Sony 100-400 f/4.5
p.14 #1Sony 100-400 f/4.5
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.
Jul 14, 2026 at 02:08 AM
p.14 #2Sony 100-400 f/4.5
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 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.
Jul 14, 2026 at 07:34 AM
p.14 #3Sony 100-400 f/4.5
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 07:53 AM
p.14 #4Sony 100-400 f/4.5
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.
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.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.
Jul 14, 2026 at 08:37 AM
p.14 #5Sony 100-400 f/4.5
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.
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.
Jul 16, 2026 at 07:45 AM
p.14 #6Sony 100-400 f/4.5
Hello,
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.
Regards.
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.
Regards.
Jul 16, 2026 at 01:01 PM
p.14 #7Sony 100-400 f/4.5
Kooppers wrote:
Hello,
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...Show more →
First, this is just where I've landed. You might find other lenses more useful. I've tried the original100-400 GM, the new 100-400 GM, 300 GM, 200-600 G, and 400-800 G. I never had a problem with the IQ of the original 100-400. I just didn't like using the lens so sold it. I liked the size and weight of the new 100-400, but found that the IQ wasn't up to the IQ of some other GM lenses I've owned. Might have been just my copy. I returned it. IMO, the 200-600 G is one of the best bargains in the Sony lens lineup. But, it is big and heavy. Even after buying the 300 GM, I couldn't get myself to sell it. I tried the 400-800 G and it produced great images but is even bigger and heavier than the 200-600 G. The 300 GM takes teleconverters better than the zooms. But, the 1.4x works well with the zooms. I only use the 2x in a pinch. If you are thinking about leaving a teleconverter on a lens, then I would look at buying a longer lens. So, for now, I have the 300 GM and the 200-600 G plus the teleconverters. The 300 GM is my favorite lens. But, your mileage may vary. Try before buying if possible. Use what works for you.
Hello,
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...Show more →
First, this is just where I've landed. You might find other lenses more useful. I've tried the original100-400 GM, the new 100-400 GM, 300 GM, 200-600 G, and 400-800 G. I never had a problem with the IQ of the original 100-400. I just didn't like using the lens so sold it. I liked the size and weight of the new 100-400, but found that the IQ wasn't up to the IQ of some other GM lenses I've owned. Might have been just my copy. I returned it. IMO, the 200-600 G is one of the best bargains in the Sony lens lineup. But, it is big and heavy. Even after buying the 300 GM, I couldn't get myself to sell it. I tried the 400-800 G and it produced great images but is even bigger and heavier than the 200-600 G. The 300 GM takes teleconverters better than the zooms. But, the 1.4x works well with the zooms. I only use the 2x in a pinch. If you are thinking about leaving a teleconverter on a lens, then I would look at buying a longer lens. So, for now, I have the 300 GM and the 200-600 G plus the teleconverters. The 300 GM is my favorite lens. But, your mileage may vary. Try before buying if possible. Use what works for you.
Jul 16, 2026 at 03:49 PM
p.14 #8Sony 100-400 f/4.5
Kooppers wrote:
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)
I posted some comparison shots between my 400-800mm and 100-400mm f/4.5 w/ 2X over on the image thread for this lens on page 4: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1945984/3#17072435 Getting focus lock on the head of the dragonflies was challenging with both lenses. I did not observe significant differences in focus speed, but this was far from a definitive test.
My take is that the 400-800mm has a slight edge on the 100-400mm f/4.5 with 2X where I could do as direct a comparison as I could. But, it is slight. I can get good images with the 100-400mm f/4.5 with 2X, of which I have posted a few here: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1945984/3#17072611
There is a significant difference in minimum focus distance between the 100-400mm f/4.5 w/2X and the 400-800mm when zoomed out to 800mm. At an effective 800mm with the 2X, the 100-400mm f/4.5 focused closer (at ~5 ft) than the 400-800mm (11 feet). Interestingly, without the 2X on at 400mm, the GM would still be at 4.5 feet and the 400-800mm would focus to 1.7 feet. Therefore, minimum focus distance between the lenses will vary depending what focal length and whether the 2X is attached.
It is unlikely that I will sell my 400-800mm at this point. I simply like it way too much for certain situations. I sold my 200-600mm when I purchased the 400-800mm and don't regret that. The 200-600mm is a great lens, but my 400-800mm is better and works better when I need 600mm to 800mm. My 200-600mm did not work with converters very well.
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)
I posted some comparison shots between my 400-800mm and 100-400mm f/4.5 w/ 2X over on the image thread for this lens on page 4: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1945984/3#17072435 Getting focus lock on the head of the dragonflies was challenging with both lenses. I did not observe significant differences in focus speed, but this was far from a definitive test.
My take is that the 400-800mm has a slight edge on the 100-400mm f/4.5 with 2X where I could do as direct a comparison as I could. But, it is slight. I can get good images with the 100-400mm f/4.5 with 2X, of which I have posted a few here: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1945984/3#17072611
There is a significant difference in minimum focus distance between the 100-400mm f/4.5 w/2X and the 400-800mm when zoomed out to 800mm. At an effective 800mm with the 2X, the 100-400mm f/4.5 focused closer (at ~5 ft) than the 400-800mm (11 feet). Interestingly, without the 2X on at 400mm, the GM would still be at 4.5 feet and the 400-800mm would focus to 1.7 feet. Therefore, minimum focus distance between the lenses will vary depending what focal length and whether the 2X is attached.
It is unlikely that I will sell my 400-800mm at this point. I simply like it way too much for certain situations. I sold my 200-600mm when I purchased the 400-800mm and don't regret that. The 200-600mm is a great lens, but my 400-800mm is better and works better when I need 600mm to 800mm. My 200-600mm did not work with converters very well.
Jul 17, 2026 at 03:55 PM
p.14 #9Sony 100-400 f/4.5
Have any of you 100-400/4.5 owners tested to see how well centered your copy is? Also wondering if it maintains sharpness to the edges. This lens is on my radar and I’m wondering how consistent the copy variation is. I have used a good copy of the old 100-400 and it would be nice if the new lens is just a little bit better IQ. I can save some money purchasing from one particular dealer but they make it almost impossible to do a return.
Edited on Jul 22, 2026 at 07:47 AM · View previous versions
Edited on Jul 22, 2026 at 07:47 AM · View previous versions
Jul 21, 2026 at 04:29 PM
p.14 #10Sony 100-400 f/4.5
I shot my Grandson's travel ball tournament using the A7R6 and 100-400. Both worked great as I had to shoot from the outfield fence. The 100-400 had the range and the crop ability of the R6 files worked out well. No problem tracking player's eyes either.
ILCE-7RM6 FE 100-400mm F4.5 GM OSS lens 400mm f/4.5 1/1600s 125 ISO 0.0 EV
ILCE-7RM6 FE 100-400mm F4.5 GM OSS lens 279mm f/4.5 1/1250s 320 ISO +0.3 EV
ILCE-7RM6 FE 100-400mm F4.5 GM OSS lens 400mm f/4.5 1/1250s 400 ISO 0.0 EV
Jul 21, 2026 at 07:38 PM
|
p.14 #11Sony 100-400 f/4.5
Still learning the lens and camera.
Osprey by Brian Caslis, on Flickr
Osprey by Brian Caslis, on FlickrJul 21, 2026 at 11:17 PM
p.14 #12Sony 100-400 f/4.5
With the 1.4
Osprey and Alewife by lennycarl08, on Flickr
Osprey and Alewife by lennycarl08, on Flickr
Jul 22, 2026 at 06:30 AM
p.14 #13Sony 100-400 f/4.5
I think this lens might be too sharp...
Red-breasted Nuthatches (Sitta canadensis)
Chestnut-backed Chickadee (Poecile rufescens)
Purple Finch (Haemorhous purpureus)
 |
||
 |
||
|
Red-breasted Nuthatches (Sitta canadensis)
ILCE-7RM6 FE 100-400mm F4.5 GM OSS lens 400mm f/4.5 1/800s 1600 ISO 0.0 EV
|
||
 |
||
|
Chestnut-backed Chickadee (Poecile rufescens)
ILCE-7RM6 FE 100-400mm F4.5 GM OSS lens 377mm f/4.5 1/1000s 8000 ISO 0.0 EV
|
||
 |
||
|
Purple Finch (Haemorhous purpureus)
ILCE-7RM6 FE 100-400mm F4.5 GM OSS lens 400mm f/4.5 1/1000s 12800 ISO 0.0 EV
Jul 29, 2026 at 10:07 AM
p.14 #14Sony 100-400 f/4.5
Cliff L. wrote:
I think this lens might be too sharp...
No such thing! My eyes are getting worse, and I hate wearing my glasses at the computer, so I'll take all the clarity and sharpness I can get
Beautiful shots.
I think this lens might be too sharp...
No such thing! My eyes are getting worse, and I hate wearing my glasses at the computer, so I'll take all the clarity and sharpness I can get
Beautiful shots.
Jul 29, 2026 at 11:09 AM
p.14 #15Sony 100-400 f/4.5
Seriously considering hiring this lens for an upcoming visit to Mull for the sea eagles
Feels like the best option for this trip
I have
A7R6 / A7CR and can borrow an A6700 if needed
Along with the
Sigma 300-600 (too big and heavy for extended use and 15 frame limit)
100-400 (not a fan of the extendable barrel and focus speed and quality could be better)
70-200 gmii (too short as the main lens for this trip)
70-350 (not mine but could borrow)
Along with both sony TCs
Other options would be the 300gm but fixed focal lengths dont seem ideal for this sort of trip
Everything needs to go into a backpack so limited to 1 'big' lens and a pair of smaller ones really and ideally sony lenses to unlock the faster frame rates
Have I missed other options or anything to be aware of with the 100-400?
Thank you
Feels like the best option for this trip
I have
A7R6 / A7CR and can borrow an A6700 if needed
Along with the
Sigma 300-600 (too big and heavy for extended use and 15 frame limit)
100-400 (not a fan of the extendable barrel and focus speed and quality could be better)
70-200 gmii (too short as the main lens for this trip)
70-350 (not mine but could borrow)
Along with both sony TCs
Other options would be the 300gm but fixed focal lengths dont seem ideal for this sort of trip
Everything needs to go into a backpack so limited to 1 'big' lens and a pair of smaller ones really and ideally sony lenses to unlock the faster frame rates
Have I missed other options or anything to be aware of with the 100-400?
Thank you
Jul 29, 2026 at 11:36 AM
p.14 #16Sony 100-400 f/4.5
Great images, and I don't mean to sound like a Debbie Downer, but just about every lens that gets to 400 is capable of this level of sharpness in the center. Even 3rd party lenses are optimized for the center. The depth of field looks like an inch or so which is to be expected from the close proximity you must have been to the subject and wide open at 4.5. I'm guessing you were within 30' from the birds to have such shallow depth of field at 4.5? To me, the value of this lens in this situation is that it gave you the option of f4.5, 30fps and fast focusing. I don't doubt that other lenses could produce the same IQ, but at the cost of a stop of light, less fps and slower AF. Glad you're enjoying your new toy. I am rarely within 400mm range of my wildlife subjects, unless they have 4 legs.
Jul 29, 2026 at 01:29 PM
p.14 #17Sony 100-400 f/4.5
ps09 wrote:
I'm guessing you were within 30' from the birds to have such shallow depth of field at 4.5?
The first two images were at close to the MFD of the lens; the third image was about 3 or 4m away but was shot in APS-C crop mode. In hindsight, my FE 200-600mm (or RF 100-500L) probably would have been a better choice for applications like this.
I'm guessing you were within 30' from the birds to have such shallow depth of field at 4.5?
The first two images were at close to the MFD of the lens; the third image was about 3 or 4m away but was shot in APS-C crop mode. In hindsight, my FE 200-600mm (or RF 100-500L) probably would have been a better choice for applications like this.
Jul 29, 2026 at 01:41 PM
p.14 #18Sony 100-400 f/4.5
I still think they're great shots and show what the lens is capable of at close range. A real test for me will be how it takes tc's, the 2x in particular. I keep reading that it becomes the 2-6 with the tc on.
Cliff - your images are proof of what proper exposure and PP are possible with software available today. I applaud it. Remember years ago we would try to max our ISO at 1600 or less. Your (properly exposed) ISO 12,800 shot looks awesome.
Cliff - your images are proof of what proper exposure and PP are possible with software available today. I applaud it. Remember years ago we would try to max our ISO at 1600 or less. Your (properly exposed) ISO 12,800 shot looks awesome.
Jul 29, 2026 at 02:03 PM
p.14 #19Sony 100-400 f/4.5
Andyuk109 wrote:
Have I missed other options or anything to be aware of with the 100-400?
Have you considered the 200-600 G?
Have I missed other options or anything to be aware of with the 100-400?
Have you considered the 200-600 G?
Jul 29, 2026 at 03:23 PM
p.14 #20Sony 100-400 f/4.5
I liked your RB Nuthatch... I thought I'd throw in one taken today.
ILCE-1 FE 100-400mm F4.5 GM OSS lens 65535 lens 400mm f/4.5 1/2000s 5000 ISO 0.0 EV
Jul 29, 2026 at 05:40 PM