RikWriter wrote:
According to Alex, he took them as JPEGs and didn't post-process.
If he had the Creative Style set to Vivid and/or moved the in-camera Sharpness slider all the way up, that might produce that overbaked look in a jpeg. Images shot with very sharp lenses like the Sony 400 and 600, whether RAW or jpeg, don't look like those images.
If, if. if. Since there is now a 100-400 f4.5 thread, I am sure we will get to see over-baked, half-baked, and under-baked images. And we will get various opinions on which look best. It is already apparent that
the images by Alex do not look over-baked to a number of people.
A sharp shot of a fast-moving subject with a 2x TC impresses me more than a not as sharp shot of a still image with a 1.4x TC.
Just received mine. Based on what I read, I expected it to feel lighter than the 200-600, but it feels even lighter than I was expecting. Bought it for soccer but I think it will work well as an indoor event lens where I won’t have reserved seating in the front, so chalk that up to the 100-400 (vs the sigma 300-600 I was considering). I’m going to get the 28-70 f2 at some point, but with that, the 50-150, and the 100-400, pretty solid, versatile trinity lens set up IMHO.
isyoox703 wrote:
... versatile trinity lens set up IMHO.
Yup quite possible. Personally, the plan here is to use my 100-400 ƒ4.5 (vs the 400 ƒ2.8) and the 50-150 ƒ2 (vs the 70-200 ƒ2.8) as my two rig setup for soccer.
I’ve told myself if Sony ever releases a 400 2.8 w/TC built in like Nikon, I’ll bite and buy it. I am just a dad with a camera and my kid plays U10 soccer, so if he sticks with it and is playing in high school, maybe the justification (to myself, but more importantly the wife) will be a little easier. Excited to see if the 100-400 gives me the incremental improvement over the 200-600 that I’m hoping for.
Here is a quick test shot @400mm F4.5. It has been denoised and sharpened, but you get the idea. Shot on A7R5, I am waiting for the A7R6 batteries to charge...
Imagemaster wrote:
Right, a two-dimensional subject when everyone takes photos of three-dimensional subjects.
And 'borkahs' are very important. And believe it or not, AF is very helpful in getting your subject in focus.
I have no idea how you guys do acceptance testing, but the first part is to test a flat target under controlled conditions. That will show the general MTF, distortion, light fallof, and you can infer field curvature by changing focus. There are other common tests for the rest of Seidels and CAs.
Photographing a random 3D subject is typically a field test. That is important to demonstrate the borkah and AF. But if you only have a few random images, it's easy to overlook critical image defects like MTF degradation, astigmatism, LaCA and field curvature that produce typically worse IQ with increasing radius. Sometimes I'm so sick of mediocre lenses I could scream.
I still have some good hopes for the 100-400/4.5mm, but need to see some test results, not a Googles U-Tube.
isyoox703 wrote:
Just received mine. Based on what I read, I expected it to feel lighter than the 200-600, but it feels even lighter than I was expecting. Bought it for soccer but I think it will work well as an indoor event lens where I won’t have reserved seating in the front, so chalk that up to the 100-400 (vs the sigma 300-600 I was considering). I’m going to get the 28-70 f2 at some point, but with that, the 50-150, and the 100-400, pretty solid, versatile trinity lens set up IMHO.
Yep...it is so different in the hand compared to the 200-600. The 200-600 feels like a dense brick compared to the airy feel of the 100-400. Also holding it at my side by the foot or on a strap the 100-400 balances much better. Handholding it is way closer to the 300GM/2xTC than it is to the 200-600.
My really early tests with only reviewing images in the EVF show that the IQ at close range (backyard birds at 20-30ft) between the 200-600 at 600 vs the 100-400/1.4TC at 560 is near as makes no difference.
My shots with the 2xTC looked decent at this close range. I don't have a 400-800 to compare. I will eventually compare it to the 200-600/1.4TC at the 800/840 f/9 long end.
When the Fedex lady dropped it off for me I picked up the box (larger outer box with the Sony lens box inside) and I thought someone must have stolen the lens
Also for those thinking about replacement feet the bolt pattern is not the same as the 400GM/600GM/Canon lenses. It is also not the same as the 400-800 (someone confirmed this on BCG forum). So we are stuck waiting for someone to make a foot with this new bolt pattern.
Hoping @Alex Phan got the lens to Leofoto so they can get working on one!!
arbitrage wrote:
Also for those thinking about replacement feet the bolt pattern is not the same as the 400GM/600GM/Canon lenses. It is also not the same as the 400-800 (someone confirmed this on BCG forum). So we are stuck waiting for someone to make a foot with this new bolt pattern.
Hoping @Alex Phan@ got the lens to Leofoto so they can get working on one!!
Skin is available this weekend
Foot replacement already done. USA warehouse expecting shipment soon.
So far, it seems really nice, very snappy AF. I sure wish Sony would listen to their customers about the foot. The zoom ring has a mind of its own and returns to 100 when you zoom to 400; I've never had a spring-loaded zoom before. Hopefully, it will correct itself with a little use.
arbitrage wrote:
Also for those thinking about replacement feet the bolt pattern is not the same as the 400GM/600GM/Canon lenses. It is also not the same as the 400-800 (someone confirmed this on BCG forum). So we are stuck waiting for someone to make a foot with this new bolt pattern.
Hoping @Alex Phan@ got the lens to Leofoto so they can get working on one!!
That’s a little disappointing. Sony already made us buy a new foot for the 400-800. It would have been nice if they could have used that, or the 400/600mm bolt pattern. Instead of making a third bolt layout
mogul wrote:
So far, it seems really nice, very snappy AF. I sure wish Sony would listen to their customers about the foot. The zoom ring has a mind of its own and returns to 100 when you zoom to 400; I've never had a spring-loaded zoom before. Hopefully, it will correct itself with a little use.
It should only creep back to 100mm if the lens is pointed down and the tension switch is on Loose. I don't find the zoom creeping off of 400mm when in shooting position even on Loose.
On Tight it doesn't creep when pointed downwards.
Is that what you are seeing or you are seeing it spring back even when level? Are you on Loose or Tight?
Alex Phan wrote:
Skin is available this weekend
Foot replacement already done. USA warehouse expecting shipment soon.
Thanks Alex. That is great that it will be available so soon.
I'll order a foot once they have them. May get the skin also. But will eventually get a RolanPro once they make one.
arbitrage wrote:
It should only creep back to 100mm if the lens is pointed down and the tension switch is on Loose. I don't find the zoom creeping off of 400mm when in shooting position even on Loose.
On Tight it doesn't creep when pointed downwards.
Is that what you are seeing or you are seeing it spring back even when level? Are you on Loose or Tight?
It springs back on horizontal or pointing up; it acts like compressed air trapped inside the lens.is moving the zoom. On tight, it does not move.
mogul wrote:
It springs back on horizontal or pointing up; it acts like compressed air trapped inside the lens.is moving the zoom. On tight, it does not move.
That is odd. Mine isn't doing that. I'd make sure it stops doing that before your return window ends.
Thanks for the initial impressions Geoff. What do you think about the AF with 1.4x TC compared to 200-600? These days most lenses have enough IQ. I'm not much worried about it. I'm more curious about performance of the the quadruple AF motors.
arbitrage wrote:
Yep...it is so different in the hand compared to the 200-600. The 200-600 feels like a dense brick compared to the airy feel of the 100-400. Also holding it at my side by the foot or on a strap the 100-400 balances much better. Handholding it is way closer to the 300GM/2xTC than it is to the 200-600.
My really early tests with only reviewing images in the EVF show that the IQ at close range (backyard birds at 20-30ft) between the 200-600 at 600 vs the 100-400/1.4TC at 560 is near as makes no difference.
My shots with the 2xTC looked decent at this close range. I don't have a 400-800 to compare. I will eventually compare it to the 200-600/1.4TC at the 800/840 f/9 long end.
When the Fedex lady dropped it off for me I picked up the box (larger outer box with the Sony lens box inside) and I thought someone must have stolen the lens ...Show more →
EB-1 wrote:
I have no idea how you guys do acceptance testing, but the first part is to test a flat target under controlled conditions. That will show the general MTF, distortion, light fallof, and you can infer field curvature by changing focus. There are other common tests for the rest of Seidels and CAs.
Photographing a random 3D subject is typically a field test. That is important to demonstrate the borkah and AF. But if you only have a few random images, it's easy to overlook critical image defects like MTF degradation, astigmatism, LaCA and field curvature that produce typically worse IQ with increasing radius. Sometimes I'm so sick of mediocre lenses I could scream.
I still have some good hopes for the 100-400/4.5mm, but need to see some test results, not a Googles U-Tube.
