Sony 300mm 2.8 vs new 100-400 4.5?
p.4 #1Sony 300mm 2.8 vs new 100-400 4.5?
Agreed, I like the 300-600 for exactly that reason (despite the drawbacks around compatibility and weight)
If Viltrox released a 1.4tc i could see myself keeping it long term and running the 100-400 / 140-560 and 300-600 / 420-840
Jack Flesher wrote:
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…
If Viltrox released a 1.4tc i could see myself keeping it long term and running the 100-400 / 140-560 and 300-600 / 420-840
Jack Flesher wrote:
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 09:59 AM
p.4 #2Sony 300mm 2.8 vs new 100-400 4.5?
Jack Flesher wrote:
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…
Sorry, but this is going to be longer than the usual sentence—long post. You’ve been warned… ;-)
I went through the same “primes always optically better than zooms” phase years ago.
It is true that on the test bench, the best primes can generally score higher than the best zoom on the test bench. But there are a few contextual things to take into account.
These days the best zooms can be really excellent, to the extent that those test-bench-measurable differences often are simply irrelevant — you won’t actually see those differences in anything but the 200% magnification comparison views where you scan back and forth between sample 1 and sample 2, peering at them side-by-side and the outer boundaries of performance. In real photographs, even very large prints, these differences are meaningless.
The “flexibility” that Jack mentions is not just a convenience — it actually gives you greater control over your compositions without the need to either lose resolution to a crop or sacrifice an ideal composition in order to fit the angle-of-view of you prime. Let’s say that my ideal composition, taking into consideration the relative apparent sizes of subject, foreground, and background elements would use a 97mm focal length. Imagine that I’m carrying a ton of primes, including 85mm and 105mm being closest to the ideal 97mm. Basically I have two choices;
- I can compromise my ideal composition so that it fits one of those two focal lengths, moving the camera position forward or backwards to get that less-than-ideal framing.
- I can locate the camera at my ideal position for the relative relationships among scene elements and use the slightly-too-wide focal length (in this case 85mm), planning to crop in post. Cropping that much will reduce the overall image quality — not a lot, but easily as much as the measured increase on the test over an excellent zoom.
Using the zoom lens lets me get that ideal composition with no cropping in post, thus maintaining the full (and usually very good) image quality from a fine zoom lens.
There are other practical advantages, too. A zoom can replace two or three primes. This can result in a weight/bulk decrease along with the increase in your ability to frame compositions accurately.
Is a zoom always the right answer? No. in some cases working with one or two small primes (and some can be very small) can reduce the load you carry and make you less intimidating to your subjects and more mobile for things like street photography. Larger maximum apertures are available from primes, and when you need those a zoom is unlikely to suffice. Many speciality lenses (macros, TS) are not available as zooms. (Though i have to say that putting a medium format zoom lens on a tilt shift adapter is quite an amazing revelation!)
I was thinking about this as I looked at some side-by-side comparisons of the 100-400 f/4.5 and the 300mm f/2.8 at the 300mm focal length. If I look very carefully at the magnified test images, switching back and forth between them, I can see some small difference between them in some of the comparison images. But both are very good, and using the zoom brings some other significant advantages that often outweigh those small optical differences.
In the end, I’m not all that interested in the micro differences between the optical performance of some super-tele and a zoom lens alternative. The question that I’m interested it is, “Does this lens produce excellent results in real world photography?”
Edited on Aug 18, 2026 at 08:05 AM · View previous versions
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…
Sorry, but this is going to be longer than the usual sentence—long post. You’ve been warned… ;-)
I went through the same “primes always optically better than zooms” phase years ago.
It is true that on the test bench, the best primes can generally score higher than the best zoom on the test bench. But there are a few contextual things to take into account.
These days the best zooms can be really excellent, to the extent that those test-bench-measurable differences often are simply irrelevant — you won’t actually see those differences in anything but the 200% magnification comparison views where you scan back and forth between sample 1 and sample 2, peering at them side-by-side and the outer boundaries of performance. In real photographs, even very large prints, these differences are meaningless.
The “flexibility” that Jack mentions is not just a convenience — it actually gives you greater control over your compositions without the need to either lose resolution to a crop or sacrifice an ideal composition in order to fit the angle-of-view of you prime. Let’s say that my ideal composition, taking into consideration the relative apparent sizes of subject, foreground, and background elements would use a 97mm focal length. Imagine that I’m carrying a ton of primes, including 85mm and 105mm being closest to the ideal 97mm. Basically I have two choices;
- I can compromise my ideal composition so that it fits one of those two focal lengths, moving the camera position forward or backwards to get that less-than-ideal framing.
- I can locate the camera at my ideal position for the relative relationships among scene elements and use the slightly-too-wide focal length (in this case 85mm), planning to crop in post. Cropping that much will reduce the overall image quality — not a lot, but easily as much as the measured increase on the test over an excellent zoom.
Using the zoom lens lets me get that ideal composition with no cropping in post, thus maintaining the full (and usually very good) image quality from a fine zoom lens.
There are other practical advantages, too. A zoom can replace two or three primes. This can result in a weight/bulk decrease along with the increase in your ability to frame compositions accurately.
Is a zoom always the right answer? No. in some cases working with one or two small primes (and some can be very small) can reduce the load you carry and make you less intimidating to your subjects and more mobile for things like street photography. Larger maximum apertures are available from primes, and when you need those a zoom is unlikely to suffice. Many speciality lenses (macros, TS) are not available as zooms. (Though i have to say that putting a medium format zoom lens on a tilt shift adapter is quite an amazing revelation!)
I was thinking about this as I looked at some side-by-side comparisons of the 100-400 f/4.5 and the 300mm f/2.8 at the 300mm focal length. If I look very carefully at the magnified test images, switching back and forth between them, I can see some small difference between them in some of the comparison images. But both are very good, and using the zoom brings some other significant advantages that often outweigh those small optical differences.
In the end, I’m not all that interested in the micro differences between the optical performance of some super-tele and a zoom lens alternative. The question that I’m interested it is, “Does this lens produce excellent results in real world photography?”
Edited on Aug 18, 2026 at 08:05 AM · View previous versions
Aug 17, 2026 at 10:04 AM
p.4 #3Sony 300mm 2.8 vs new 100-400 4.5?
gdanmitchell wrote:
Sorry, but this is going to be longer than the usual sentence—long pos. You’ve been warned… ;-)
I went through the same “primes always optically better than zooms” phase years ago.
It is true that on the test bench, the best primes can generally score higher than the best zoom on the test bench. But there are a few contextual things to take into account.
These days the best zooms can be really excellent, to the extent that those test-bench-measurable differences often are simply irrelevant — you won’t actually see those differences in anything but the 200% magnification comparison views where you...Show more →
I think it’s quite subject-dependent. When shooting wildlife with a 200–600mm, for example, you can easily spend the entire day at 600mm. In that situation, the framing advantage of the zoom largely disappears, and the benefits of a prime, better optical performance, a wider maximum aperture, or both, can become more relevant.
Jack Flesher wrote
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…I went through the same “primes always optically better than zooms” phase years ago.
It is true that on the test bench, the best primes can generally score higher than the best zoom on the test bench. But there are a few contextual things to take into account.
These days the best zooms can be really excellent, to the extent that those test-bench-measurable differences often are simply irrelevant — you won’t actually see those differences in anything but the 200% magnification comparison views where you...Show more →
I think it’s quite subject-dependent. When shooting wildlife with a 200–600mm, for example, you can easily spend the entire day at 600mm. In that situation, the framing advantage of the zoom largely disappears, and the benefits of a prime, better optical performance, a wider maximum aperture, or both, can become more relevant.
Aug 18, 2026 at 12:37 AM
p.4 #4Sony 300mm 2.8 vs new 100-400 4.5?
I think it’s quite subject-dependent. When shooting wildlife with a 200–600mm, for example, you can easily spend the entire day at 600mm. In that situation, the framing advantage of the zoom largely disappears, and the benefits of a prime, better optical performance, a wider maximum aperture, or both, can become more relevant.
This had me thinking,... as an owner of the 200-600 and 400-800, where do I live focal length wise with both lenses. Out of 50k images, 26k at 800mm and 10k at 600 mm and the rest are a mix of other lenses or very close to the 600 or 800 ends. I think I need to buy primes.
Enjoy the day all.
Hatch
Aug 18, 2026 at 07:07 AM
p.4 #5Sony 300mm 2.8 vs new 100-400 4.5?
aCuria wrote:
Sorry, but this is going to be longer than the usual sentence—long pos. You’ve been warned… ;-)
I went through the same “primes always optically better than zooms” phase years ago.
It is true that on the test bench, the best primes can generally score higher than the best zoom on the test bench. But there are a few contextual things to take into account.
These days the best zooms can be really excellent, to the extent that those test-bench-measurable differences often are simply irrelevant — you won’t actually see those differences in anything but the 200% magnification comparison views where you scan back and forth between sample 1 and sample 2, peering at them side-by-side and the outer boundaries of performance. In real photographs, even very large prints, these differences are meaningless.
The “flexibility” that Jack mentions is not just a convenience — it actually gives you greater control over your compositions without the need to either lose resolution to a crop or sacrifice an ideal composition in order to fit the angle-of-view of you prime. Let’s say that my ideal composition, taking into consideration the relative apparent sizes of subject, foreground, and background elements would use a 97mm focal length. Imagine that I’m carrying a ton of primes, including 85mm and 105mm being closest to the ideal 97mm. Basically I have two choices;
- I can compromise my ideal composition so that it fits one of those two focal lengths, moving the camera position forward or backwards to get that less-than-ideal framing.
- I can locate the camera at my ideal position for the relative relationships among scene elements and use the slightly-too-wide focal length (in this case 85mm), planning to crop in post. Cropping that much will reduce the overall image quality — not a lot, but easily as much as the measured increase on the test over an excellent zoom.
Using the zoom lens lets me get that ideal composition with no cropping in post, thus maintaining the full (and usually very good) image quality from a fine zoom lens.
There are other practical advantages, too. A zoom can replace two or three primes. This can result in a weight/bulk decrease along with the increase in your ability to frame compositions accurately.
Is a zoom always the right answer? No. in some cases working with one or two small primes (and some can be very small) can reduce the load you carry and make you less intimidating to your subjects and more mobile for things like street photography. Larger maximum apertures are available from primes, and when you need those a zoom is unlikely to suffice. Many speciality lenses (macros, TS) are not available as zooms. (Though i have to say that putting a medium format zoom lens on a tilt shift adapter is quite an amazing revelation!)
I was thinking about this as I looked at some side-by-side comparisons of the 100-400 f/4.5 and the 300mm f/2.8 at the 300mm focal length. If I look very carefully at the magnified test images, switching back and forth between them, I can see some small difference between them in some of the comparison images. But both are very good, and using the zoom brings some other significant advantages that often outweigh those small optical differences.
In the end, I’m not all that interested in the micro differences between the optical performance of some super-tele and a zoom lens alternative. The question that I’m interested it is, “Does this lens produce excellent results in real world photography?”I think it’s quite subject-dependent. When shooting wildlife with a 200–600mm, for example, you can easily spend the entire day at 600mm. In that situation, the framing advantage of the zoom largely disappears, and the benefits of a prime, better optical performance, a wider maximum aperture, or both, can become more relevant.
If you are sure that you’ll always work at 600mm then you might as well get the prime. If your pockets are very deep and you really need the largest possible aperture at 600mm, then the same.
I’m sure there are some photographers who fit that description. You know who you are.
On the other hand, lots of us frequently encounter situations with wildlife where we suddenly need something less long. I photograph birds a lot in the winter months, and I frequently have to zoom out to capture a large flock or to place the birds in the larger landscape, and so on.
YMMV.
gdanmitchell wrote
Jack Flesher wrote
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…I went through the same “primes always optically better than zooms” phase years ago.
It is true that on the test bench, the best primes can generally score higher than the best zoom on the test bench. But there are a few contextual things to take into account.
These days the best zooms can be really excellent, to the extent that those test-bench-measurable differences often are simply irrelevant — you won’t actually see those differences in anything but the 200% magnification comparison views where you scan back and forth between sample 1 and sample 2, peering at them side-by-side and the outer boundaries of performance. In real photographs, even very large prints, these differences are meaningless.
The “flexibility” that Jack mentions is not just a convenience — it actually gives you greater control over your compositions without the need to either lose resolution to a crop or sacrifice an ideal composition in order to fit the angle-of-view of you prime. Let’s say that my ideal composition, taking into consideration the relative apparent sizes of subject, foreground, and background elements would use a 97mm focal length. Imagine that I’m carrying a ton of primes, including 85mm and 105mm being closest to the ideal 97mm. Basically I have two choices;
- I can compromise my ideal composition so that it fits one of those two focal lengths, moving the camera position forward or backwards to get that less-than-ideal framing.
- I can locate the camera at my ideal position for the relative relationships among scene elements and use the slightly-too-wide focal length (in this case 85mm), planning to crop in post. Cropping that much will reduce the overall image quality — not a lot, but easily as much as the measured increase on the test over an excellent zoom.
Using the zoom lens lets me get that ideal composition with no cropping in post, thus maintaining the full (and usually very good) image quality from a fine zoom lens.
There are other practical advantages, too. A zoom can replace two or three primes. This can result in a weight/bulk decrease along with the increase in your ability to frame compositions accurately.
Is a zoom always the right answer? No. in some cases working with one or two small primes (and some can be very small) can reduce the load you carry and make you less intimidating to your subjects and more mobile for things like street photography. Larger maximum apertures are available from primes, and when you need those a zoom is unlikely to suffice. Many speciality lenses (macros, TS) are not available as zooms. (Though i have to say that putting a medium format zoom lens on a tilt shift adapter is quite an amazing revelation!)
I was thinking about this as I looked at some side-by-side comparisons of the 100-400 f/4.5 and the 300mm f/2.8 at the 300mm focal length. If I look very carefully at the magnified test images, switching back and forth between them, I can see some small difference between them in some of the comparison images. But both are very good, and using the zoom brings some other significant advantages that often outweigh those small optical differences.
In the end, I’m not all that interested in the micro differences between the optical performance of some super-tele and a zoom lens alternative. The question that I’m interested it is, “Does this lens produce excellent results in real world photography?”
If you are sure that you’ll always work at 600mm then you might as well get the prime. If your pockets are very deep and you really need the largest possible aperture at 600mm, then the same.
I’m sure there are some photographers who fit that description. You know who you are.
On the other hand, lots of us frequently encounter situations with wildlife where we suddenly need something less long. I photograph birds a lot in the winter months, and I frequently have to zoom out to capture a large flock or to place the birds in the larger landscape, and so on.
YMMV.
Aug 18, 2026 at 02:41 PM
p.4 #6Sony 300mm 2.8 vs new 100-400 4.5?
I have shot the 200-600 for a bunch of NFL seasons for Paniini trading cards, after a lifetime of shooting many 400 2.8 lenses. I got the 100-400 it is sharper better contrast even with a 1.4 x in action work. don't care what influencers say. I have been shooting pro for 42 years and I know what my eyes tell me.
Aug 18, 2026 at 05:27 PM
|
p.4 #7Sony 300mm 2.8 vs new 100-400 4.5?
davidsee wrote:
I have shot the 200-600 for a bunch of NFL seasons for Paniini trading cards, after a lifetime of shooting many 400 2.8 lenses. I got the 100-400 it is sharper better contrast even with a 1.4 x in action work. don't care what influencers say. I have been shooting pro for 42 years and I know what my eyes tell me.
Just to be clear, You are saying the 100-400 is better than the 200-600 even with TC. You aren't saying it is better than the 300 GM or the 400 2.8 are you
?
I have shot the 200-600 for a bunch of NFL seasons for Paniini trading cards, after a lifetime of shooting many 400 2.8 lenses. I got the 100-400 it is sharper better contrast even with a 1.4 x in action work. don't care what influencers say. I have been shooting pro for 42 years and I know what my eyes tell me.
Just to be clear, You are saying the 100-400 is better than the 200-600 even with TC. You aren't saying it is better than the 300 GM or the 400 2.8 are you
?Aug 18, 2026 at 08:49 PM
p.4 #8Sony 300mm 2.8 vs new 100-400 4.5?
Such interesting debate on this lens, cant decide if Sony missed the mark on it (bigger, more expensive, smaller quality gain than expected, no built in TC etc) compared to what people expected/wanted
Or if they nailed it for the intended user (super fast af, nice rendering, more flexible than existing prime options, cheaper than the existing primes, lighter than common alternatives etc)
Popped into a Sony demo day at a local store, they mentioned demand has been high and over expectations but those expectations were set pretty low, only 1 loaner available for the Sony reps in the UK to use and a lot of demand for it
Either way, mine has just shipped and looking forward to having a play with it
Or if they nailed it for the intended user (super fast af, nice rendering, more flexible than existing prime options, cheaper than the existing primes, lighter than common alternatives etc)
Popped into a Sony demo day at a local store, they mentioned demand has been high and over expectations but those expectations were set pretty low, only 1 loaner available for the Sony reps in the UK to use and a lot of demand for it
Either way, mine has just shipped and looking forward to having a play with it
Aug 19, 2026 at 02:12 AM
p.4 #9Sony 300mm 2.8 vs new 100-400 4.5?
In my case my 300 f2.8 + 2X appears to have a tiny bit more micro contrast than the 100-400 + 1.4X but again it's splitting hairs as I like to say. If I know I'll be at 600+ I'll just use the 300 / 2X & crop, it's a lighter combo anyway. I thought I might sell the 300 but I've decided to keep both.
Aug 19, 2026 at 10:41 AM
p.4 #10Sony 300mm 2.8 vs new 100-400 4.5?
I know this is a bit old but figured I'd add my $.02 to the thread. I shoot sports primarily with my long lenses (backcountry landscapes as well but that's the old 100-400, the new one is too big/heavy) and specifically soccer and rugby. I've got two bodies (A1 II + A7r6) and have swapped around setups a few different ways and between bodies. For simplicity I'll keep this focused on lens combos for these two sports but in general the A1 has been my zoom and the R6 my prime (300mm f2.8) however this has swapped around to see if I have a preference.
Lens combos:
70-200 F2.8 gm II w/1.4x tc + 300mm f2.8 - Great combo. While I've got the 2x TC I've found this setup generally gets me what I need. As these are non-pro teams I can usually move around sidelines pretty easily and thus don't have restrictions on getting myself closer the same way I would with pro teams/fields, and some of the soccer matches have been smaller 8v8 size fields (i.e. half normal pitch size). It's been a go-to and I have some cropping to do but overall been pretty solid.
50-150 F2 + 300mm - Okay combo. I love both of these lenses a _lot_ however the lack of TC on the 50-150 really hurts it. The low light is obviously lovely for night games but given the bodies I'm on I can pump ISO enough to deal with it and maintain high enough shutter speed with clean images. The combo is great, just reach is a problem. I do usually carry the 50-150 though and toss that on for the team shots as it lets me isolate subjects and "replaces multiple primes".
Old 100-400 5.6-6.3 + [any lens] - this lens is great for some use cases but external zoom + higher fstops make it really disappointing results to me. I'd rather use the 70-200 with TC for sports.
This brings me to the 100-400 F4.5 and why I bought it even though I have a great kit already. Very specifically, it lets me basically sit on that lens and less swapping around or "hunting" for the right camera to frame things up well (and reduces post-production cropping requirements). So, that combo is:
100-400 F4.5 + 300 f2.8 w/1.4x - This combo has been amazing. I've only shot one outdoor, daytime, rugby game with it so far but it was such a fun setup for that environment and I think will be my new go-to setup. Here's why. The 300 is just not enough reach for a lot of field sports on its own. Yeah the 400 f2.8 would be great but I'm getting 420mm effective at F4. In other words, one stop of light less and a bit less bokeh in the background. If the player is basically filling the frame though it's a marginal difference (noticeable of course just not obvious to most folks). So now, I am watching plays and use the 300 up until they are about to completely fill the frame, then swap to the second body with the 100-400 4.5 on it and use that to frame all the way until they are basically within ~10 feet or so of me.
One interesting note on the new 100-400 is that when it's on my camera harness it'll creep itself back to 100mm unless it's in `tight` setting for the zoom ring. I'm torn on if I think this is a net benefit for me or not as it lets me start wide and zoom into what I need instead of hunting for players/ball while I'm swapping the cameras.
I was also worried about the weight as it's heavier than my other setups and that is noticeable. Still hand holdable with the 300 though which the 400 f2.8 wouldn't be for back to back games.
TL;DR - pretty happy with the 100-400 f4.5. I will be curious if the 300 with TC will get replaced with the new 400 F4.5 as well for weight/size purposes but I suspect it wouldn't be worth it. TBD.
Lens combos:
70-200 F2.8 gm II w/1.4x tc + 300mm f2.8 - Great combo. While I've got the 2x TC I've found this setup generally gets me what I need. As these are non-pro teams I can usually move around sidelines pretty easily and thus don't have restrictions on getting myself closer the same way I would with pro teams/fields, and some of the soccer matches have been smaller 8v8 size fields (i.e. half normal pitch size). It's been a go-to and I have some cropping to do but overall been pretty solid.
50-150 F2 + 300mm - Okay combo. I love both of these lenses a _lot_ however the lack of TC on the 50-150 really hurts it. The low light is obviously lovely for night games but given the bodies I'm on I can pump ISO enough to deal with it and maintain high enough shutter speed with clean images. The combo is great, just reach is a problem. I do usually carry the 50-150 though and toss that on for the team shots as it lets me isolate subjects and "replaces multiple primes".
Old 100-400 5.6-6.3 + [any lens] - this lens is great for some use cases but external zoom + higher fstops make it really disappointing results to me. I'd rather use the 70-200 with TC for sports.
This brings me to the 100-400 F4.5 and why I bought it even though I have a great kit already. Very specifically, it lets me basically sit on that lens and less swapping around or "hunting" for the right camera to frame things up well (and reduces post-production cropping requirements). So, that combo is:
100-400 F4.5 + 300 f2.8 w/1.4x - This combo has been amazing. I've only shot one outdoor, daytime, rugby game with it so far but it was such a fun setup for that environment and I think will be my new go-to setup. Here's why. The 300 is just not enough reach for a lot of field sports on its own. Yeah the 400 f2.8 would be great but I'm getting 420mm effective at F4. In other words, one stop of light less and a bit less bokeh in the background. If the player is basically filling the frame though it's a marginal difference (noticeable of course just not obvious to most folks). So now, I am watching plays and use the 300 up until they are about to completely fill the frame, then swap to the second body with the 100-400 4.5 on it and use that to frame all the way until they are basically within ~10 feet or so of me.
One interesting note on the new 100-400 is that when it's on my camera harness it'll creep itself back to 100mm unless it's in `tight` setting for the zoom ring. I'm torn on if I think this is a net benefit for me or not as it lets me start wide and zoom into what I need instead of hunting for players/ball while I'm swapping the cameras.
I was also worried about the weight as it's heavier than my other setups and that is noticeable. Still hand holdable with the 300 though which the 400 f2.8 wouldn't be for back to back games.
TL;DR - pretty happy with the 100-400 f4.5. I will be curious if the 300 with TC will get replaced with the new 400 F4.5 as well for weight/size purposes but I suspect it wouldn't be worth it. TBD.
Sep 29, 2026 at 04:23 PM
p.4 #11Sony 300mm 2.8 vs new 100-400 4.5?
-Meraki- wrote:
I know this is a bit old but figured I'd add my $.02 to the thread. I shoot sports primarily with my long lenses (backcountry landscapes as well but that's the old 100-400, the new one is too big/heavy) and specifically soccer and rugby. I've got two bodies (A1 II + A7r6) and have swapped around setups a few different ways and between bodies. For simplicity I'll keep this focused on lens combos for these two sports but in general the A1 has been my zoom and the R6 my prime (300mm f2.8) however this has swapped around to see...Show more →
Thanks for your sharing your experience with the 100-400. I’ve been mulling over getting one. So all the first hand experience helps a lot
I know this is a bit old but figured I'd add my $.02 to the thread. I shoot sports primarily with my long lenses (backcountry landscapes as well but that's the old 100-400, the new one is too big/heavy) and specifically soccer and rugby. I've got two bodies (A1 II + A7r6) and have swapped around setups a few different ways and between bodies. For simplicity I'll keep this focused on lens combos for these two sports but in general the A1 has been my zoom and the R6 my prime (300mm f2.8) however this has swapped around to see...Show more →
Thanks for your sharing your experience with the 100-400. I’ve been mulling over getting one. So all the first hand experience helps a lot
Sep 29, 2026 at 05:38 PM