Sony 300mm 2.8 vs new 100-400 4.5?
p.3 #1Sony 300mm 2.8 vs new 100-400 4.5?
Slightly off topic, how have people found using the 300mm for indoor sports? (basketball, volleyball, hockey)
May 28, 2026 at 01:39 PM
p.3 #2Sony 300mm 2.8 vs new 100-400 4.5?
As I might need to ditch Sigma 300-600mm F/4 in near future, I'm really curious about 300GM vs 100-400GM for sports. Tho I tried a new 100-400GM, I cant tell if it's really good or not.
Jun 01, 2026 at 10:43 AM
p.3 #3Sony 300mm 2.8 vs new 100-400 4.5?
arbitrage wrote:
billsnature wrote:
The 300GM bare lens is the fastest AF lens and highest IQ I've experienced after decades of owning big glass from all three brands. But the 2x is a significant hit to the AF and IQ. Because the bare lens is at such a high level, the lens + 2x still shine.
If the 100-400/1.4 can't even match the 300/2x then I'd consider the 100-400 to be a bit of a failure.
I currently use my 300GM at 300 20%, 420, 30% and 600 50%. Try to find some subjects you can use 420 or 300 as the lens is just so...Show more →
I thought my Sony 200-600 was sharp for a telephoto lens above 200mm focal length until I got the 300 f2.8 for my A1Mk1. This is a godly lens. Auto focus is so fast, no focus breathing and super sharp.
https://youtu.be/kfRolXtZOrU?t=418
I used it exclusively for finish line in high school track and field. Even when cropped in, it outshine the 200-600 set at 400mm on another A1Mk1 here:
https://youtu.be/kfRolXtZOrU?t=440
I'm debating with myself about selling the 200-600 to pick up another 300 f2.8. It's that good. The closest I have seen in the Sony 135 f1.8.
billsnature wrote:
The 300GM bare lens is the fastest AF lens and highest IQ I've experienced after decades of owning big glass from all three brands. But the 2x is a significant hit to the AF and IQ. Because the bare lens is at such a high level, the lens + 2x still shine.
If the 100-400/1.4 can't even match the 300/2x then I'd consider the 100-400 to be a bit of a failure.
I currently use my 300GM at 300 20%, 420, 30% and 600 50%. Try to find some subjects you can use 420 or 300 as the lens is just so...Show more →
I thought my Sony 200-600 was sharp for a telephoto lens above 200mm focal length until I got the 300 f2.8 for my A1Mk1. This is a godly lens. Auto focus is so fast, no focus breathing and super sharp.
https://youtu.be/kfRolXtZOrU?t=418
I used it exclusively for finish line in high school track and field. Even when cropped in, it outshine the 200-600 set at 400mm on another A1Mk1 here:
https://youtu.be/kfRolXtZOrU?t=440
I'm debating with myself about selling the 200-600 to pick up another 300 f2.8. It's that good. The closest I have seen in the Sony 135 f1.8.
Jun 05, 2026 at 02:06 PM
p.3 #4Sony 300mm 2.8 vs new 100-400 4.5?
Just wanted to add my 2 cents to this thread because I just picked up the 100-400 because I'm a gear whore (people call it GAS but syndrome implies a defect while I think it's a feature). I half expected to want to send it back due to the f/4.5 and being nearly the same length as my 400 2.8 minus hood. I have the 300/400/600 primes. I did a bunch of test shoots for the contexts that I use the 300, and part of the reason I did a bunch is that I was trying to confirm my bias that I need the 300. At 300, I honestly can't tell any significant difference. I compared it to the 400 2.8 for fun, the difference there is still stark but vs the 300... there's really nothing there. The AF speed, rendering quality, bokeh... it's basically the same but you gain the flexibility of the zoom. It's truly the ideal partner to the 600. The main thing that gave me pause is that the 300 fits into a ballpark-legal sling with a body attached and the 100-400 doesn't, but it its the sling on its own and I can bring a second bag with the body and a wide angle (normally I'd bring the wide angle separately).
So, a lens I was sure would be a lifer for me, just left with FedEx to its new owner. With 2 grand net in my bank account.
So, a lens I was sure would be a lifer for me, just left with FedEx to its new owner. With 2 grand net in my bank account.
Jul 25, 2026 at 10:47 PM
p.3 #5Sony 300mm 2.8 vs new 100-400 4.5?
did you compare it at 600/560mm with the 2x/1.4 tcs or just test the lenses naked?
Jul 26, 2026 at 05:09 AM
p.3 #6Sony 300mm 2.8 vs new 100-400 4.5?
The_Juggernaut wrote:
Just wanted to add my 2 cents to this thread because I just picked up the 100-400 because I'm a gear whore (people call it GAS but syndrome implies a defect while I think it's a feature). I half expected to want to send it back due to the f/4.5 and being nearly the same length as my 400 2.8 minus hood. I have the 300/400/600 primes. I did a bunch of test shoots for the contexts that I use the 300, and part of the reason I did a bunch is that I was trying to confirm my bias...Show more →
"people call it GAS but syndrome implies a defect while I think it's a feature". I like the way you think!
Just wanted to add my 2 cents to this thread because I just picked up the 100-400 because I'm a gear whore (people call it GAS but syndrome implies a defect while I think it's a feature). I half expected to want to send it back due to the f/4.5 and being nearly the same length as my 400 2.8 minus hood. I have the 300/400/600 primes. I did a bunch of test shoots for the contexts that I use the 300, and part of the reason I did a bunch is that I was trying to confirm my bias...Show more →
"people call it GAS but syndrome implies a defect while I think it's a feature". I like the way you think!
Jul 26, 2026 at 06:17 AM
p.3 #7Sony 300mm 2.8 vs new 100-400 4.5?
I believe it comes down to light availability. For me, I need 2.8 at least 9 times out of 10. 4.5 at my high school stadiums and inside school gyms won't be usable, and a lot of my shooting is fall / winter / spring sports with limited sunlight. If I was birding or shooting wildlife I would go with the 100-400 probably... But idk. With my 400-800 I almost exclusively used it at 800mm. If my lens is going to stay maxed out with its focal length, a 300 with TCs might make more sense assuming the IQ is better? Idk.
PMRTV has a few videos on the lenses.
https://youtu.be/gKteqOYtcNQ?
https://youtu.be/gKlH4uCfVu8?
Go 20 minutes in for the answer we are looking for.
Also found this neat. 400mm vs 300mm.
Edited on Jul 26, 2026 at 10:35 AM · View previous versions
PMRTV has a few videos on the lenses.
https://youtu.be/gKteqOYtcNQ?
https://youtu.be/gKlH4uCfVu8?
Go 20 minutes in for the answer we are looking for.
Also found this neat. 400mm vs 300mm.
Edited on Jul 26, 2026 at 10:35 AM · View previous versions
Jul 26, 2026 at 08:18 AM
p.3 #8Sony 300mm 2.8 vs new 100-400 4.5?
Imagemaster wrote:
A 2x TC degrades images when placed on any lens. No ambiguity.
Technically true, but the end result largely depends on how sharp the lens is... and the copy of the FE 300mm f2.8 I tried with the 2x teleconverter was sharper at 600mm f5.6 than my copy of the Nikkor Z 600mm f6.3.
A 2x TC degrades images when placed on any lens. No ambiguity.
Technically true, but the end result largely depends on how sharp the lens is... and the copy of the FE 300mm f2.8 I tried with the 2x teleconverter was sharper at 600mm f5.6 than my copy of the Nikkor Z 600mm f6.3.
Jul 26, 2026 at 09:20 AM
p.3 #9Sony 300mm 2.8 vs new 100-400 4.5?
ps09 wrote:
did you compare it at 600/560mm with the 2x/1.4 tcs or just test the lenses naked?
I didn't mainly because my intended use for it is a partner to the 600 f/4. It's a good idea though, I'm curious to see how it will do with TCs. The 300 did amazing things, the big GM primes all have more resolution than the camera can see so the TCs have no noticeable impact to me. I'd put the 2x on the 300 and it would do things like the below, shooting across the entire ballpark. Would be neat if this lens is a usable 200-800.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/LY4uRFkUByHMsiDd8
did you compare it at 600/560mm with the 2x/1.4 tcs or just test the lenses naked?
I didn't mainly because my intended use for it is a partner to the 600 f/4. It's a good idea though, I'm curious to see how it will do with TCs. The 300 did amazing things, the big GM primes all have more resolution than the camera can see so the TCs have no noticeable impact to me. I'd put the 2x on the 300 and it would do things like the below, shooting across the entire ballpark. Would be neat if this lens is a usable 200-800.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/LY4uRFkUByHMsiDd8
Jul 26, 2026 at 10:25 AM
p.3 #10Sony 300mm 2.8 vs new 100-400 4.5?
A Canon 400 f5.6 was my first telephoto lens just over 20 years ago. I bought it used (well used lol) off Arthur Morris. I seem to like that focal length since I end up with the 1.4X on the 300 f2.8 more times than not. I didn't think I'd ever consider selling the 300 f2.8 but this new 100-400 has me considering it.
Jul 26, 2026 at 11:10 AM
|
p.3 #11Sony 300mm 2.8 vs new 100-400 4.5?
Quick and dirty test comparing with the 600 f/4, set it up on the gimbal in the back yard and pointed at a tree branch. Like the 400 2.8, the 1-4 can't touch the look of the big canon but quality wise... I denoised the 100-400 photos since with the 2x it went up to f9 and ISO had to go up to 2000 since it's later in the day, but otherwise straight out of camera... the rendering and sharpness is right there with the big dog! As much as I emotionally miss the 300 being my first really serious lens, I am comfortable saying I don't need it anymore.
Apologies for the perspective change as the lenses have different offset.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/MBAJnXj1nhcEEL777
I annotated the pics but they're 600 f/4, 100-400 +1.4x at 560, 100-400 + 2x at 600
Apologies for the perspective change as the lenses have different offset.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/MBAJnXj1nhcEEL777
I annotated the pics but they're 600 f/4, 100-400 +1.4x at 560, 100-400 + 2x at 600
Jul 26, 2026 at 06:39 PM
p.3 #12Sony 300mm 2.8 vs new 100-400 4.5?
Not a lot of videos on YouTube but I've seen talk of pros using it in various locations indoors for volleyball and hockey. A lot of variables at play.
I'm picking up a 300 2.8 tomorrow but all this talk has me questioning that decision a little lol.
I think I'll be picking up a 135 to fill the massive gap under 300mm until I can swing the 50-150 and a second body.
Lethimcook wrote:
Slightly off topic, how have people found using the 300mm for indoor sports? (basketball, volleyball, hockey)
I'm picking up a 300 2.8 tomorrow but all this talk has me questioning that decision a little lol.
I think I'll be picking up a 135 to fill the massive gap under 300mm until I can swing the 50-150 and a second body.
Lethimcook wrote:
Slightly off topic, how have people found using the 300mm for indoor sports? (basketball, volleyball, hockey)
Jul 26, 2026 at 08:42 PM
p.3 #13Sony 300mm 2.8 vs new 100-400 4.5?
Have a similar dilemma to others with this, looking at the 100-400 as an option
Have a trip planned to shoot sea eagles, 4 3-4 hour sessions over 3 days looking into lens options
Have the 300-600 f4 but isnt going to be suitable for this trip (size, weight and 15 frame limit) so was mulling hiring the 100-400 or 300mm (or both and run 2 bodies)
Have a trip planned to shoot sea eagles, 4 3-4 hour sessions over 3 days looking into lens options
Have the 300-600 f4 but isnt going to be suitable for this trip (size, weight and 15 frame limit) so was mulling hiring the 100-400 or 300mm (or both and run 2 bodies)
Jul 27, 2026 at 04:29 AM
p.3 #14Sony 300mm 2.8 vs new 100-400 4.5?
billsnature wrote:
I haven't seen anyone comparing the new 100-400 with 1.4X vs the 300 GM with a 2X. I highly doubt that the zoom with 1.4X will beat the prime with a the 2X and the zoom is slower at f6.3 and 40mm shorter FL. My 300 GM is basically a 600 f5.6 as I never use it without the 2X TC. That's why I keep hoping for a 500 f4 which would be a 700 f5.6 with a 1.4X.
www.the-digital-picture.com has added 100-400 F4.5 to its lens comparison tool:
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1679&Camera=1538&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=3&LensComp=1778&CameraComp=1538&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=1
I haven't seen anyone comparing the new 100-400 with 1.4X vs the 300 GM with a 2X. I highly doubt that the zoom with 1.4X will beat the prime with a the 2X and the zoom is slower at f6.3 and 40mm shorter FL. My 300 GM is basically a 600 f5.6 as I never use it without the 2X TC. That's why I keep hoping for a 500 f4 which would be a 700 f5.6 with a 1.4X.
www.the-digital-picture.com has added 100-400 F4.5 to its lens comparison tool:
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1679&Camera=1538&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=3&LensComp=1778&CameraComp=1538&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=1
Jul 27, 2026 at 10:49 AM
p.3 #15Sony 300mm 2.8 vs new 100-400 4.5?
moyang_mm wrote:
www.the-digital-picture.com has added 100-400 F4.5 to its lens comparison tool:
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1679&Camera=1538&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=3&LensComp=1778&CameraComp=1538&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=1
I love the concept behind the Digital Picture site, but I always struggle to find it useful. Based on the CA in those samples I wouldn't buy either lens. I real life I have the 300 GM with 2X and find it to be great. A different target that wasn't so B&W would be a lot more useful to me. I always like the target DPR used for cameras as an example.
billsnature wrote
I haven't seen anyone comparing the new 100-400 with 1.4X vs the 300 GM with a 2X. I highly doubt that the zoom with 1.4X will beat the prime with a the 2X and the zoom is slower at f6.3 and 40mm shorter FL. My 300 GM is basically a 600 f5.6 as I never use it without the 2X TC. That's why I keep hoping for a 500 f4 which would be a 700 f5.6 with a 1.4X.https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1679&Camera=1538&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=3&LensComp=1778&CameraComp=1538&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=1
I love the concept behind the Digital Picture site, but I always struggle to find it useful. Based on the CA in those samples I wouldn't buy either lens. I real life I have the 300 GM with 2X and find it to be great. A different target that wasn't so B&W would be a lot more useful to me. I always like the target DPR used for cameras as an example.
Aug 01, 2026 at 12:05 PM
p.3 #16Sony 300mm 2.8 vs new 100-400 4.5?
billsnature wrote:
www.the-digital-picture.com has added 100-400 F4.5 to its lens comparison tool:
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1679&Camera=1538&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=3&LensComp=1778&CameraComp=1538&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=1I love the concept behind the Digital Picture site, but I always struggle to find it useful. Based on the CA in those samples I wouldn't buy either lens. I real life I have the 300 GM with 2X and find it to be great. A different target that wasn't so B&W would be a lot more useful to me. I always like the target DPR used for cameras as an example.
I don't think that is CA you are seeing in the test chart. I think it is moire and indicates both lenses are very sharp. It can be handled in a number of ways in post.
moyang_mm wrote
billsnature wrote
I haven't seen anyone comparing the new 100-400 with 1.4X vs the 300 GM with a 2X. I highly doubt that the zoom with 1.4X will beat the prime with a the 2X and the zoom is slower at f6.3 and 40mm shorter FL. My 300 GM is basically a 600 f5.6 as I never use it without the 2X TC. That's why I keep hoping for a 500 f4 which would be a 700 f5.6 with a 1.4X.https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1679&Camera=1538&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=3&LensComp=1778&CameraComp=1538&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=1
I don't think that is CA you are seeing in the test chart. I think it is moire and indicates both lenses are very sharp. It can be handled in a number of ways in post.
Aug 01, 2026 at 12:17 PM
p.3 #17Sony 300mm 2.8 vs new 100-400 4.5?
Steve Spencer wrote:
www.the-digital-picture.com has added 100-400 F4.5 to its lens comparison tool:
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1679&Camera=1538&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=3&LensComp=1778&CameraComp=1538&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=1I love the concept behind the Digital Picture site, but I always struggle to find it useful. Based on the CA in those samples I wouldn't buy either lens. I real life I have the 300 GM with 2X and find it to be great. A different target that wasn't so B&W would be a lot more useful to me. I always like the target DPR used for cameras as an example.I don't think that is CA you are seeing in the test chart. I think it is moire and indicates both lenses are very sharp. It can be handled in a number of ways in post.
I agree it is moire in the narrowing lines, it looks like CA on edges of big black triangles scrolling down the charts. Either way, not terribly useful as to how they would look on bird feathers as I never see moire that looks that bad.
I'm still hoping one of the frequent swallow, falcon, or duck guys will weigh in on the 300/2X vs the 100-400/1.4X with actual field experience.
billsnature wrote
moyang_mm wrote
billsnature wrote
I haven't seen anyone comparing the new 100-400 with 1.4X vs the 300 GM with a 2X. I highly doubt that the zoom with 1.4X will beat the prime with a the 2X and the zoom is slower at f6.3 and 40mm shorter FL. My 300 GM is basically a 600 f5.6 as I never use it without the 2X TC. That's why I keep hoping for a 500 f4 which would be a 700 f5.6 with a 1.4X.https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1679&Camera=1538&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=3&LensComp=1778&CameraComp=1538&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=1
I agree it is moire in the narrowing lines, it looks like CA on edges of big black triangles scrolling down the charts. Either way, not terribly useful as to how they would look on bird feathers as I never see moire that looks that bad.
I'm still hoping one of the frequent swallow, falcon, or duck guys will weigh in on the 300/2X vs the 100-400/1.4X with actual field experience.
Aug 01, 2026 at 12:27 PM
p.3 #18Sony 300mm 2.8 vs new 100-400 4.5?
I have the 300 f2.8 GM and both converters. It takes fantastic images. I sold my 200-600 after a while. I shoot mostly wildlife at medium to far distances. I carry two bodies, A7Rv, one with the 300 and often a 1.4tc, the other is the f2.8 70-200 gmii. The 70-200 will do well with the 1.4 tc, but doesn't play well with the 2.0. I just picked up the f4.5 100-400 GM and now I'm trying to find the right place for it. I have the 24-70 gm, but it's in the bag or on the shelf 97% of the time. Maybe I carry the 300m with the 1.4 or 2x and the 100-400 instead of the 70-200 gmii. I think all I did was confuse myself. I know it's all personal and preference. The 400-800 is just too limited for the light I typically shoot in. Ugh.
Aug 15, 2026 at 09:54 PM
p.3 #19Sony 300mm 2.8 vs new 100-400 4.5?
I'm in the same place as a few others with this, can see the argument for either option, definitely a finely balanced decision
Have the old 100-400, 70-200gmii & 300-600f4 currently and could see a future where the 300-600 is upgraded to a Sony 400/600 prime when they are refreshed with the new 100-400 and 300gm on the basis any 2 out of the 3 (along with TCs) options should cover me for any sort of trip
Admittedly expensive and similar results could probably be achieved with good copies of the 200-600 and/or 400-800 but felt like id always be second guessing that call
70-200 and 100-400 were sold over the weekend and flipped a coin on the 100-400 or 300 to pair with the 300-600, 100-400 it was and will see how this combo works out. Added a 70-200 f4 as a backup / travel option and my GAS is satisfied for a little while now
Have the old 100-400, 70-200gmii & 300-600f4 currently and could see a future where the 300-600 is upgraded to a Sony 400/600 prime when they are refreshed with the new 100-400 and 300gm on the basis any 2 out of the 3 (along with TCs) options should cover me for any sort of trip
Admittedly expensive and similar results could probably be achieved with good copies of the 200-600 and/or 400-800 but felt like id always be second guessing that call
70-200 and 100-400 were sold over the weekend and flipped a coin on the 100-400 or 300 to pair with the 300-600, 100-400 it was and will see how this combo works out. Added a 70-200 f4 as a backup / travel option and my GAS is satisfied for a little while now
Aug 17, 2026 at 09:02 AM
p.3 #20Sony 300mm 2.8 vs new 100-400 4.5?
The added flexibility of a zoom almost always outweighs the raw optical performance of a prime, at least for me. While we as photographers can easily see the technical advantages of the prime, especially at 100% views, in my experience the typical viewer simply doesn’t see it in a normal image, and moreover doesn’t care about that relative level of minutiae even if they can see it. I think most probably appreciate more, the better-balanced compositions the zooms generally offer. My .02…
Aug 17, 2026 at 09:15 AM