New 100-400 lenses
p.9 #1New 100-400 lenses
Douglas L wrote:
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...Show more →
Steve Perry's 1.4TC may not be the best, at least that seems to be the case.
I would not expect very large copy variation in a GM lens.
Same goes for the variation in reports on the 300GM with 2xTC, I expect the 2xTC to be the cause, rather than the 300GM
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 waiting for more reviews...Show more →
Steve Perry's 1.4TC may not be the best, at least that seems to be the case.
I would not expect very large copy variation in a GM lens.
Same goes for the variation in reports on the 300GM with 2xTC, I expect the 2xTC to be the cause, rather than the 300GM
May 14, 2026 at 01:26 AM
p.9 #2New 100-400 lenses
... Did you deliberately copy/paste the same two paragraphs on 4 replies to this thread?
dhachey 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.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...Show more →
dhachey wrote:
Logan Nolag wrote
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.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.
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...Show more →
May 14, 2026 at 01:33 AM
p.9 #3New 100-400 lenses
Interesting that Dustin Abbots comparison finds the 100-400 + 1.4TC slightly better than the 200-600. Better contrast for sure and a little sharper.
How does it compare to the 300 f/2.8 + 2xtc is the next question.
How does it compare to the 300 f/2.8 + 2xtc is the next question.
May 14, 2026 at 05:37 AM
p.9 #4New 100-400 lenses
Douglas L wrote:
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...Show more →
I'm right with you on this.
I have tested a number of Sony x2.0 converters on the GM 70-200mm f2.8 II and GM 300mm f2.8 lenses. To my surprise, I found a lot of variability with the x2.0 converters (not so much on x1.4's). Not believing the results, I repeated the tests several times, with the same results. Fortunately, I now have a sharp converter that allows for great sharpness at 600mm, so I assume this will carry over to the new 100-400mm. We'll see. I was really encouraged by Dustin Abbott's testing - a tester I have learned to trust.
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 waiting for more reviews...Show more →
I'm right with you on this.
I have tested a number of Sony x2.0 converters on the GM 70-200mm f2.8 II and GM 300mm f2.8 lenses. To my surprise, I found a lot of variability with the x2.0 converters (not so much on x1.4's). Not believing the results, I repeated the tests several times, with the same results. Fortunately, I now have a sharp converter that allows for great sharpness at 600mm, so I assume this will carry over to the new 100-400mm. We'll see. I was really encouraged by Dustin Abbott's testing - a tester I have learned to trust.
May 14, 2026 at 06:18 AM
p.9 #5New 100-400 lenses
I own the 300mm f2.8 and the 600mm f4. When you add teleconverters those two cover most birding and wildlife scenarios but the MFD is too long when something gets close. I've missed on some really great shots when that happens. Was hoping this lens for have the high magnification of the current 100-400mm and fill that niche. On one hand the magnification is better than the 300mm or 600mm but .25x is still not macro capable, IMO
May 14, 2026 at 07:42 AM
p.9 #6New 100-400 lenses
Another comparison with the TC 1.4x and 2x:
100-400 + TC 1.4x is great and better than the 200-600mm at 600mm
100-400 + TC 2x still very good, but the 400-800mm at 800mm is a bit better.
(the TC section starts at t ~ 7:14, the soccer players were shot with the TC 1.4x at 560mm)
100-400 + TC 1.4x is great and better than the 200-600mm at 600mm
100-400 + TC 2x still very good, but the 400-800mm at 800mm is a bit better.
(the TC section starts at t ~ 7:14, the soccer players were shot with the TC 1.4x at 560mm)
May 14, 2026 at 07:56 AM
p.9 #7New 100-400 lenses
Comparing the 200-600 and the new 100-400 with a 1.4TC is useful but should have a "YMMV" caveat since we all know zoom lenses and TCs have a certain (sometimes significant) degree of variability throughout their range and no doubt Sony ensures reviewers get pin-sharp copies of both.
May 14, 2026 at 08:14 AM
p.9 #8New 100-400 lenses
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.
Why don’t use the converter with the 300?
May 14, 2026 at 08:17 AM
p.9 #9New 100-400 lenses
Fboss wrote:
Another comparison with the TC 1.4x and 2x:
100-400 + TC 1.4x is great and better than the 200-600mm at 600mm
100-400 + TC 2x still very good, but the 400-800mm at 800mm is a bit better.
(the TC section starts at t ~ 7:14, the soccer players were shot with the TC 1.4x at 560mm)
Interesting how much better the 1.4x on the 100-400 (at 560) is vs bare 200-600 (at 600). More interesting, the bokeh is worse.
Another comparison with the TC 1.4x and 2x:
100-400 + TC 1.4x is great and better than the 200-600mm at 600mm
100-400 + TC 2x still very good, but the 400-800mm at 800mm is a bit better.
(the TC section starts at t ~ 7:14, the soccer players were shot with the TC 1.4x at 560mm)
Interesting how much better the 1.4x on the 100-400 (at 560) is vs bare 200-600 (at 600). More interesting, the bokeh is worse.
May 14, 2026 at 08:32 AM
p.9 #10New 100-400 lenses
149113 wrote:
I own the 300mm f2.8 and the 600mm f4. When you add teleconverters those two cover most birding and wildlife scenarios but the MFD is too long when something gets close. I've missed on some really great shots when that happens. Was hoping this lens for have the high magnification of the current 100-400mm and fill that niche. On one hand the magnification is better than the 300mm or 600mm but .25x is still not macro capable, IMO
Dustin Abbot’s video talks about mfd and magnification. The magnification gets quite good with 1.4 and 2.0 (over .5) teleconverters attached and of course mfd stays the same at 1.5m. I could see, when shooting outdoors, having the 1.4x bolted to the thing.
I own the 300mm f2.8 and the 600mm f4. When you add teleconverters those two cover most birding and wildlife scenarios but the MFD is too long when something gets close. I've missed on some really great shots when that happens. Was hoping this lens for have the high magnification of the current 100-400mm and fill that niche. On one hand the magnification is better than the 300mm or 600mm but .25x is still not macro capable, IMO
Dustin Abbot’s video talks about mfd and magnification. The magnification gets quite good with 1.4 and 2.0 (over .5) teleconverters attached and of course mfd stays the same at 1.5m. I could see, when shooting outdoors, having the 1.4x bolted to the thing.
May 14, 2026 at 08:35 AM
|
p.9 #11New 100-400 lenses
Justin Stone wrote:
Dustin Abbot’s video talks about mfd and magnification. The magnification gets quite good with 1.4 and 2.0 (over .5) teleconverters attached and of course mfd stays the same at 1.5m. I could see, when shooting outdoors, having the 1.4x bolted to the thing.
Thanks. I'll check that out. His reviews are usually solid. I'd like to be around .4 and .5 for the work I am currently doing
149113 wrote
I own the 300mm f2.8 and the 600mm f4. When you add teleconverters those two cover most birding and wildlife scenarios but the MFD is too long when something gets close. I've missed on some really great shots when that happens. Was hoping this lens for have the high magnification of the current 100-400mm and fill that niche. On one hand the magnification is better than the 300mm or 600mm but .25x is still not macro capable, IMOThanks. I'll check that out. His reviews are usually solid. I'd like to be around .4 and .5 for the work I am currently doing
May 14, 2026 at 08:45 AM
p.9 #12New 100-400 lenses
Justin Stone wrote:
100-400 + TC 1.4x is great and better than the 200-600mm at 600mm
100-400 + TC 2x still very good, but the 400-800mm at 800mm is a bit better.
(the TC section starts at t ~ 7:14, the soccer players were shot with the TC 1.4x at 560mm)Interesting how much better the 1.4x on the 100-400 (at 560) is vs bare 200-600 (at 600). More interesting, the bokeh is worse.
Thanks for the link
the IQ with 1.4x looks pretty good! Much more inline with what I’d expect with such a price diffrence
As far as bokeh, it makes sense. A 400mm + 1.4x at f6.3 has a greater DOF than a bare 600mm at f6.3 for a given distance
Fboss wrote
Another comparison with the TC 1.4x and 2x:100-400 + TC 1.4x is great and better than the 200-600mm at 600mm
100-400 + TC 2x still very good, but the 400-800mm at 800mm is a bit better.
(the TC section starts at t ~ 7:14, the soccer players were shot with the TC 1.4x at 560mm)
Thanks for the link
the IQ with 1.4x looks pretty good! Much more inline with what I’d expect with such a price diffrence
As far as bokeh, it makes sense. A 400mm + 1.4x at f6.3 has a greater DOF than a bare 600mm at f6.3 for a given distance
May 14, 2026 at 09:38 AM
p.9 #13New 100-400 lenses
Douglas L wrote:
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...Show more →
Feel no shame. I also broke down and watched Chelsea's review because she was comparing to 200-600.
Steve's review really made the 200-600 look like a better choice if one was going to have the 1.4TC on the 100-400 a lot of the time (which I probably would).
But then I watched Duade and Chelsea's reviews and they both liked the 100-400 a lot more than the 200-600. Duade said the AF improvements were really noticeable when he had been shooting the 200-600 right before.
I'm patiently waiting for Jan's 100-400GM review which he said was coming soon during his A7RVI review. Duade did mention in his review that Jan found the 400-800 better at 800mm than the 100-400GM/2.0TC.
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 waiting for more reviews...Show more →
Feel no shame. I also broke down and watched Chelsea's review because she was comparing to 200-600.
Steve's review really made the 200-600 look like a better choice if one was going to have the 1.4TC on the 100-400 a lot of the time (which I probably would).
But then I watched Duade and Chelsea's reviews and they both liked the 100-400 a lot more than the 200-600. Duade said the AF improvements were really noticeable when he had been shooting the 200-600 right before.
I'm patiently waiting for Jan's 100-400GM review which he said was coming soon during his A7RVI review. Duade did mention in his review that Jan found the 400-800 better at 800mm than the 100-400GM/2.0TC.
May 14, 2026 at 11:16 AM
p.9 #14New 100-400 lenses
I have it ordered, but I'm wondering what it will replace (I couldn't help myself). Hoping that it will find a place like the excellent 300. My big primes are aging out, with the 400/800 taking the place of the 200/600; it's fun to have so many choices.
May 14, 2026 at 11:23 AM
p.9 #15New 100-400 lenses
duncangr wrote:
Interesting that Dustin Abbots comparison finds the 100-400 + 1.4TC slightly better than the 200-600. Better contrast for sure and a little sharper.
How does it compare to the 300 f/2.8 + 2xtc is the next question.
Wish he had shot the 200-600 at 600mm in that comparison. Shooting at 529mm is not a great comparison. But if anything the 200-600 is at its worse at 600mm wide open so I guess the gap would only widen more in favour of the 100-400/1.4TC.
Interesting that Dustin Abbots comparison finds the 100-400 + 1.4TC slightly better than the 200-600. Better contrast for sure and a little sharper.
How does it compare to the 300 f/2.8 + 2xtc is the next question.
Wish he had shot the 200-600 at 600mm in that comparison. Shooting at 529mm is not a great comparison. But if anything the 200-600 is at its worse at 600mm wide open so I guess the gap would only widen more in favour of the 100-400/1.4TC.
May 14, 2026 at 11:29 AM
p.9 #16New 100-400 lenses
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.
Feel no shame. I also broke down and watched Chelsea's review because she was comparing to 200-600.
Steve's review really made the 200-600 look like a better choice if one was going to have the 1.4TC on the 100-400 a lot of the time (which I probably would).
But then I watched Duade and Chelsea's reviews and they both liked the 100-400 a lot more than the 200-600. Duade said the AF improvements were really noticeable when he had been shooting the 200-600 right before.
I'm patiently waiting for Jan's 100-400GM review which he said was coming soon during his A7RVI review. Duade did mention in his review that Jan found the 400-800 better at 800mm than the 100-400GM/2.0TC.
The general consensus seems to be that this is an excellent lens, but not dramatically better than existing options. I've read several reviews, but the one by Mark Galer gives the best overall detail with comparisons. I get the impression that he will stick with his existing setup because he really likes the Sony 300mm F/2.8 lens, and use a 70-200mm lens to fill in the missing coverage. I did the same one a recent trip to Africa and Australia.
" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Mark Galerr
May 14, 2026 at 02:41 PM
p.9 #17New 100-400 lenses
Now what about the 100-400 with the TC 1.4 vs 300 f/2.8 with the TC 2x ? 
I'd expect similar sharpness and bokeh. The 100-400 could have a slight advantage since it's only using the 1.4x.
But as someone mentioned, this is going to be very YMMV because of copy variations of both the lenses and TCs. That said I haven't seen any complaints about the 300, mine is definitely ultra sharp.
I'd expect similar sharpness and bokeh. The 100-400 could have a slight advantage since it's only using the 1.4x.
But as someone mentioned, this is going to be very YMMV because of copy variations of both the lenses and TCs. That said I haven't seen any complaints about the 300, mine is definitely ultra sharp.
May 14, 2026 at 06:32 PM
p.9 #18New 100-400 lenses
Watching all reviews. Steve perry is one of my favorite reviewers (Nikon and Sony). So very disappointed to see his comment comparing to 200-600. Anyhow I've preordered the lens and not planning to cancel. Can't wait to see Jan's review. If his review is positive, then I'd guess Steve got a lemon.
May 14, 2026 at 07:42 PM
p.9 #19New 100-400 lenses
Just found this on youtube. It's in German but you can activate the auto translate, not a 100% accurate but close enough to understand what he was saying. He compared the new 100-400+2X TC with the 400-800mm starting at around 15:30.
May 14, 2026 at 08:03 PM
p.9 #20New 100-400 lenses
I don't need videos of guys holding lenses by hand.
Is there any technical data like MTF so that we can see sagittal and tangential plots?
EBH
Is there any technical data like MTF so that we can see sagittal and tangential plots?
EBH
May 14, 2026 at 08:16 PM