guess it's a good thing all the existing 100-400s out there don't spontaneously combust once the new one is available for pre-order. Warts and all it's still a nice option and comes at an incredible discount to the new version (when bought used).
They certainly don't.
Especially since this is not a Mark II of the current 100-400GM. That lens will continue to be sold as it fits a different purpose.
This lens is a new category of 100-400GM. This is not replacing the current one.
robert614 wrote:
The lens creep sounds like a potentially mild annoyance
I was watching Duade Paton’s video when he mentioned it at about the 30:40min mark
Lowering the lens down to your side as you often do, allows the zoom ring to creep out to 400mm. Of course there are a few ways to combat that. The most obvious being set the ring to “tight”. But it sounds like in that setting, the zoom ring isn’t buttery smooth. Which has become one of the hallmarks of Sony’s internally zooming lenses. And one of the big reasons to forego the compactness of an external zoom
Also, seeing it’s a “Smooth/tight” switch rather than a ring. Where in the latter, you can dial in a specific amount of tension. As opposed to a switch which is either on/off
The other option is maintaining pressure on the ring with your fingers. But that doesn’t sound very desirable to me
On the plus side, it appears pointing the lens upwards will make the ring zoom out to 400mm 😄...Show more →
In Steve Perry's video he said he preferred it on Tight. But he also showed on a tripod the balance shifts enough to tilt the lens on the gimbal after it is balanced at one end of the zoom range. He also showed a view into the front of the lens where you can see a large mass of glass moving forward when zoomed that would account for the balance shift and the creeping.
40Driggs wrote:
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.
Last Summer and Fall I was on safari to Africa and Australia for 3 months. For weight reasons I took only 4 lenses and two bodies, including the 70-200mm F4 and the 300mm F2.8 and both teleconverters. The 70-200 lens was used for 26% of the time, mainly for close in shots of large animals. The most used was the 300mm + 1.4X (56%), 300mm +2.0X (7%), 300mm (10%). I left the 200-600 and 100-400 home. I shot most of the images with my A1 (74%) and the 300mm lens. An A7RV with the 70-200mm lens was used for the rest of the shots.
Did I miss the longer lenses? No. Was it annoying to swap TCs? Only a bit. I'm not sure about upgrading to the new 100-400mm lens. I've never been completely satisfied with the current versions of the 100-400mm and 200-600mm lenses, and I use them less frequently now that I have the 300mm F2.8 lens (I love this lens).
40Driggs wrote:
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.
Last Summer and Fall I was on safari to Africa and Australia for 3 months. For weight reasons I took only 4 lenses and two bodies, including the 70-200mm F4 and the 300mm F2.8 and both teleconverters. The 70-200 lens was used for 26% of the time, mainly for close in shots of large animals. The most used was the 300mm + 1.4X (56%), 300mm +2.0X (7%), 300mm (10%). I left the 200-600 and 100-400 home. I shot most of the images with my A1 (74%) and the 300mm lens. An A7RV with the 70-200mm lens was used for the rest of the shots.
Did I miss the longer lenses? No. Was it annoying to swap TCs? Only a bit. I'm not sure about upgrading to the new 100-400mm lens. I've never been completely satisfied with the current versions of the 100-400mm and 200-600mm lenses, and I use them less frequently now that I have the 300mm F2.8 lens (I love this lens). I'll probably wait to see more reviews of the new 100-400 before making a final decision. BTW, I preordered the A7RVI.
RikWriter wrote:
This lens holds absolutely zero interest for me.
Me either. It's basically a shorter, better built version of the 200-600/6.3 with the same front aperture. Too short, too slow, and no internal TC. I'd rather have a 100-400/4 with 1.4x or a new 180-600/6.3 GM.
EB-1 wrote:
Me either. It's basically a shorter, better built version of the 200-600/6.3 with the same front aperture. Too short, too slow, and no internal TC. I'd rather have a 100-400/4 with 1.4x or a new 180-600/6.3 GM.
EBH
Yep if you add the 1.4tc it is almost exactly the same weight and speed as the 200-600.
It honestly makes the 400-800 seem like an even better deal since if you extrapolate it out it’s essentially the same thing as a 200-400 f4 with a 2x tc and those lenses used to be really expensive and exotic back in the DSLR days.
I have Nikon's 400m f4.5 and I actually quite like it. are there any comparison between 100-400 f4.5 to Nikon's 400 f4.5? I love Nikon's 400m f4.5, but it would be nice to not have two systems.
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.
Last Summer and Fall I was on safari to Africa and Australia for 3 months. For weight reasons I took only 4 lenses and two bodies, including the 70-200mm F4 and the 300mm F2.8 and both teleconverters. The 70-200 lens was used for 26% of the time onan A7RV, mainly for close in shots of large animals. The most used was the 300mm + 1.4X (56%), 300mm +2.0X (7%), 300mm (10%) on my A1. I left the 200-600 and 100-400 home. I shot most of the images with my A1 (74%) and the 300mm lens. An A7RV with the 70-200mm lens was used for the rest of the shots.
Did I miss the longer lenses? No. Was it annoying to swap TCs? Only a bit. I'm not sure about upgrading to the new 100-400mm lens. I've never been completely satisfied with the current versions of the 100-400mm and 200-600mm lenses, and I use them less frequently now that I have the 300mm F2.8 lens (I love this lens). BTW, I just preordered the A7RVI <grin>.
Logan Nolag wrote:
Yeah that makes sense. I don’t shoot sports so I only use my long lenses to shoot birds and other wildlife so I’d be using it with the 2x 100% of the time.
If I get the 300 f2.8 it will also be used with the 2x most of the time. Honestly if they made a 600 f5.6 I would get it instead.
For me size and weight is the most important thing since when I go out shooting for birds I usually do it while hiking and I never bring a tripod or monopod.
While I can handle the 400-800 all day I feel extra dead after 5+ hours of hiking with that thing....Show more →
Same here...
Last Summer and Fall I was on safari to Africa and Australia for 3 months. For weight reasons I took only 4 lenses and two bodies, including the 70-200mm F4 and the 300mm F2.8 and both teleconverters. The 70-200 lens on an A7RV was used for 26% of the time, mainly for close in shots of large animals. The most used was the A1 with the 300mm + 1.4X (56%), 300mm +2.0X (7%), 300mm (10%). I left the 200-600 and 100-400 home.
Did I miss the longer lenses? No. Was it annoying to swap TCs? Only a bit. I'm not sure about upgrading to the new 100-400mm lens. I've never been completely satisfied with the current versions of the 100-400mm and 200-600mm lenses, and I use them less frequently now that I have the 300mm F2.8 lens (I love this lens). BTW, I just preordered the new A7RVI <big grin>...
I am waiting to see more reviews with TCs, especially how it compares with the 2x TC to the 400-800mm f8. If the 100-400mm is as good at 800mm f9 as 400-800mm is at f8, I would be willing to trade 1/3 of a stop of light for a lighter lens and 200-800mm of range vs 400-800mm. On paper, it sounds like it could be a great single lens telephoto solution. You could basically have a 100-400mm with better low light ability, a 200-600mm (140-560mm f6.3) and 400-800mm (200-800mm f9) all in one.
I have yet to get the 400-800mm because I can't help but feel like I would need to pair it with something wider and faster to truly replace my 200-600mm, which adds even more overall weight. So the 100-400mm f4.5 could be the answer, but it comes down to IQ with the TC 2x.
DWOfPaul wrote:
I am waiting to see more reviews with TCs, especially how it compares with the 2x TC to the 400-800mm f8. If the 100-400mm is as good at 800mm f9 as 400-800mm is at f8, I would be willing to trade 1/3 of a stop of light for a lighter lens and 200-800mm of range vs 400-800mm. On paper, it sounds like it could be a great single lens telephoto solution. You could basically have a 100-400mm with better low light ability, a 200-600mm (140-560mm f6.3) and 400-800mm (200-800mm f9) all in one.
I have yet to get the 400-800mm because I can't help but feel like I would need to pair it with something wider and faster to truly replace my 200-600mm, which adds even more overall weight. So the 100-400mm f4.5 could be the answer, but it comes down to IQ with the TC 2x.
I am seeing conflicting reports on the new 100-400 with TV. In Steve Perry's video, the 200-600 easily beats the 100-400 with 1.4X TC, Heck, I think Steve even said at 200mm, the 200-600 is sharper than the 100-400 at 200 without TC. I found that shocking. Maybe Steve has a super sharp copy of the 200-600 or his 100-400 is below average. Dustin Abbott's review shows the 100-400 with 1.4TC is sharper than the 200-600, so does Chelsy Northrup's review. Yes, I did watch Chelsy's review, which I haven't done for many years.
I am waiting for more reviews and tests by our in-house FMers. If the 100-400+1.4 TC is indeed sharper than the 200-600, there is a 50% chance I will get one; if the 100-400 +2X TC is as good or almost as good as the 400-800, then I will definitely get one. My 300GM isn't going anywhere.
It will be amazing if the 100-400 +2X TC is as good as the 400-800. Last Sunday I mainly used the 400-800 for an airshow. 400mm was too long sometimes but I also used the 800mm end a lot. So a 200-800 lens would be perfect.
.