Sony 100-400 f/4.5
p.11 #1Sony 100-400 f/4.5
ketang wrote:
I recently shot butterflies at two gardens and compared two lenses: the 100-400mm and 70-200mm II, each with the Sony 1.4X TC. With perched butterflies, I have not had any issue getting physically close, so going in I was thinking that the 70-200mm might have an advantage in two ways: a higher maximum magnification, and the ability to stop down further before reaching the same aperture size as the 100-400mm. Based on about a thousand shots with each, the 100-400mm had superior IQ at f/6.3 even compared to the 70-200mm at f/8, and I also felt the OIS was more...Show more →
Surely the slower 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 GM is the best bet for this sort of thing., 0.35x sans TC and a lot lighter for easier hand-holding. You get 0.35x on the new GM with the 1.4x and but you can't get more working distance despite the extra 160mm FL at that same 0.35x.
I'd be comparing the 100-400 f/4.5 to the 200-600G and it is definitely much better for this semi-macro work even sans TC.
I recently shot butterflies at two gardens and compared two lenses: the 100-400mm and 70-200mm II, each with the Sony 1.4X TC. With perched butterflies, I have not had any issue getting physically close, so going in I was thinking that the 70-200mm might have an advantage in two ways: a higher maximum magnification, and the ability to stop down further before reaching the same aperture size as the 100-400mm. Based on about a thousand shots with each, the 100-400mm had superior IQ at f/6.3 even compared to the 70-200mm at f/8, and I also felt the OIS was more...Show more →
Surely the slower 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 GM is the best bet for this sort of thing., 0.35x sans TC and a lot lighter for easier hand-holding. You get 0.35x on the new GM with the 1.4x and but you can't get more working distance despite the extra 160mm FL at that same 0.35x.
I'd be comparing the 100-400 f/4.5 to the 200-600G and it is definitely much better for this semi-macro work even sans TC.
Jun 30, 2026 at 12:03 AM
p.11 #2Sony 100-400 f/4.5
It’s not a flaw in your diamond dear, it’s a design choice so I could save money, get over it.
Cmon, never saw Sony advertise that the lenscreeps but we gave you a switch to control that.
I could see the SAR headlines, “Sony beats all others and creates first-ever internal zoom that creeps! Please pre-orders now!”
Cmon, never saw Sony advertise that the lenscreeps but we gave you a switch to control that.
I could see the SAR headlines, “Sony beats all others and creates first-ever internal zoom that creeps! Please pre-orders now!”
Jun 30, 2026 at 08:27 AM
p.11 #3Sony 100-400 f/4.5
These were taken at 2 different times with different cameras but my sense so far is the new 100-400 with 2X isn't terrible.
ILCE-1M2 FE 400-800mm F6.3-8 G OSS lens 800mm f/8.0 1/500s 320 ISO -0.7 EV
ILCE-7RM6 FE 100-400mm F4.5 GM OSS + 2X Teleconverter lens 800mm f/9.0 1/500s 400 ISO 0.0 EV
Jun 30, 2026 at 11:30 AM
p.11 #4Sony 100-400 f/4.5
100-400 f4.5 + 1.4X vs 300 f2.8 + 2X.
ILCE-1M2 FE 300mm F2.8 GM OSS + 2X Teleconverter lens 600mm f/8.0 1/500s 200 ISO -0.3 EV
ILCE-7RM6 FE 100-400mm F4.5 GM OSS + 1.4X Teleconverter lens 560mm f/6.3 1/500s 320 ISO 0.0 EV
Jun 30, 2026 at 11:51 AM
p.11 #5Sony 100-400 f/4.5
duncangr wrote:
I think this lens will actually have a positive impact on sales of the 2-6. I had a copy that was really strong at f7.1 and now I regret selling it.It's not a flaw - it's a design tradeoff - and they put a switch on to optionally prevent creep.
Sometimes you just can't have the cake and eat it too.
Get over it and move on now.
Yeah! When you look down the barrel and see how much glass is moving, and how far, its understandable. The lens is fantastic. It's designed to be able move quickly through the zoom range. I've been loving it so far.
ps09 wrote
As someone who was closely watching this lens as a possibly "perfect" kayak lens with 1.4, I am disappointed and question how a lens can be released with a flaw as obvious as the creep is? Do I want a $4000+ lens that has the creeps? No, honestly I don't. I want the lens to operate like my 70-200 gm ii and how the 2-6/4-8 did (sold them both). I saw this lens as 1/2 of a perfect "dual strap connected to foot" 2-camera setup. The other being the 300 + 2x. I could hop out of the truck or snow coach with 1-4 and 600mm (300/2x). No tripods or monopods. The thought of it creeping to 100 while it dangles is a deal breaker for me. I want the zoom buttery smooth like the other Sony internal lenses, not requiring a stiff setting to maintain my zoom setting. In the kayak (my kayaks are pedal driven) I normally rest the lens hood on my right thigh and secure the camera to my right shoulder with my right hand cradling the lens at the mount (left hand controls rudder). This lens would most certainly creep to 100 while I pedal to find my subject and would be at its widest setting when I would lift the camera to my eye. I think it would take me quite a while to develop muscle memory to crank the zoom as I lift it (I shoot maybe 1-2 days a week if I'm lucky). AND, I don't think I should have to develop a work-around technique to make up for the shortcomings of a lens that lists at more than $4k. I think they cheaped-out on something with this lens, either to keep the cost or weight down and I find it unacceptable. I'd be so pissed if I missed a shot because it crept to 100 because my gimbal or monopod were pointing down. I'd be better off with the 2-6 at f8.I think this lens will actually have a positive impact on sales of the 2-6. I had a copy that was really strong at f7.1 and now I regret selling it.
Sometimes you just can't have the cake and eat it too.
Get over it and move on now.
Yeah! When you look down the barrel and see how much glass is moving, and how far, its understandable. The lens is fantastic. It's designed to be able move quickly through the zoom range. I've been loving it so far.
Jun 30, 2026 at 01:09 PM
p.11 #6Sony 100-400 f/4.5
ps09 wrote:
It’s not a flaw in your diamond dear, it’s a design choice so I could save money, get over it.
On what basis did you confirm that “zoom creep” is a “design choice?”
It’s not a flaw in your diamond dear, it’s a design choice so I could save money, get over it.
On what basis did you confirm that “zoom creep” is a “design choice?”
Jun 30, 2026 at 02:03 PM
p.11 #7Sony 100-400 f/4.5
I actually didn't confirm it was a design choice.. Please review page 10 of this thread where duncangr replied to me,
"It's not a flaw - it's a design tradeoff - and they put a switch on to optionally prevent creep.
Sometimes you just can't have the cake and eat it too.
Get over it and move on now."
That is where the design choice, or trade-off idea, as he suggested came to be.
I was merely being sarcastic that just about any shortcoming could be described as a design tradeoff. Like in my own case, I am not overweight, God just didn't make me tall enough for my weight.
"It's not a flaw - it's a design tradeoff - and they put a switch on to optionally prevent creep.
Sometimes you just can't have the cake and eat it too.
Get over it and move on now."
That is where the design choice, or trade-off idea, as he suggested came to be.
I was merely being sarcastic that just about any shortcoming could be described as a design tradeoff. Like in my own case, I am not overweight, God just didn't make me tall enough for my weight.
Jun 30, 2026 at 02:34 PM
p.11 #8Sony 100-400 f/4.5
Personally, the zoom creep would not stop me from buying this lens. It could very well just be a fact that the zoom elements in this lens weigh so much that if you want a zoom that is loose enough for quick flicks, it's going to creep when stored vertically. But I do get that it's annoying that such expensive gear has rough edges that can impact someone's use case. Sony has definitely made tradeoffs on other products that have annoyed me or have prevented me from buying them. Personally, I find it a lot easier to ignore issues with cheaper gear then on high ticket items. In this case, we are talking about the 4th most expensive lens in Sony's lineup, so expectations will be high.
Jun 30, 2026 at 04:08 PM
p.11 #9Sony 100-400 f/4.5
Perhaps someone already posted this, but here is the TDP comparison of the 100-400/4.5 w/1.4x and 200-600. The IQ looks similar at teh long end. It's a long link so may require copying.
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1778&Camera=1538&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=1&LensComp=1438&CameraComp=1175&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=1
Don't compare either to the 600/4, because that is what a sharp lens corner to corner, with no color smear or other defects looks like.
The 100-400/4.5 at 400mm plus the 2x does not look so good at 800mm. The 400-800 is much better at 800mm.
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1778&Camera=1538&Sample=0&FLI=6&API=2&LensComp=1727&CameraComp=1538&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0
Of course the 100-400/4.5 by itself looks really nice.
EBH
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1778&Camera=1538&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=1&LensComp=1438&CameraComp=1175&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=1
Don't compare either to the 600/4, because that is what a sharp lens corner to corner, with no color smear or other defects looks like.
The 100-400/4.5 at 400mm plus the 2x does not look so good at 800mm. The 400-800 is much better at 800mm.
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1778&Camera=1538&Sample=0&FLI=6&API=2&LensComp=1727&CameraComp=1538&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0
Of course the 100-400/4.5 by itself looks really nice.
EBH
Jun 30, 2026 at 05:21 PM
p.11 #10Sony 100-400 f/4.5
EB-1 wrote:
Perhaps someone already posted this, but here is the TDP comparison of the 100-400/4.5 w/1.4x and 200-600. The IQ looks similar at teh long end. It's a long link so may require copying.
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1778&Camera=1538&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=1&LensComp=1438&CameraComp=1175&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=1
Don't compare either to the 600/4, because that is what a sharp lens corner to corner, with no color smear or other defects looks like.
The 100-400/4.5 at 400mm plus the 2x does not look so good at 800mm. The 400-800 is much better at 800mm.
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1778&Camera=1538&Sample=0&FLI=6&API=2&LensComp=1727&CameraComp=1538&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0
Of course the 100-400/4.5 by itself looks really nice.
EBH
At 800mm f/9 with the 2X TC it doesn't really even keep up with the Canon RF 200-800 f/6.3-9 at 800 f/9:
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1778&Camera=1538&Sample=0&FLI=6&API=2&LensComp=1677&CameraComp=1508&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0
Such tests aren't everything, but I would say it isn't a great performance with the 2X TC of at least that particular copy of the lens
Perhaps someone already posted this, but here is the TDP comparison of the 100-400/4.5 w/1.4x and 200-600. The IQ looks similar at teh long end. It's a long link so may require copying.
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1778&Camera=1538&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=1&LensComp=1438&CameraComp=1175&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=1
Don't compare either to the 600/4, because that is what a sharp lens corner to corner, with no color smear or other defects looks like.
The 100-400/4.5 at 400mm plus the 2x does not look so good at 800mm. The 400-800 is much better at 800mm.
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1778&Camera=1538&Sample=0&FLI=6&API=2&LensComp=1727&CameraComp=1538&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0
Of course the 100-400/4.5 by itself looks really nice.
EBH
At 800mm f/9 with the 2X TC it doesn't really even keep up with the Canon RF 200-800 f/6.3-9 at 800 f/9:
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1778&Camera=1538&Sample=0&FLI=6&API=2&LensComp=1677&CameraComp=1508&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0
Such tests aren't everything, but I would say it isn't a great performance with the 2X TC of at least that particular copy of the lens
Jun 30, 2026 at 05:43 PM
|
p.11 #11Sony 100-400 f/4.5
100-400/2x
Everyone will have different opinions on these...
Everyone will have different opinions on these...
ILCE-1M2 FE 100-400mm F4.5 GM OSS + 2X Teleconverter lens 800mm f/9.0 1/2000s 1600 ISO 0.0 EV
ILCE-1M2 FE 100-400mm F4.5 GM OSS + 2X Teleconverter lens 800mm f/9.0 1/4000s 2500 ISO 0.0 EV
ILCE-1M2 FE 100-400mm F4.5 GM OSS + 2X Teleconverter lens 800mm f/9.0 1/4000s 2500 ISO 0.0 EV
ILCE-1M2 FE 100-400mm F4.5 GM OSS + 2X Teleconverter lens 800mm f/9.0 1/2500s 1250 ISO 0.0 EV
Jun 30, 2026 at 06:40 PM
p.11 #12Sony 100-400 f/4.5
ps09 wrote:
As someone who was closely watching this lens as a possibly "perfect" kayak lens with 1.4, I am disappointed and question how a lens can be released with a flaw as obvious as the creep is? Do I want a $4000+ lens that has the creeps? No, honestly I don't. I want the lens to operate like my 70-200 gm ii and how the 2-6/4-8 did (sold them both). I saw this lens as 1/2 of a perfect "dual strap connected to foot" 2-camera setup. The other being the 300 + 2x. I could hop out of the truck or...Show more →
If that is what you want then this isn't the lens for you.
But IMO it is a much better lens than the 200-600. I've never used the 400-800 but would have no interest in that behemoth.
I've done many days of kayak shooting with the lens so far. I've had zero issues with creep in the kayak. It is for sure one of the best kayak lenses I've owned. And kayaking was the primary reason I bought it.
It sounds like your biggest worry is it not being at 400mm. So leave it on tight, it will be at 400mm. If you need to zoom out then just zoom out. It is easy to zoom out on Tight. It isn't like you will struggle to zoom it out. I prefer to shoot BIF (acquire wider, zoom in) on Loose but I've also done it on Tight without issue.
As someone who was closely watching this lens as a possibly "perfect" kayak lens with 1.4, I am disappointed and question how a lens can be released with a flaw as obvious as the creep is? Do I want a $4000+ lens that has the creeps? No, honestly I don't. I want the lens to operate like my 70-200 gm ii and how the 2-6/4-8 did (sold them both). I saw this lens as 1/2 of a perfect "dual strap connected to foot" 2-camera setup. The other being the 300 + 2x. I could hop out of the truck or...Show more →
If that is what you want then this isn't the lens for you.
But IMO it is a much better lens than the 200-600. I've never used the 400-800 but would have no interest in that behemoth.
I've done many days of kayak shooting with the lens so far. I've had zero issues with creep in the kayak. It is for sure one of the best kayak lenses I've owned. And kayaking was the primary reason I bought it.
It sounds like your biggest worry is it not being at 400mm. So leave it on tight, it will be at 400mm. If you need to zoom out then just zoom out. It is easy to zoom out on Tight. It isn't like you will struggle to zoom it out. I prefer to shoot BIF (acquire wider, zoom in) on Loose but I've also done it on Tight without issue.
Jun 30, 2026 at 06:47 PM
p.11 #13Sony 100-400 f/4.5
EB-1 wrote:
Perhaps someone already posted this, but here is the TDP comparison of the 100-400/4.5 w/1.4x and 200-600. The IQ looks similar at teh long end. It's a long link so may require copying.
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1778&Camera=1538&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=1&LensComp=1438&CameraComp=1175&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=1
Don't compare either to the 600/4, because that is what a sharp lens corner to corner, with no color smear or other defects looks like.
The 100-400/4.5 at 400mm plus the 2x does not look so good at 800mm. The 400-800 is much better at 800mm.
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1778&Camera=1538&Sample=0&FLI=6&API=2&LensComp=1727&CameraComp=1538&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0
Of course the 100-400/4.5 by itself looks really nice.
EBH
Interesting observations
1) Notice the chart size is smaller with the 200-600, even though the 1-400 is only at 560mm. I'm not sure about the test distance, but the 200-600 must be less than 560mm at that distance.
2) Compare it to the 400 f2.8, the 1-400 holds its own right up to 800 with the 2x, better than the 2.8 in the centre but not in the corners.
3) The 400-800 rules the roost at 800mm whether the 1-400 with 2x, 200-600 with 1.4x.
Perhaps someone already posted this, but here is the TDP comparison of the 100-400/4.5 w/1.4x and 200-600. The IQ looks similar at teh long end. It's a long link so may require copying.
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1778&Camera=1538&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=1&LensComp=1438&CameraComp=1175&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=1
Don't compare either to the 600/4, because that is what a sharp lens corner to corner, with no color smear or other defects looks like.
The 100-400/4.5 at 400mm plus the 2x does not look so good at 800mm. The 400-800 is much better at 800mm.
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1778&Camera=1538&Sample=0&FLI=6&API=2&LensComp=1727&CameraComp=1538&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0
Of course the 100-400/4.5 by itself looks really nice.
EBH
Interesting observations
1) Notice the chart size is smaller with the 200-600, even though the 1-400 is only at 560mm. I'm not sure about the test distance, but the 200-600 must be less than 560mm at that distance.
2) Compare it to the 400 f2.8, the 1-400 holds its own right up to 800 with the 2x, better than the 2.8 in the centre but not in the corners.
3) The 400-800 rules the roost at 800mm whether the 1-400 with 2x, 200-600 with 1.4x.
Jun 30, 2026 at 06:50 PM
p.11 #14Sony 100-400 f/4.5
arbitrage wrote:
I think this lens will actually have a positive impact on sales of the 2-6. I had a copy that was really strong at f7.1 and now I regret selling it.If that is what you want then this isn't the lens for you.
But IMO it is a much better lens than the 200-600. I've never used the 400-800 but would have no interest in that behemoth.
I've done many days of kayak shooting with the lens so far. I've had zero issues with creep in the kayak. It is for sure one of the best kayak lenses I've owned. And kayaking was the primary reason I bought it.
It sounds like your biggest worry is it not being at 400mm. So leave it on tight, it will be at 400mm. If...Show more →
I have the 400-800, and while sharp, its weight, slow f-stop, and limited zoom range make it a special use lens for me. The 100-400 really checks the boxes for me. Perfectly usable with 1.4x and 2x; I can do macro; the weight is good; and autofocus is excellent. I was very skeptical of this lens at first, but it's now my goto lens.
ps09 wrote
As someone who was closely watching this lens as a possibly "perfect" kayak lens with 1.4, I am disappointed and question how a lens can be released with a flaw as obvious as the creep is? Do I want a $4000+ lens that has the creeps? No, honestly I don't. I want the lens to operate like my 70-200 gm ii and how the 2-6/4-8 did (sold them both). I saw this lens as 1/2 of a perfect "dual strap connected to foot" 2-camera setup. The other being the 300 + 2x. I could hop out of the truck or snow coach with 1-4 and 600mm (300/2x). No tripods or monopods. The thought of it creeping to 100 while it dangles is a deal breaker for me. I want the zoom buttery smooth like the other Sony internal lenses, not requiring a stiff setting to maintain my zoom setting. In the kayak (my kayaks are pedal driven) I normally rest the lens hood on my right thigh and secure the camera to my right shoulder with my right hand cradling the lens at the mount (left hand controls rudder). This lens would most certainly creep to 100 while I pedal to find my subject and would be at its widest setting when I would lift the camera to my eye. I think it would take me quite a while to develop muscle memory to crank the zoom as I lift it (I shoot maybe 1-2 days a week if I'm lucky). AND, I don't think I should have to develop a work-around technique to make up for the shortcomings of a lens that lists at more than $4k. I think they cheaped-out on something with this lens, either to keep the cost or weight down and I find it unacceptable. I'd be so pissed if I missed a shot because it crept to 100 because my gimbal or monopod were pointing down. I'd be better off with the 2-6 at f8.I think this lens will actually have a positive impact on sales of the 2-6. I had a copy that was really strong at f7.1 and now I regret selling it.
But IMO it is a much better lens than the 200-600. I've never used the 400-800 but would have no interest in that behemoth.
I've done many days of kayak shooting with the lens so far. I've had zero issues with creep in the kayak. It is for sure one of the best kayak lenses I've owned. And kayaking was the primary reason I bought it.
It sounds like your biggest worry is it not being at 400mm. So leave it on tight, it will be at 400mm. If...Show more →
I have the 400-800, and while sharp, its weight, slow f-stop, and limited zoom range make it a special use lens for me. The 100-400 really checks the boxes for me. Perfectly usable with 1.4x and 2x; I can do macro; the weight is good; and autofocus is excellent. I was very skeptical of this lens at first, but it's now my goto lens.
Jun 30, 2026 at 06:54 PM
p.11 #15Sony 100-400 f/4.5
scott f wrote:
Interesting observations
1) Notice the chart size is smaller with the 200-600, even though the 1-400 is only at 560mm. I'm not sure about the test distance, but the 200-600 must be less than 560mm at that distance.
2) Compare it to the 400 f2.8, the 1-400 holds its own right up to 800 with the 2x, better than the 2.8 in the centre but not in the corners.
3) The 400-800 rules the roost at 800mm whether the 1-400 with 2x, 200-600 with 1.4x.
200-600G is well known to be short at the 600mm end and closer to 560mm at infinity.
I thought about the 400-800 for a few seconds but then saw the poor aperture changeover points making it f/8 from ~593mm, I could not deal with slower than f/6.3 @ 600mm and to add another 400g on top of that - no thanks
This is why Sony needs another GM IMO: Either
1) 600 f/5.6GM ~ 1.8kg
2) 300-600 f/5.6GM ~ 2.5kg.
I prefer to partner a 600mm prime with the 100-400 f/4.5 but a 300-600 would also be nice and you get 420-840 f/8 when you need that reach. I wish Sigma had of done this rather than the super-heavy 300-600 f/4
I think the prime could easily sell in the $5-6K range, and I'd be happy with polycarbonate body to keep weight and price down compared to the other supertele primes. Just look at what Nikon did with the crazy light 400 f/4.5. I was hoping they would do more like that so 500 f/4.5 next.
Interesting observations
1) Notice the chart size is smaller with the 200-600, even though the 1-400 is only at 560mm. I'm not sure about the test distance, but the 200-600 must be less than 560mm at that distance.
2) Compare it to the 400 f2.8, the 1-400 holds its own right up to 800 with the 2x, better than the 2.8 in the centre but not in the corners.
3) The 400-800 rules the roost at 800mm whether the 1-400 with 2x, 200-600 with 1.4x.
200-600G is well known to be short at the 600mm end and closer to 560mm at infinity.
I thought about the 400-800 for a few seconds but then saw the poor aperture changeover points making it f/8 from ~593mm, I could not deal with slower than f/6.3 @ 600mm and to add another 400g on top of that - no thanks
This is why Sony needs another GM IMO: Either
1) 600 f/5.6GM ~ 1.8kg
2) 300-600 f/5.6GM ~ 2.5kg.
I prefer to partner a 600mm prime with the 100-400 f/4.5 but a 300-600 would also be nice and you get 420-840 f/8 when you need that reach. I wish Sigma had of done this rather than the super-heavy 300-600 f/4
I think the prime could easily sell in the $5-6K range, and I'd be happy with polycarbonate body to keep weight and price down compared to the other supertele primes. Just look at what Nikon did with the crazy light 400 f/4.5. I was hoping they would do more like that so 500 f/4.5 next.
Jun 30, 2026 at 08:52 PM
p.11 #16Sony 100-400 f/4.5
arbitrage wrote:
100-400/2x
Everyone will have different opinions on these...
I'd have to see the RAW files. Is the subject relatively centered and at 100% crop? Certainly the center is usually better than the edges.
EBH
100-400/2x
Everyone will have different opinions on these...
I'd have to see the RAW files. Is the subject relatively centered and at 100% crop? Certainly the center is usually better than the edges.
EBH
Jun 30, 2026 at 08:55 PM
p.11 #17Sony 100-400 f/4.5
FWIW, I have the 200-600, the 300, and I had the new 100-400 but I returned it to B&H. To me the 300 is incredibly sharp and takes teleconverters extremely well. I seem to have gotten a very good copy of the 200-600. No complaints at all. On the other hand, I seem to have gotten a bad copy of the new 100-400. It was excellent wide open, but terrible stopped down. So, I had to return it. Very disappointing.
Jun 30, 2026 at 09:14 PM
p.11 #18Sony 100-400 f/4.5
lens foot from Leofoto is available now.
https://leofotousa.com/products/leofoto-sf-06-lens-foot-replacement-for-sony-fe-4-5-100-400-gm
https://leofotousa.com/products/leofoto-sf-06-lens-foot-replacement-for-sony-fe-4-5-100-400-gm
Jul 01, 2026 at 09:04 AM
p.11 #19Sony 100-400 f/4.5
Alex Phan wrote:
lens foot from Leofoto is available now.
https://leofotousa.com/products/leofoto-sf-06-lens-foot-replacement-for-sony-fe-4-5-100-400-gm
Thanks! Just ordered it.
lens foot from Leofoto is available now.
https://leofotousa.com/products/leofoto-sf-06-lens-foot-replacement-for-sony-fe-4-5-100-400-gm
Thanks! Just ordered it.
Jul 01, 2026 at 09:10 AM
p.11 #20Sony 100-400 f/4.5
ketang wrote:
https://leofotousa.com/products/leofoto-sf-06-lens-foot-replacement-for-sony-fe-4-5-100-400-gmThanks! Just ordered it.
don't forget to use the "thankyou20" for extra 20% off.
Alex Phan wrote
lens foot from Leofoto is available now.https://leofotousa.com/products/leofoto-sf-06-lens-foot-replacement-for-sony-fe-4-5-100-400-gm
don't forget to use the "thankyou20" for extra 20% off.
Jul 01, 2026 at 09:28 AM