Chelsea Northrup and Dustin Abbot shot charts with the 100-400+1.4TC vs 200-600. This German guy is the first one I found that compared the 100-400+2X TC against the 400-800. I am sure more will come.
interesting, one argument for this lens would be to replace the 400-800 using 2X TC, but it would be a third of a stop slower at f/9 and I doubt if MTF of the combo would be any better... they could have design matched new TC's just for this lens to make it more appealing for long FL shooters but they did not....
speedmaster20d wrote:
interesting, one argument for this lens would be to replace the 400-800 using 2X TC, but it would be a third of a stop slower at f/9 and I doubt if MTF of the combo would be any better... they could have design matched new TC's just for this lens to make it more appealing for long FL shooters but they did not....
Even better, they could have had a 1.4 TC built in.
InFocus2014 wrote:
An internal zoom would make it an instant buy for me; although, the rumor site didn’t mention additional length over the current lens, which likely makes such doubtful. The current 100-400mm that I had (best of 3 copies I tested) barely tolerated x1.4 converters, IMHO. The new lens, with f4.5 and expected better IQ, might better tolerate converters, which would make it highly versatile, hence compelling, for me.
Now, if Sony would just make it a black lens….
This new 100-400 is more black than white! Acres of black rubber on this thing.
In Mark Galer's tests with the 100-400 / 1.4X vs the 300 f2.8 / 2X the 100-400 looked pretty darn good. If the IQ of the bare lens and with the TCs is as good as I've seen so far in most of the reviews I think Sony has hit a homerun. When it comes to ergo's no it's not perfect like the 300 f2.8 but it checks so many boxes overall for me.
Hey thanks for the MTF charts, most helpful. BTW, where did you find them? It seems the new 100-400mm F4.5 lens is intermediate between the big glass (300, 400, 600mm lenses) and the older zoom lenses. I'll try to check it out after the 100-400mm lens becomes more widely available.
Douglas L wrote:
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....Show more →
I have used the 200-600mm + TC 1.4 (280-840mm) at air shows a few times, and it's a great range to have in one lens. Being able to go out to 200mm without taking off the TC or swapping cameras would be very convenient. Ended up pairing the 200-600mm with a second body with the Tamron 70-300mm, which worked well for getting those occasionally large groups or large smoke designs. Probably now I would go with the Tamron 50-400 to get even wider, and it's a better overall lens.
I found Steve's review a bit inconclusive. I got the impression that the 200-600mm was sharper, but the 100-400 + TC 1.4 has better colors, contrast, and rendering. That may explain some of the mixed reviews online so far. There may be a bit of a difference between lab test and eye test.
Another thing I like about the 100-400 is the filter situation. The drop in filter will definitely be nicer for a polorizer then the 200-600mm or 400-800mm and Sony was nice enough to keep the 95mm filter threads on the long end if we want to stack on another filter like an ND.
I'd like to say the drop-in filter is a nice addition, but with no way to externally rotate it (like the Sigma 300-600) I don't see myself ever using it. Of course, an ND filter would work fine, but I also don't think of this as a video lens. Feels like a missed opportunity.
DWOfPaul wrote:
I have used the 200-600mm + TC 1.4 (280-840mm) at air shows a few times, and it's a great range to have in one lens. Being able to go out to 200mm without taking off the TC or swapping cameras would be very convenient. Ended up pairing the 200-600mm with a second body with the Tamron 70-300mm, which worked well for getting those occasionally large groups or large smoke designs. Probably now I would go with the Tamron 50-400 to get even wider, and it's a better overall lens.
I found Steve's review a bit inconclusive. I got the impression that the 200-600mm was sharper, but the 100-400 + TC 1.4 has better colors, contrast, and rendering. That may explain some of the mixed reviews online so far. There may be a bit of a difference between lab test and eye test.
Another thing I like about the 100-400 is the filter situation. The drop in filter will definitely be nicer for a polorizer then the 200-600mm or 400-800mm and Sony was nice enough to keep the 95mm filter threads on the long end if we want to stack on another filter like an ND. ...Show more →
Until the Sony 400-800 was launched, my main airshow lens was the 200-600, I also have the 600 F4 GM+1.4TC on another camera if longer reach was desired. Since I bought the 400-800, it has been my main airshow lens. I sold the 600 GM. the 400mm on the 400-800 can be too long at time when the planes get close or for large formations. If I know I will need something wider than 400mm, I will bring another shorter lens on another camera.
I've watched a number of videos about the lens, personally, I can't justify the purchase. I use my 100-400 for hummingbirds and the occasional landscape shot. I don't know if I got lucky or not but my copy is super sharp. I might rent one to compare them when it's available.
If you are a current 100-400 owner, what do you think the new lens will do above and beyond what you have now? I know it being f/4.5 is a welcomed, internal zoom, nice but not very nice for travel. The extra weight, depends on the person I suppose. Better AF motors?
To me, I don't understand why they went this direction. Why not refresh the current 100-400 maybe with newer motors, lens coatings, etc. Or a 100-500 F/5.6? internal zoom... GM version?
For those of you who end up buying it, please share your thoughts, I'm sure I'm missing something about the benefits of the lens.
I tried both A7R6 and 100-400GM for two days but wans't that impressive.
For the lens itself, I dont know why but the sharpness isn't really great. I'm looking through all RAW files with different copies but never felt any of them were sharp at wide open. Stopping down didnt improve. As several Youtubers claimed, it does fee like old 100-400GM and 200-600's image qualtiy.
The zoom ring is quite terrible as it moves itself whenever I put it up and down just like issues that non-internal zoom lenses have. Not really a true internal zoom lens after all.
If you were expecting about the best image quality, then I wouldn't recommend it. But it could be a problem with pre-production model but still, as I tried different copies, none of them were great in terms of optical quality.
The new 100-400 is strange. The length makes it really cumbersome to travel with... but I'd still consider it if the reviews showed that the image quality was magical... something like the 50-150..but that isn't what has happened at all. For the price point, I don't really understand why that isn't so.
GraysonLake1987 wrote:
For the lens itself, I dont know why but the sharpness isn't really great. I'm looking through all RAW files with different copies but never felt any of them were sharp at wide open. Stopping down didnt improve. As several Youtubers claimed, it does fee like old 100-400GM and 200-600's image qualtiy.
Yikes. I will eval one eventually this summer but that is not encouraging at all.
It's a TBD until users get their hands-on time with it. The spec's indicate the lens should definitely be an improvement over the original. Some of the well known reviewers concur but like you, spending time using the lens will determine it's performance.
schlotz wrote:
It's a TBD until users get their hands-on time with it. The spec's indicate the lens should definitely be an improvement over the original. Some of the well known reviewers concur but like you, spending time using the lens will determine it's performance.
Isn't the new lens an extra model rather than a replacement for the 100-400/5.6?
Can you share pictures? If you compared it with other lenses that'd be great. I have it in pre-order. Trying to decide if I should take the risk and get it or wait for more user reviews. Thanks in advance
GraysonLake1987 wrote:
I tried both A7R6 and 100-400GM for two days but wans't that impressive.
For the lens itself, I dont know why but the sharpness isn't really great. I'm looking through all RAW files with different copies but never felt any of them were sharp at wide open. Stopping down didnt improve. As several Youtubers claimed, it does fee like old 100-400GM and 200-600's image qualtiy.
The zoom ring is quite terrible as it moves itself whenever I put it up and down just like issues that non-internal zoom lenses have. Not really a true internal zoom lens after all.
If you were expecting about the best image quality, then I wouldn't recommend it. But it could be a problem with pre-production model but still, as I tried different copies, none of them were great in terms of optical quality....Show more →
