Sony 100-400 f/4.5
p.12 #1Sony 100-400 f/4.5
garyroach wrote:
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.
Can you show this? It seems weird that a lens flaw would get worse when stopped down. Usually most flaws clean up when stopping down. Except diffraction that is.
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.
Can you show this? It seems weird that a lens flaw would get worse when stopped down. Usually most flaws clean up when stopping down. Except diffraction that is.
Jul 01, 2026 at 10:27 AM
p.12 #2Sony 100-400 f/4.5
garyroach wrote:
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.
That is very odd. Can you tell us more about the nature of the “terrible” issue and how far you stopped down to see it?
Typically a lens would improve at least a bit (max sharpness, vignetting, corner sharpness) as you begin to stop down, likely up to at least (and probably a bit beyond) the diffraction-limited aperture for your camera, then lose some sharpness as diffraction sets it — though on a full frame camera that should be far, far from “terrible” until at or past f/16, to say the least.
Something isn’t quite making sense here.
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.
That is very odd. Can you tell us more about the nature of the “terrible” issue and how far you stopped down to see it?
Typically a lens would improve at least a bit (max sharpness, vignetting, corner sharpness) as you begin to stop down, likely up to at least (and probably a bit beyond) the diffraction-limited aperture for your camera, then lose some sharpness as diffraction sets it — though on a full frame camera that should be far, far from “terrible” until at or past f/16, to say the least.
Something isn’t quite making sense here.
Jul 01, 2026 at 12:44 PM
p.12 #3Sony 100-400 f/4.5
gdanmitchell wrote:
That is very odd. Can you tell us more about the nature of the “terrible” issue and how far you stopped down to see it?
Typically a lens would improve at least a bit (max sharpness, vignetting, corner sharpness) as you begin to stop down, likely up to at least (and probably a bit beyond) the diffraction-limited aperture for your camera, then lose some sharpness as diffraction sets it — though on a full frame camera that should be far, far from “terrible” until at or past f/16, to say the least.
Something isn’t quite making sense here.
Actually, from the physics perspective it all makes perfect sense. The widest aperture is, at least theoretically, the most resolving aperture, with diffraction eating away resolution at all smaller apertures not just f/16. The best process lenses behave this way, and the top photographic lenses are starting to approach this level. The 400-800, for example, behaves like this, and many top GM lenses are very similar, achieving their highest resolving power just one stop shy of wide open.
Whether this is the case with the Gary's copy is, of course, unknown.
garyroach wrote
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.Typically a lens would improve at least a bit (max sharpness, vignetting, corner sharpness) as you begin to stop down, likely up to at least (and probably a bit beyond) the diffraction-limited aperture for your camera, then lose some sharpness as diffraction sets it — though on a full frame camera that should be far, far from “terrible” until at or past f/16, to say the least.
Something isn’t quite making sense here.
Actually, from the physics perspective it all makes perfect sense. The widest aperture is, at least theoretically, the most resolving aperture, with diffraction eating away resolution at all smaller apertures not just f/16. The best process lenses behave this way, and the top photographic lenses are starting to approach this level. The 400-800, for example, behaves like this, and many top GM lenses are very similar, achieving their highest resolving power just one stop shy of wide open.
Whether this is the case with the Gary's copy is, of course, unknown.
Jul 01, 2026 at 01:09 PM
p.12 #4Sony 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
I hope they take less than 12 weeks to ship it like my 200-600G replacement foot!
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
I hope they take less than 12 weeks to ship it like my 200-600G replacement foot!
Jul 01, 2026 at 09:21 PM
p.12 #5Sony 100-400 f/4.5
Pixel Perfect wrote:
https://leofotousa.com/products/leofoto-sf-06-lens-foot-replacement-for-sony-fe-4-5-100-400-gmI hope they take less than 12 weeks to ship it like my 200-600G replacement foot!
lol..hope not.
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
lol..hope not.
Jul 01, 2026 at 09:25 PM
p.12 #6Sony 100-400 f/4.5
old-gregg wrote:
That is very odd. Can you tell us more about the nature of the “terrible” issue and how far you stopped down to see it?
Typically a lens would improve at least a bit (max sharpness, vignetting, corner sharpness) as you begin to stop down, likely up to at least (and probably a bit beyond) the diffraction-limited aperture for your camera, then lose some sharpness as diffraction sets it — though on a full frame camera that should be far, far from “terrible” until at or past f/16, to say the least.
Something isn’t quite making sense here.Actually, from the physics perspective it all makes perfect sense. The widest aperture is, at least theoretically, the most resolving aperture, with diffraction eating away resolution at all smaller apertures not just f/16. The best process lenses behave this way, and the top photographic lenses are starting to approach this level. The 400-800, for example, behaves like this, and many top GM lenses are very similar, achieving their highest resolving power just one stop shy of wide open.
Whether this is the case with the Gary's copy is, of course, unknown.
Diffraction is but one aspect of optical performance, and many other lens design issues lean toward the largest aperture not being the sharpest, especially in corners.
The reason I’m interested in hearing more specifics about his issue is that it is hard to imagine that a lens that produces good/excellent performance at, say, the diffraction-limited aperture for one’s camera would then be “terrible” at smaller apertures that we’d typically use, at least in a way that was different than the expected and normal effect of diffraction on all lenses.
If this is diffraction, it isn’t going to be “terrible,” since diffraction is an optical quality that affects all lenses essentially equally, whether they are otherwise good or bad. It would have to be due to some other cause — one that is hard to imagine in such a lens.
So, no, it does not make perfect sense, at least without some additional information.
EDIT: Have I mentioned how much I hate auto-correct? I’ve edited this to fix several AC-induced errors that made it sound like I was hallucinating from I wrote it. (Yeah, I know. A few of you have always assumed that about me… ;-)
Edited on Jul 02, 2026 at 09:12 AM · View previous versions
gdanmitchell wrote
garyroach wrote
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.Typically a lens would improve at least a bit (max sharpness, vignetting, corner sharpness) as you begin to stop down, likely up to at least (and probably a bit beyond) the diffraction-limited aperture for your camera, then lose some sharpness as diffraction sets it — though on a full frame camera that should be far, far from “terrible” until at or past f/16, to say the least.
Something isn’t quite making sense here.
Whether this is the case with the Gary's copy is, of course, unknown.
Diffraction is but one aspect of optical performance, and many other lens design issues lean toward the largest aperture not being the sharpest, especially in corners.
The reason I’m interested in hearing more specifics about his issue is that it is hard to imagine that a lens that produces good/excellent performance at, say, the diffraction-limited aperture for one’s camera would then be “terrible” at smaller apertures that we’d typically use, at least in a way that was different than the expected and normal effect of diffraction on all lenses.
If this is diffraction, it isn’t going to be “terrible,” since diffraction is an optical quality that affects all lenses essentially equally, whether they are otherwise good or bad. It would have to be due to some other cause — one that is hard to imagine in such a lens.
So, no, it does not make perfect sense, at least without some additional information.
EDIT: Have I mentioned how much I hate auto-correct? I’ve edited this to fix several AC-induced errors that made it sound like I was hallucinating from I wrote it. (Yeah, I know. A few of you have always assumed that about me… ;-)
Edited on Jul 02, 2026 at 09:12 AM · View previous versions
Jul 01, 2026 at 10:17 PM
p.12 #7Sony 100-400 f/4.5
I always take super scientific photos of the brick wall of my house. If I get time I'll post those. It's been my experience that one of the differences between G and GM lenses, is that GM lenses are generally sharp throughout the f stop range, where the G lenses tend to not be as sharp when stopped all the way down. I never shoot with my lenses stopped all the way down, so the point might be moot. But, if I'm paying for GM glass I like to get GM results. On the other hand, my 200-600 G outperformed my expectations.
Jul 02, 2026 at 05:29 AM
p.12 #8Sony 100-400 f/4.5
Pixel Perfect wrote:
https://leofotousa.com/products/leofoto-sf-06-lens-foot-replacement-for-sony-fe-4-5-100-400-gmI hope they take less than 12 weeks to ship it like my 200-600G replacement foot!
FWIW, I ordered mine yesterday morning and got a shipping notification later in the afternoon.
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
FWIW, I ordered mine yesterday morning and got a shipping notification later in the afternoon.
Jul 02, 2026 at 06:39 AM
p.12 #9Sony 100-400 f/4.5
Curious if anyone is having issues where the lens AF becomes completely unresponsive.
I am having this occur intermittently, but it does happen almost every outing. Sometimes I can repeatedly half-press the shutter button about 10times to fix it, and sometimes I end up power cycling the camera (which always restores the function on the first attempt). I'm not having this issue with any other lens I own.
I am having this occur intermittently, but it does happen almost every outing. Sometimes I can repeatedly half-press the shutter button about 10times to fix it, and sometimes I end up power cycling the camera (which always restores the function on the first attempt). I'm not having this issue with any other lens I own.
Jul 02, 2026 at 07:24 AM
p.12 #10Sony 100-400 f/4.5
garyroach wrote:
I always take super scientific photos of the brick wall of my house. If I get time I'll post those. It's been my experience that one of the differences between G and GM lenses, is that GM lenses are generally sharp throughout the f stop range, where the G lenses tend to not be as sharp when stopped all the way down. I never shoot with my lenses stopped all the way down, so the point might be moot. But, if I'm paying for GM glass I like to get GM results. On the other hand, my 200-600 G outperformed...Show more →
If by “stopped all the way down” you mean an aperture like f/32 (the smallest on that lens), you’ll very definitely see diffraction blur with any lens at such apertures if you look at all closely.
That does not reflect on the quality of the lens at all. Diffraction comes on as you stop down at the same rate on every lens, from the most expensive to the cheapest.
I always take super scientific photos of the brick wall of my house. If I get time I'll post those. It's been my experience that one of the differences between G and GM lenses, is that GM lenses are generally sharp throughout the f stop range, where the G lenses tend to not be as sharp when stopped all the way down. I never shoot with my lenses stopped all the way down, so the point might be moot. But, if I'm paying for GM glass I like to get GM results. On the other hand, my 200-600 G outperformed...Show more →
If by “stopped all the way down” you mean an aperture like f/32 (the smallest on that lens), you’ll very definitely see diffraction blur with any lens at such apertures if you look at all closely.
That does not reflect on the quality of the lens at all. Diffraction comes on as you stop down at the same rate on every lens, from the most expensive to the cheapest.
Jul 02, 2026 at 09:14 AM
|
p.12 #12Sony 100-400 f/4.5
gdanmitchell wrote:
If by “stopped all the way down” you mean an aperture like f/32 (the smallest on that lens), you’ll very definitely see diffraction blur with any lens at such apertures if you look at all closely.
That does not reflect on the quality of the lens at all. Diffraction comes on as you stop down at the same rate on every lens, from the most expensive to the cheapest.
When doing my super scientific tests, I'll put the lens on a camera. Make sure it's set to autofocus. In this case I put the lens on each of my A7RV cameras and ran the test twice. I ran the test on both cameras because the first test wasn't what I expected. But, the results were the same on both cameras. The camera and lens goes on a stable tripod and head set up outside of the minimum focusing distance. And I stand there like an idiot photographing the back of my house. I'll start at the shortest focal length for zooms,100mm for this lens, and set the aperture at it's widest, 4.5 in this case, take a shot, stop the lens down one stop, take another shot, until I get to the smallest aperture. For the 100-400 f4.5 I repeated this process at 200mm and 400mm. I've done this with many lenses over the 20 years that I've lived in this house. So I think I have a pretty good idea of what to expect. I was disappointed with the lens, so I sent it back.
garyroach wrote
I always take super scientific photos of the brick wall of my house. If I get time I'll post those. It's been my experience that one of the differences between G and GM lenses, is that GM lenses are generally sharp throughout the f stop range, where the G lenses tend to not be as sharp when stopped all the way down. I never shoot with my lenses stopped all the way down, so the point might be moot. But, if I'm paying for GM glass I like to get GM results. On the other hand, my 200-600 G outperformed my expectations.That does not reflect on the quality of the lens at all. Diffraction comes on as you stop down at the same rate on every lens, from the most expensive to the cheapest.
When doing my super scientific tests, I'll put the lens on a camera. Make sure it's set to autofocus. In this case I put the lens on each of my A7RV cameras and ran the test twice. I ran the test on both cameras because the first test wasn't what I expected. But, the results were the same on both cameras. The camera and lens goes on a stable tripod and head set up outside of the minimum focusing distance. And I stand there like an idiot photographing the back of my house. I'll start at the shortest focal length for zooms,100mm for this lens, and set the aperture at it's widest, 4.5 in this case, take a shot, stop the lens down one stop, take another shot, until I get to the smallest aperture. For the 100-400 f4.5 I repeated this process at 200mm and 400mm. I've done this with many lenses over the 20 years that I've lived in this house. So I think I have a pretty good idea of what to expect. I was disappointed with the lens, so I sent it back.
Jul 02, 2026 at 01:50 PM
p.12 #13Sony 100-400 f/4.5
BH has the 100-400 is stock, but a dire warning.
Packaging reveals contents: Manufacturer's shipping box may disclose what is inside. If discretion poses a concern, you may ship to another address or switch to Store Pickup.
Is it correct that BH or other stores are shipping the 100-400/4.5 without being in an outer carton? I don't care about discretion, but lens protection from impact! Normally I only see large products like printers or TVs/monitors, microwaved ovens, etc. shipped in the original box, but those heavy-duty boxes are designed for shipment without extra protection.
EBH
Packaging reveals contents: Manufacturer's shipping box may disclose what is inside. If discretion poses a concern, you may ship to another address or switch to Store Pickup.
Is it correct that BH or other stores are shipping the 100-400/4.5 without being in an outer carton? I don't care about discretion, but lens protection from impact! Normally I only see large products like printers or TVs/monitors, microwaved ovens, etc. shipped in the original box, but those heavy-duty boxes are designed for shipment without extra protection.
EBH
Jul 02, 2026 at 02:27 PM
p.12 #14Sony 100-400 f/4.5
EB-1 wrote:
BH has the 100-400 is stock, but a dire warning.
Packaging reveals contents: Manufacturer's shipping box may disclose what is inside. If discretion poses a concern, you may ship to another address or switch to Store Pickup.
Is it correct that BH or other stores are shipping the 100-400/4.5 without being in an outer carton? I don't care about discretion, but lens protection from impact! Normally I only see large products like printers or TVs/monitors, microwaved ovens, etc. shipped in the original box, but those heavy-duty boxes are designed for shipment without extra protection.
EBH
The one I received recently was double boxed. The lens was in a Sony box and that box was in a larger box. It even had a decent amount of air bags in it which is not always the case with B&H..
BH has the 100-400 is stock, but a dire warning.
Packaging reveals contents: Manufacturer's shipping box may disclose what is inside. If discretion poses a concern, you may ship to another address or switch to Store Pickup.
Is it correct that BH or other stores are shipping the 100-400/4.5 without being in an outer carton? I don't care about discretion, but lens protection from impact! Normally I only see large products like printers or TVs/monitors, microwaved ovens, etc. shipped in the original box, but those heavy-duty boxes are designed for shipment without extra protection.
EBH
The one I received recently was double boxed. The lens was in a Sony box and that box was in a larger box. It even had a decent amount of air bags in it which is not always the case with B&H..
Jul 02, 2026 at 03:33 PM
p.12 #15Sony 100-400 f/4.5
garyroach wrote:
If by “stopped all the way down” you mean an aperture like f/32 (the smallest on that lens), you’ll very definitely see diffraction blur with any lens at such apertures if you look at all closely.
That does not reflect on the quality of the lens at all. Diffraction comes on as you stop down at the same rate on every lens, from the most expensive to the cheapest.When doing my super scientific tests, I'll put the lens on a camera. Make sure it's set to autofocus. In this case I put the lens on each of my A7RV cameras and ran the test twice. I ran the test on both cameras because the first test wasn't what I expected. But, the results were the same on both cameras. The camera and lens goes on a stable tripod and head set up outside of the minimum focusing distance. And I stand there like an idiot photographing the back of my house. I'll start at the shortest focal length...Show more →
At what aperture did it become “terrible” in your estimation? And do you still have the files that you can share?
- - -
EB-1 wrote:
BH has the 100-400 is stock, but a dire warning.
EBH
I’ve never had a camera or lens shipped from B&H in just the manufacturer’s box. Perhaps you might ask B&H if they ship it in an enclosing box, or perhaps just request that they do this.
gdanmitchell wrote
garyroach wrote
I always take super scientific photos of the brick wall of my house. If I get time I'll post those. It's been my experience that one of the differences between G and GM lenses, is that GM lenses are generally sharp throughout the f stop range, where the G lenses tend to not be as sharp when stopped all the way down. I never shoot with my lenses stopped all the way down, so the point might be moot. But, if I'm paying for GM glass I like to get GM results. On the other hand, my 200-600 G outperformed my expectations.That does not reflect on the quality of the lens at all. Diffraction comes on as you stop down at the same rate on every lens, from the most expensive to the cheapest.
At what aperture did it become “terrible” in your estimation? And do you still have the files that you can share?
- - -
EB-1 wrote:
BH has the 100-400 is stock, but a dire warning.
EBH
I’ve never had a camera or lens shipped from B&H in just the manufacturer’s box. Perhaps you might ask B&H if they ship it in an enclosing box, or perhaps just request that they do this.
Jul 02, 2026 at 04:28 PM
p.12 #16Sony 100-400 f/4.5
gdanmitchell wrote:
garyroach wrote:
If by “stopped all the way down” you mean an aperture like f/32 (the smallest on that lens), you’ll very definitely see diffraction blur with any lens at such apertures if you look at all closely.
That does not reflect on the quality of the lens at all. Diffraction comes on as you stop down at the same rate on every lens, from the most expensive to the cheapest.When doing my super scientific tests, I'll put the lens on a camera. Make sure it's set to autofocus. In this case I put the lens on each of my A7RV cameras and ran the test twice. I ran the test on both cameras because the first test wasn't what I expected. But, the results were the same on both cameras. The camera and lens goes on a stable tripod and head set up outside of the minimum focusing distance. And I stand there like an idiot photographing the back of my house. I'll start at the shortest focal length...Show more →
At what aperture did it become “terrible” in your estimation? And do you still have the files that you can share?
- - -
In my estimation it was terrible stopped all the way down. I would say it was bad even opened up one stop. It was surprising for a GM lens. I'll post photos if I have time.
garyroach wrote:
gdanmitchell wrote
garyroach wrote
I always take super scientific photos of the brick wall of my house. If I get time I'll post those. It's been my experience that one of the differences between G and GM lenses, is that GM lenses are generally sharp throughout the f stop range, where the G lenses tend to not be as sharp when stopped all the way down. I never shoot with my lenses stopped all the way down, so the point might be moot. But, if I'm paying for GM glass I like to get GM results. On the other hand, my 200-600 G outperformed my expectations.That does not reflect on the quality of the lens at all. Diffraction comes on as you stop down at the same rate on every lens, from the most expensive to the cheapest.
At what aperture did it become “terrible” in your estimation? And do you still have the files that you can share?
- - -
In my estimation it was terrible stopped all the way down. I would say it was bad even opened up one stop. It was surprising for a GM lens. I'll post photos if I have time.
Jul 02, 2026 at 05:10 PM
p.12 #17Sony 100-400 f/4.5
At what aperture did it become “terrible” in your estimation? And do you still have the files that you can share?
- - -
In my estimation it was terrible stopped all the way down. I would say it was bad even opened up one stop. It was surprising for a GM lens. I'll post photos if I have time.
100mm f4.5
Jul 02, 2026 at 09:09 PM
p.12 #18Sony 100-400 f/4.5
At what aperture did it become “terrible” in your estimation? And do you still have the files that you can share?
- - -
In my estimation it was terrible stopped all the way down. I would say it was bad even opened up one stop. It was surprising for a GM lens. I'll post photos if I have time.
100mm f32
ILCE-7RM5 FE 100-400mm F4.5 GM OSS lens 65535 lens 100mm f/32.0 1/90s 8000 ISO -0.5 EV
Jul 02, 2026 at 09:11 PM
p.12 #19Sony 100-400 f/4.5
At what aperture did it become “terrible” in your estimation? And do you still have the files that you can share?
- - -
In my estimation it was terrible stopped all the way down. I would say it was bad even opened up one stop. It was surprising for a GM lens. I'll post photos if I have time.
ILCE-7RM5 FE 100-400mm F4.5 GM OSS lens 65535 lens 400mm f/4.5 1/500s 800 ISO -0.5 EV
Jul 02, 2026 at 09:13 PM
p.12 #20Sony 100-400 f/4.5
At what aperture did it become “terrible” in your estimation? And do you still have the files that you can share?
- - -
In my estimation it was terrible stopped all the way down. I would say it was bad even opened up one stop. It was surprising for a GM lens. I'll post photos if I have time.
ILCE-7RM5 FE 100-400mm F4.5 GM OSS lens 65535 lens 400mm f/32.0 1/125s 12800 ISO -0.5 EV
Jul 02, 2026 at 09:14 PM