I was at a Chicago White Sox game this past Saturday (1:10pm start and full sun) and saw 2 new 100-400 lenses being used by on-field photographers during pregame (no tcs attached) and I assume they were hidden to my view during the game. We were 3 rows behind the home dugout. They were on monopods and it honestly seemed like a best case usage for this lens IMO. Fast focus, reasonably bright and 1-4 would be about perfect on a baseball field with a high MP camera for crops if necessary.
ps09 wrote:
I was at a Chicago White Sox game this past Saturday (1:10pm start and full sun) and saw 2 new 100-400 lenses being used by on-field photographers during pregame (no tcs attached) and I assume they were hidden to my view during the game. We were 3 rows behind the home dugout. They were on monopods and it honestly seemed like a best case usage for this lens IMO. Fast focus, reasonably bright and 1-4 would be about perfect on a baseball field with a high MP camera for crops if necessary.
I remember back when the Canon 200-400 f/4 TC lens came out and over the next year you would see more and more pros on the sidelines of sporting events using that lens instead of primes they used previously.
The Nikon 180-400/4 TC followed and same thing.
Now we have this Sony 100-400/4.5 and the upcoming Nikon 120-300/2.8TC. I think all those lenses are really suited for a lot of sports. Obviously there are some sports where having a 600 prime may still be best or even a 400/2.8 when light is not ideal indoors or at night.
I tend to agree, sports lens. The new 1-4 would rarely be long enough for most wildlife applications, is close in iq to the 2-6 when you throw a tc on it, and too big to use as a dedicated f8 landscape lens. But, and a big but, it shines when used naked both in iq and af speed. 4.5 is plenty for isolation on the sports field and from what I hear af is outstanding. I’m happy for those that can utilize the positive points of the lens and I am twice as happy it doesn’t fit my needs. One of the first new versions of Sony long glass that I can take a pass on with no regrets.
Jul 14, 2026 at 08:53 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
arbitrage wrote:
I remember back when the Canon 200-400 f/4 TC lens came out and over the next year you would see more and more pros on the sidelines of sporting events using that lens instead of primes they used previously.
The Nikon 180-400/4 TC followed and same thing.
Now we have this Sony 100-400/4.5 and the upcoming Nikon 120-300/2.8TC. I think all those lenses are really suited for a lot of sports. Obviously there are some sports where having a 600 prime may still be best or even a 400/2.8 when light is not ideal indoors or at night.
Yes, for DSLRs Canon had the 200-400 f/4 and Nikon has the 180-400 f/4 both had built-in TCs. It is interesting that Sony built the lens probably the most like that with this 100-400 f/4.5. Both Canon and Nikon went with faster a bit shorter zoom for mirrorless with Canon making a 100-300 f/2.8 and Nikon making a 120-300 f/2.8. Nikon's also has a built-in TC. Will any of these companies make a longer faster zoom for sports or rely on will they rely on their 400 f/2.8 and 600 f/4 primes for sports that need longer reach? I guess we will see. It has been long rumored that Canon will make a faster 300-600, but so far they haven't done it. Of course Sigma did make such a lens but with fps limited on Sony it isn't really an ideal option for sports. Nikon has only just announced the 120-300, so it may be a bit before we know if they build anything else.
One thing does seem clear to me, when it was a duopoly of Canon and Nikon with DSLRs, those two companies seemed to make really similar lenses. Now that Sony is in the mix with mirrorless, the lenses have a bit more variety and there seems to be a bit more effort to compete by offering something others don't. I think that is good for everyone.
After shooting with the 100-400mm more, there is one thing I don't like with this lens. That is the position of the focus hold buttons on the lens. They are way to far forward. On my 400-800mm and the 200-600mm I owned previously, they were between the focus ring and zoom ring. On the 100-400mm they are out past the massive zoom ring. What that means is you can't easily access the focus ring, the focus hold buttons, the function ring, and the zoom ring from one hand position, even with a replacement lens foot that is longer. If I put my hand all the way forward on my Leofoto SF-06 foot I can access a focus hold button, the function ring and the zoom ring, but not the focus ring. Not a deal breaker as I don't use the control buttons a ton, but they are useful in certain situations. Having to reposition your hands to access full time DMF, for example, could mean loosing the object one is focusing on if it is small. Part of the issue is the massive size of the zoom ring, which limits how close the various controls can be.
IMHO, I think the lens would have been better with the function ring and control buttons between the focus and zoom rings. I think even putting the function ring out past the focus hold buttons would have been better. I guess since this is how they set up the 300mm, 400mm and 600mm, it is how they do it for GM lenses. The thing is those lenses have one fewer rings as there is obviously no zoom ring. Therefore everything is in reach. Those that have shot with those for a while will feel at home with the exception of the focus ring is now the zoom ring. If you are coming from the 200-600 or 400-800 it will take a while to get used to the positions of the controls.
As more and more people have this lens, I'm interesting to know what they feel about it with the tc 2x
(i have no doubt bare lens and with the 1.4x)
In fact i cannot "afford" to buy this in addition to what i have.
So it would be to trade my 2-6 and 4-8 for this 100-400 + tc1.4x & 2x.
This possible crazy move, is to :
- fund the 100-400
- have 100-400 /f4.5 (in my garden or in some hides)
- Then when i go outside, i bring only the 2-6 or the 4-8 (both would be too cumbersome and heavy)
So having 1 single lens (+2 small tc) would cover all.
Ad as far as the 2-6 being replaced by 100-400 + tc1.4 (the 2-6 is not really a true 600mm),
I'm still in doubt about both IQ and AF speed/accuracy of the 100-400 + tc2x compared to : 2-6 + tc1.4x and/or 4-8
(if this still slight diff. or significant)
So any inputs appreciated, so it can help to make my mind.
