Sony 100-400 f/4.5
p.13 #1Sony 100-400 f/4.5
garyroach wrote:
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.
"Stopped all the way down on that lens is f/32. (TYPO FIXED — originally wrote f/23 here) No one shoots a FF camera at f/32 except in truly unusual circumstances in which DOF is important and image sharpness is not. There is _normally_ a LOT of diffraction blur at f/32 on any lens on a FF camera. f/22 will also normally be quite soft.
I personally avoid shooting a high res FF camera at f/16 unless I'm willing to intentionally sacrifice detail for DOF.
This is not a lens flaw. It is how optics work.
Edited on Jul 03, 2026 at 09:41 PM · View previous versions
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.
"Stopped all the way down on that lens is f/32. (TYPO FIXED — originally wrote f/23 here) No one shoots a FF camera at f/32 except in truly unusual circumstances in which DOF is important and image sharpness is not. There is _normally_ a LOT of diffraction blur at f/32 on any lens on a FF camera. f/22 will also normally be quite soft.
I personally avoid shooting a high res FF camera at f/16 unless I'm willing to intentionally sacrifice detail for DOF.
This is not a lens flaw. It is how optics work.
Edited on Jul 03, 2026 at 09:41 PM · View previous versions
Jul 02, 2026 at 09:27 PM
p.13 #2Sony 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.At what aperture did it become “terrible” in your estimation? And do you still have the files that you can share?
- - -
EBHI’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.
It could be an error on the website during checkout but gives me pause.
EBH
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.
- - -
EB-1 wrote
BH has the 100-400 is stock, but a dire warning.EBH
It could be an error on the website during checkout but gives me pause.
EBH
Jul 02, 2026 at 10:29 PM
p.13 #3Sony 100-400 f/4.5
gdanmitchell wrote:
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.
"Stopped all the way down on that lens is f/23. No one shoots a FF camera at f/32 except in truly unusual circumstances in which DOF is important and image sharpness is not. There is _normally_ a LOT of diffraction blur at f/32 on any lens on a FF camera. f/22 will also normally be quite soft.
I personally avoid shooting a high res FF camera at f/16 unless I'm willing to intentionally sacrifice detail for DOF.
This is not a lens flaw. It is how optics work.
The minimum aperture at 400mm doesn't look as bad as I remembered it. But, I think you'd have to agree that at 100mm it's pretty bad stopped down. As I mentioned, I never shoot stopped all the way down. And it's excellent wide open. I wanted to like this lens, but I didn't. If you like it, B&H might still have it available. For now I'll stick with the 200-600 G and the 300 GM which is my favorite lens.
garyroach wrote
- - -
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.
"Stopped all the way down on that lens is f/23. No one shoots a FF camera at f/32 except in truly unusual circumstances in which DOF is important and image sharpness is not. There is _normally_ a LOT of diffraction blur at f/32 on any lens on a FF camera. f/22 will also normally be quite soft.
I personally avoid shooting a high res FF camera at f/16 unless I'm willing to intentionally sacrifice detail for DOF.
This is not a lens flaw. It is how optics work.
The minimum aperture at 400mm doesn't look as bad as I remembered it. But, I think you'd have to agree that at 100mm it's pretty bad stopped down. As I mentioned, I never shoot stopped all the way down. And it's excellent wide open. I wanted to like this lens, but I didn't. If you like it, B&H might still have it available. For now I'll stick with the 200-600 G and the 300 GM which is my favorite lens.
Jul 02, 2026 at 10:47 PM
p.13 #4Sony 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
I had to go through 2 with Adorama and one was double boxed and one was just the manufacturer box. Very strange and I complained to them about this. They didn't have an explanation, however.
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
I had to go through 2 with Adorama and one was double boxed and one was just the manufacturer box. Very strange and I complained to them about this. They didn't have an explanation, however.
Jul 03, 2026 at 09:16 PM
p.13 #5Sony 100-400 f/4.5
garyroach wrote:
The minimum aperture at 400mm doesn't look as bad as I remembered it. But, I think you'd have to agree that at 100mm it's pretty bad stopped down. As I mentioned, I never shoot stopped all the way down. And it's excellent wide open. I wanted to like this lens, but I didn't. If you like it, B&H might still have it available. For now I'll stick with the 200-600 G and the 300 GM which is my favorite lens.
No one who wants a truly sharp image is going to shoot at f/32 on FF. There’s no arguing with diffraction, and it doesn’t matter if you use a great lens or a terrible lens.
The minimum aperture at 400mm doesn't look as bad as I remembered it. But, I think you'd have to agree that at 100mm it's pretty bad stopped down. As I mentioned, I never shoot stopped all the way down. And it's excellent wide open. I wanted to like this lens, but I didn't. If you like it, B&H might still have it available. For now I'll stick with the 200-600 G and the 300 GM which is my favorite lens.
No one who wants a truly sharp image is going to shoot at f/32 on FF. There’s no arguing with diffraction, and it doesn’t matter if you use a great lens or a terrible lens.
Jul 03, 2026 at 09:43 PM
p.13 #6Sony 100-400 f/4.5
Zemlin hoods are now available for the 100-400/4.5.
https://www.zemlinphoto.com/shop/fe-100-400mm-f-4-5-gm-oss/139
https://www.zemlinphoto.com/shop/fe-100-400mm-f-4-5-gm-oss/139
Jul 04, 2026 at 05:58 PM
p.13 #7Sony 100-400 f/4.5
gdanmitchell wrote:
No one who wants a truly sharp image is going to shoot at f/32 on FF. There’s no arguing with diffraction, and it doesn’t matter if you use a great lens or a terrible lens.
As I mentioned, twice, I never shoot any lens fully stopped down. But, I expect more from a GM lens. And I've seen better GM lenses. In fact I would say that my 200-600 G is as good or better than the 100-400 that I had.
garyroach wrote
The minimum aperture at 400mm doesn't look as bad as I remembered it. But, I think you'd have to agree that at 100mm it's pretty bad stopped down. As I mentioned, I never shoot stopped all the way down. And it's excellent wide open. I wanted to like this lens, but I didn't. If you like it, B&H might still have it available. For now I'll stick with the 200-600 G and the 300 GM which is my favorite lens.As I mentioned, twice, I never shoot any lens fully stopped down. But, I expect more from a GM lens. And I've seen better GM lenses. In fact I would say that my 200-600 G is as good or better than the 100-400 that I had.
Jul 04, 2026 at 11:23 PM
p.13 #8Sony 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
The 100-400/1.4TC vs 200-600 is pretty much what my testing showed. For IQ they are pretty equal.
BUT....for AF the 100-400 shines and for balance and weight the 100-400 shines.
IQ is just one part of it. If IQ is most important and you want to save $$ then 200-600 is the better buy.
I also feel that the 100-400 is not a lens to buy if chasing 800mm. Neither is the 200-600. I think one should be buying the 400-800 or 600GM.
Interesting is I compared the TDP results of the 100-400 vs the 400GM at the different focal lengths and the 100-400 looks better at 400 and 560 but close at 800 (maybe more contrast in the centre but worth at the periphery). I also wouldn't bother with the 400GM if chasing 800mm.
Perhaps someone already posted this, but here is the TDP comparison of the 100-400/4.5 w/1.4x and 200-600. The IQ looks similar at teh long end. It's a long link so may require copying.
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1778&Camera=1538&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=1&LensComp=1438&CameraComp=1175&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=1
Don't compare either to the 600/4, because that is what a sharp lens corner to corner, with no color smear or other defects looks like.
The 100-400/4.5 at 400mm plus the 2x does not look so good at 800mm. The 400-800 is much better at 800mm.
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1778&Camera=1538&Sample=0&FLI=6&API=2&LensComp=1727&CameraComp=1538&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0
Of course the 100-400/4.5 by itself looks really nice.
EBH
The 100-400/1.4TC vs 200-600 is pretty much what my testing showed. For IQ they are pretty equal.
BUT....for AF the 100-400 shines and for balance and weight the 100-400 shines.
IQ is just one part of it. If IQ is most important and you want to save $$ then 200-600 is the better buy.
I also feel that the 100-400 is not a lens to buy if chasing 800mm. Neither is the 200-600. I think one should be buying the 400-800 or 600GM.
Interesting is I compared the TDP results of the 100-400 vs the 400GM at the different focal lengths and the 100-400 looks better at 400 and 560 but close at 800 (maybe more contrast in the centre but worth at the periphery). I also wouldn't bother with the 400GM if chasing 800mm.
Jul 05, 2026 at 07:29 AM
p.13 #9Sony 100-400 f/4.5
garyroach wrote:
No one who wants a truly sharp image is going to shoot at f/32 on FF. There’s no arguing with diffraction, and it doesn’t matter if you use a great lens or a terrible lens.As I mentioned, twice, I never shoot any lens fully stopped down. But, I expect more from a GM lens. And I've seen better GM lenses. In fact I would say that my 200-600 G is as good or better than the 100-400 that I had.
That’s fine, and sharing an opinion that, in a general sense, one lens is better than another is useful information to add to the collection of others’ opinions.
My point is that your initial post dinged the 100-400 because you felt it wasn’t sharp stopped down, and then you shared “evidence” in the form of f/32 shots! No lens is sharp on FF at f/32, no matter the brand, focal length, or quality of the lens.
I’m sure that there are some valid critiques of this lens, as there are of any photographic equipment, but there’s no evidence at all of some problem related to stopping down. (If there was, I think we be reading reports from other users about such an odd issue. We aren’t.)
gdanmitchell wrote
garyroach wrote
The minimum aperture at 400mm doesn't look as bad as I remembered it. But, I think you'd have to agree that at 100mm it's pretty bad stopped down. As I mentioned, I never shoot stopped all the way down. And it's excellent wide open. I wanted to like this lens, but I didn't. If you like it, B&H might still have it available. For now I'll stick with the 200-600 G and the 300 GM which is my favorite lens.That’s fine, and sharing an opinion that, in a general sense, one lens is better than another is useful information to add to the collection of others’ opinions.
My point is that your initial post dinged the 100-400 because you felt it wasn’t sharp stopped down, and then you shared “evidence” in the form of f/32 shots! No lens is sharp on FF at f/32, no matter the brand, focal length, or quality of the lens.
I’m sure that there are some valid critiques of this lens, as there are of any photographic equipment, but there’s no evidence at all of some problem related to stopping down. (If there was, I think we be reading reports from other users about such an odd issue. We aren’t.)
Jul 05, 2026 at 09:25 AM
p.13 #10Sony 100-400 f/4.5
arbitrage wrote:
The 100-400/1.4TC vs 200-600 is pretty much what my testing showed. For IQ they are pretty equal.
BUT....for AF the 100-400 shines and for balance and weight the 100-400 shines.
IQ is just one part of it. If IQ is most important and you want to save $$ then 200-600 is the better buy.
I also feel that the 100-400 is not a lens to buy if chasing 800mm. Neither is the 200-600. I think one should be buying the 400-800 or 600GM.
Interesting is I compared the TDP results of the 100-400 vs the 400GM at the different focal lengths and the...Show more →
Thanks for your assessment in the field. I don't understand the part about the weight, because they are quite similar with the 1.4x on the 100-400. The 100-400+1.4x is also longer per the specs even without the TC. I would assume a decent A-S foot has enough length to balance it even with a TC.
EBH
The 100-400/1.4TC vs 200-600 is pretty much what my testing showed. For IQ they are pretty equal.
BUT....for AF the 100-400 shines and for balance and weight the 100-400 shines.
IQ is just one part of it. If IQ is most important and you want to save $$ then 200-600 is the better buy.
I also feel that the 100-400 is not a lens to buy if chasing 800mm. Neither is the 200-600. I think one should be buying the 400-800 or 600GM.
Interesting is I compared the TDP results of the 100-400 vs the 400GM at the different focal lengths and the...Show more →
Thanks for your assessment in the field. I don't understand the part about the weight, because they are quite similar with the 1.4x on the 100-400. The 100-400+1.4x is also longer per the specs even without the TC. I would assume a decent A-S foot has enough length to balance it even with a TC.
EBH
Jul 05, 2026 at 10:18 AM
|
p.13 #11Sony 100-400 f/4.5
arbitrage wrote:
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.
EBHThe 100-400/1.4TC vs 200-600 is pretty much what my testing showed. For IQ they are pretty equal.
BUT....for AF the 100-400 shines and for balance and weight the 100-400 shines.
IQ is just one part of it. If IQ is most important and you want to save $$ then 200-600 is the better buy.
I also feel that the 100-400 is not a lens to buy if chasing 800mm. Neither is the 200-600. I think one should be buying the 400-800 or 600GM.
Interesting is I compared the TDP results of the 100-400 vs the 400GM at the different focal lengths and the...Show more →
To me, the 200-600 has been an exceptional value in the Sony lineup. And the 300 GM is an exceptional lens that takes teleconverters well. And I agree that there is more to a lens than IQ. I love the weight and handling of the 300 GM. I tried the 400-800 G and found that the weight and handling just weren't for me although the images were good. Everyone will have their own preferences for their own reasons. I always say, use what works for you.
EB-1 wrote
Perhaps someone already posted this, but here is the TDP comparison of the 100-400/4.5 w/1.4x and 200-600. The IQ looks similar at teh long end. It's a long link so may require copying.https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1778&Camera=1538&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=1&LensComp=1438&CameraComp=1175&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=1
Don't compare either to the 600/4, because that is what a sharp lens corner to corner, with no color smear or other defects looks like.
The 100-400/4.5 at 400mm plus the 2x does not look so good at 800mm. The 400-800 is much better at 800mm.
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1778&Camera=1538&Sample=0&FLI=6&API=2&LensComp=1727&CameraComp=1538&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0
Of course the 100-400/4.5 by itself looks really nice.
EBH
BUT....for AF the 100-400 shines and for balance and weight the 100-400 shines.
IQ is just one part of it. If IQ is most important and you want to save $$ then 200-600 is the better buy.
I also feel that the 100-400 is not a lens to buy if chasing 800mm. Neither is the 200-600. I think one should be buying the 400-800 or 600GM.
Interesting is I compared the TDP results of the 100-400 vs the 400GM at the different focal lengths and the...Show more →
To me, the 200-600 has been an exceptional value in the Sony lineup. And the 300 GM is an exceptional lens that takes teleconverters well. And I agree that there is more to a lens than IQ. I love the weight and handling of the 300 GM. I tried the 400-800 G and found that the weight and handling just weren't for me although the images were good. Everyone will have their own preferences for their own reasons. I always say, use what works for you.
Jul 05, 2026 at 11:04 AM
p.13 #12Sony 100-400 f/4.5
gdanmitchell wrote:
No one who wants a truly sharp image is going to shoot at f/32 on FF. There’s no arguing with diffraction, and it doesn’t matter if you use a great lens or a terrible lens.As I mentioned, twice, I never shoot any lens fully stopped down. But, I expect more from a GM lens. And I've seen better GM lenses. In fact I would say that my 200-600 G is as good or better than the 100-400 that I had.That’s fine, and sharing an opinion that, in a general sense, one lens is better than another is useful information to add to the collection of others’ opinions.
My point is that your initial post dinged the 100-400 because you felt it wasn’t sharp stopped down, and then you shared “evidence” in the form of f/32 shots! No lens is sharp on FF at f/32, no matter the brand, focal length, or quality of the lens.
I’m sure that there are some valid critiques of this lens, as there are of any photographic equipment, but there’s no evidence at all of some...Show more →
There's also such a thing as copy variation. But, whatever the case, enjoy and have a good day.
garyroach wrote
gdanmitchell wrote
garyroach wrote
The minimum aperture at 400mm doesn't look as bad as I remembered it. But, I think you'd have to agree that at 100mm it's pretty bad stopped down. As I mentioned, I never shoot stopped all the way down. And it's excellent wide open. I wanted to like this lens, but I didn't. If you like it, B&H might still have it available. For now I'll stick with the 200-600 G and the 300 GM which is my favorite lens.My point is that your initial post dinged the 100-400 because you felt it wasn’t sharp stopped down, and then you shared “evidence” in the form of f/32 shots! No lens is sharp on FF at f/32, no matter the brand, focal length, or quality of the lens.
I’m sure that there are some valid critiques of this lens, as there are of any photographic equipment, but there’s no evidence at all of some...Show more →
There's also such a thing as copy variation. But, whatever the case, enjoy and have a good day.
Jul 05, 2026 at 11:09 AM
p.13 #13Sony 100-400 f/4.5
EB-1 wrote:
BUT....for AF the 100-400 shines and for balance and weight the 100-400 shines.
IQ is just one part of it. If IQ is most important and you want to save $$ then 200-600 is the better buy.
I also feel that the 100-400 is not a lens to buy if chasing 800mm. Neither is the 200-600. I think one should be buying the 400-800 or 600GM.
Interesting is I compared the TDP results of the 100-400 vs the 400GM at the different focal lengths and the 100-400 looks better at 400 and 560 but close at 800 (maybe more contrast in the centre but worth at the periphery). I also wouldn't bother with the 400GM if chasing 800mm.Thanks for your assessment in the field. I don't understand the part about the weight, because they are quite similar with the 1.4x on the 100-400. The 100-400+1.4x is also longer per the specs even without the TC. I would assume a decent A-S foot has enough length to balance it even with a TC.
EBH
You'll only understand if you pick one up after the other. I know they are only about 120g apart once the 1.4TC is on the 100-400 but it is just the weight distribution of the elements that you feel the 2-6 pulling on your wrist as you pick it up by the lens foot.
arbitrage wrote
The 100-400/1.4TC vs 200-600 is pretty much what my testing showed. For IQ they are pretty equal.BUT....for AF the 100-400 shines and for balance and weight the 100-400 shines.
IQ is just one part of it. If IQ is most important and you want to save $$ then 200-600 is the better buy.
I also feel that the 100-400 is not a lens to buy if chasing 800mm. Neither is the 200-600. I think one should be buying the 400-800 or 600GM.
Interesting is I compared the TDP results of the 100-400 vs the 400GM at the different focal lengths and the 100-400 looks better at 400 and 560 but close at 800 (maybe more contrast in the centre but worth at the periphery). I also wouldn't bother with the 400GM if chasing 800mm.
EBH
You'll only understand if you pick one up after the other. I know they are only about 120g apart once the 1.4TC is on the 100-400 but it is just the weight distribution of the elements that you feel the 2-6 pulling on your wrist as you pick it up by the lens foot.
Jul 05, 2026 at 03:50 PM
p.13 #14Sony 100-400 f/4.5
Thanks. I usually pick up with one hand on the grip and one on the lens body, expecially considering the Sony bodies have the little lens mounts I don't trust it to hold all the weight over time.
I used to pick up the pro Canon bodies with a 500mm on it with only one hand on the grip, but my arm can't do that 50 times a day anymore. I was a lot better 20 years ago.
One advantage I can see would be that the 100-400/4.5 lens would not be as crushing on the fingers next to the grip as the 200-600. With a TC the lens would be completely forward and out of the way. Without the TC is there more space between the lens and grip than with the 200-600?
EHB
I used to pick up the pro Canon bodies with a 500mm on it with only one hand on the grip, but my arm can't do that 50 times a day anymore. I was a lot better 20 years ago.
One advantage I can see would be that the 100-400/4.5 lens would not be as crushing on the fingers next to the grip as the 200-600. With a TC the lens would be completely forward and out of the way. Without the TC is there more space between the lens and grip than with the 200-600?
EHB
Jul 05, 2026 at 04:25 PM
p.13 #15Sony 100-400 f/4.5
arbitrage wrote:
You'll only understand if you pick one up after the other. I know they are only about 120g apart once the 1.4TC is on the 100-400 but it is just the weight distribution of the elements that you feel the 2-6 pulling on your wrist as you pick it up by the lens foot.
That's bizarre, as the optical layouts are similar and the 100-400 has it's biggest elements still right at the front of the lens like the 200-600G and unlike the 400 f/2.8, where they are set well back in the lens.
You'll only understand if you pick one up after the other. I know they are only about 120g apart once the 1.4TC is on the 100-400 but it is just the weight distribution of the elements that you feel the 2-6 pulling on your wrist as you pick it up by the lens foot.
That's bizarre, as the optical layouts are similar and the 100-400 has it's biggest elements still right at the front of the lens like the 200-600G and unlike the 400 f/2.8, where they are set well back in the lens.
Jul 06, 2026 at 07:22 PM
p.13 #16Sony 100-400 f/4.5
Just a one time observation yesterday. I was out trying the 100/400 with 2x TC for shorebirds at our local sewer ponds. Bright sunny day. The A9III mounted. The camera which is reliable to grab bird eye refused to show the eye square. A couple of days ago, under the same conditions, the 9 had the 400/800 and clearly got the eye focus square.
Jul 09, 2026 at 10:34 AM
p.13 #17Sony 100-400 f/4.5
arbitrage wrote:
BUT....for AF the 100-400 shines and for balance and weight the 100-400 shines.
IQ is just one part of it. If IQ is most important and you want to save $$ then 200-600 is the better buy.
I also feel that the 100-400 is not a lens to buy if chasing 800mm. Neither is the 200-600. I think one should be buying the 400-800 or 600GM.
Interesting is I compared the TDP results of the 100-400 vs the 400GM at the different focal lengths and the 100-400 looks better at 400 and 560 but close at 800 (maybe more contrast in the centre but worth at the periphery). I also wouldn't bother with the 400GM if chasing 800mm.Thanks for your assessment in the field. I don't understand the part about the weight, because they are quite similar with the 1.4x on the 100-400. The 100-400+1.4x is also longer per the specs even without the TC. I would assume a decent A-S foot has enough length to balance it even with a TC.
EBHYou'll only understand if you pick one up after the other. I know they are only about 120g apart once the 1.4TC is on the 100-400 but it is just the weight distribution of the elements that you feel the 2-6 pulling on your wrist as you pick it up by the lens foot.
---------------------------------------------
Pixel Perfect wrote:
That's bizarre, as the optical layouts are similar and the 100-400 has it's biggest elements still right at the front of the lens like the 200-600G and unlike the 400 f/2.8, where they are set well back in the lens.
Matt Kloskowski had the same reaction as Geoff after testing:
"Considering the size difference, you don’t expect to pick this up and it be as light as it was. It also feels balanced when on the camera, where as my 200-600mm (which is about the same size) definitely feels heavier.”
(https://mattk.com/new-sony-100-400mm-f-4-5-lens-first-thoughts/)
EB-1 wrote
arbitrage wrote
The 100-400/1.4TC vs 200-600 is pretty much what my testing showed. For IQ they are pretty equal.BUT....for AF the 100-400 shines and for balance and weight the 100-400 shines.
IQ is just one part of it. If IQ is most important and you want to save $$ then 200-600 is the better buy.
I also feel that the 100-400 is not a lens to buy if chasing 800mm. Neither is the 200-600. I think one should be buying the 400-800 or 600GM.
Interesting is I compared the TDP results of the 100-400 vs the 400GM at the different focal lengths and the 100-400 looks better at 400 and 560 but close at 800 (maybe more contrast in the centre but worth at the periphery). I also wouldn't bother with the 400GM if chasing 800mm.
EBH
---------------------------------------------
Pixel Perfect wrote:
arbitrage wrote
You'll only understand if you pick one up after the other. I know they are only about 120g apart once the 1.4TC is on the 100-400 but it is just the weight distribution of the elements that you feel the 2-6 pulling on your wrist as you pick it up by the lens foot.Matt Kloskowski had the same reaction as Geoff after testing:
"Considering the size difference, you don’t expect to pick this up and it be as light as it was. It also feels balanced when on the camera, where as my 200-600mm (which is about the same size) definitely feels heavier.”
(https://mattk.com/new-sony-100-400mm-f-4-5-lens-first-thoughts/)
Jul 09, 2026 at 10:50 AM
p.13 #18Sony 100-400 f/4.5
About 50% crop.
Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5 + 2x @800mm
Sony FE 400-800mm f/6.3-8 @800mm
Edited on Jul 09, 2026 at 12:16 PM · View previous versions
Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5 + 2x @800mm
Sony FE 400-800mm f/6.3-8 @800mm
Edited on Jul 09, 2026 at 12:16 PM · View previous versions
Jul 09, 2026 at 11:00 AM
p.13 #19Sony 100-400 f/4.5
pietipe wrote:
Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5 + 2x @800mm
Sony FE 400-800mm f/6.3-8 @800mm
Seems you own a very good copy of the 100-400, as even with the 2x it is very good.
Do you have any feeling about AF speed/accuracy differences between the 2 combo @800mm ?
Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5 + 2x @800mm
Sony FE 400-800mm f/6.3-8 @800mm
Seems you own a very good copy of the 100-400, as even with the 2x it is very good.
Do you have any feeling about AF speed/accuracy differences between the 2 combo @800mm ?
Jul 09, 2026 at 11:18 AM
p.13 #20Sony 100-400 f/4.5
Kooppers wrote:
Seems you own a very good copy of the 100-400, as even with the 2x it is very good.
Do you have any feeling about AF speed/accuracy differences between the 2 combo @800mm ?
Not yet. I'll get to test the AF performance out in the field this weekend.
Jul 09, 2026 at 11:44 AM