Sony 100-400 f/4.5
p.15 #1Sony 100-400 f/4.5
Cliff L. wrote:
Have you considered the 200-600 G?
Briefly, haven't used either but from what I gather size and weight are broadly similar, Image quality between them is heavily debated but tends to focus on comparisons of the 100-400 & TC @ 600mm vs the 200-600 whereas I imagine ill be between 150-350mm most of the time where I think the 100-400 has a slight edge
Focus speed was the main concern, tricky and changing lighting with a relatively fast moving subject made me think the 100-400 might be the better option
Andyuk109 wrote
Have I missed other options or anything to be aware of with the 100-400?Briefly, haven't used either but from what I gather size and weight are broadly similar, Image quality between them is heavily debated but tends to focus on comparisons of the 100-400 & TC @ 600mm vs the 200-600 whereas I imagine ill be between 150-350mm most of the time where I think the 100-400 has a slight edge
Focus speed was the main concern, tricky and changing lighting with a relatively fast moving subject made me think the 100-400 might be the better option
Jul 30, 2026 at 12:07 AM
p.15 #2Sony 100-400 f/4.5
Andyuk109 wrote:
Have you considered the 200-600 G?Briefly, haven't used either but from what I gather size and weight are broadly similar, Image quality between them is heavily debated but tends to focus on comparisons of the 100-400 & TC @ 600mm vs the 200-600 whereas I imagine ill be between 150-350mm most of the time where I think the 100-400 has a slight edge
Focus speed was the main concern, tricky and changing lighting with a relatively fast moving subject made me think the 100-400 might be the better option
For your stated use case, I don't think you will find a significant difference in image quality or focusing speed. I've had the new 100-400 for a week now, and I'm already regretting having sold my 200-600 because it was such a versatile lens.
Cliff L. wrote
Andyuk109 wrote
Have I missed other options or anything to be aware of with the 100-400?Focus speed was the main concern, tricky and changing lighting with a relatively fast moving subject made me think the 100-400 might be the better option
For your stated use case, I don't think you will find a significant difference in image quality or focusing speed. I've had the new 100-400 for a week now, and I'm already regretting having sold my 200-600 because it was such a versatile lens.
Jul 30, 2026 at 09:38 AM
p.15 #3Sony 100-400 f/4.5
Interesting, wasnt expecting that
Out of curiosity which would you hire given the choice? The slight difference in rental costs isnt a factor, just purely based on use between 200-400mm
Thank you
Cliff L. wrote:
Have you considered the 200-600 G?Briefly, haven't used either but from what I gather size and weight are broadly similar, Image quality between them is heavily debated but tends to focus on comparisons of the 100-400 & TC @ 600mm vs the 200-600 whereas I imagine ill be between 150-350mm most of the time where I think the 100-400 has a slight edge
Focus speed was the main concern, tricky and changing lighting with a relatively fast moving subject made me think the 100-400 might be the better optionFor your stated use case, I don't think you will find a significant difference in image quality or focusing speed. I've had the new 100-400 for a week now, and I'm already regretting having sold my 200-600 because it was such a versatile lens.
Out of curiosity which would you hire given the choice? The slight difference in rental costs isnt a factor, just purely based on use between 200-400mm
Thank you
Cliff L. wrote:
Andyuk109 wrote
Cliff L. wrote
Andyuk109 wrote
Have I missed other options or anything to be aware of with the 100-400?Focus speed was the main concern, tricky and changing lighting with a relatively fast moving subject made me think the 100-400 might be the better option
Jul 30, 2026 at 11:56 AM
p.15 #4Sony 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 →
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
Caveat: I don't photograph birds much, and I'm not very good at it. I am an expert at pixel peeping, though
Every summer, I visit Monhegan Island in Maine for a week. I shoot larger / slower birds in flight and seals from a bouncy boat ride around the island. I have done this a bunch with the A7Rv + 2-6 naked and this year I'm doing it with A1ii + 1-4 + 1.4TC. It could be the body differences, but the latter combination wipes the floor for sharpness with the former.
I'm primarily attempting to shoot birds to evaluate my rental 1-4 for shooting field sports. The 2-6 was never satisfactory in this regard wrt tracking, contrast and sharpnesss; the 70-200GMii + 1.4TC lacks reach for what I do. Plus this form factor / handling of the 1-4s is way better than the 2-6. On this count alone, I am seriously considering buying the new 1-4
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 →
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
Caveat: I don't photograph birds much, and I'm not very good at it. I am an expert at pixel peeping, though
Every summer, I visit Monhegan Island in Maine for a week. I shoot larger / slower birds in flight and seals from a bouncy boat ride around the island. I have done this a bunch with the A7Rv + 2-6 naked and this year I'm doing it with A1ii + 1-4 + 1.4TC. It could be the body differences, but the latter combination wipes the floor for sharpness with the former.
I'm primarily attempting to shoot birds to evaluate my rental 1-4 for shooting field sports. The 2-6 was never satisfactory in this regard wrt tracking, contrast and sharpnesss; the 70-200GMii + 1.4TC lacks reach for what I do. Plus this form factor / handling of the 1-4s is way better than the 2-6. On this count alone, I am seriously considering buying the new 1-4
Jul 30, 2026 at 01:03 PM
p.15 #5Sony 100-400 f/4.5
Me neither when it comes to bird photography, hence needing every little bit of help possible from whichever lens I hire for this trip
Did debate hiring an A1ii as well but after a little use happy my A7Rvi will keep up, and if it doesnt, almost certainly user error which would apply equally to the A1ii
Did debate hiring an A1ii as well but after a little use happy my A7Rvi will keep up, and if it doesnt, almost certainly user error which would apply equally to the A1ii
Jul 30, 2026 at 01:50 PM
p.15 #6Sony 100-400 f/4.5
Cliff L. wrote:
I've had the new 100-400 for a week now, and I'm already regretting having sold my 200-600 because it was such a versatile lens.
Don't regret selling my 200-600 one bit. When I looked at what I used it for, it was typically at 500 to 600mm, with 600mm the most common focal length used. My 400-800 is sharper and focuses significantly faster than my 200-600mm ever did. Never looked back. My take is that TC's always degrade performance and the 2X significantly does that. Maybe there are some super good ones out there, but my 2X seems to degrade performance a lot. If I need long glass, I am pulling out the 400-800. If I need shorter focal length I grab the 100-400mm f4.5. If I was going to travel to photograph wildlife I would take both. That is where my Gura Gear pack shines.
I've had the new 100-400 for a week now, and I'm already regretting having sold my 200-600 because it was such a versatile lens.
Don't regret selling my 200-600 one bit. When I looked at what I used it for, it was typically at 500 to 600mm, with 600mm the most common focal length used. My 400-800 is sharper and focuses significantly faster than my 200-600mm ever did. Never looked back. My take is that TC's always degrade performance and the 2X significantly does that. Maybe there are some super good ones out there, but my 2X seems to degrade performance a lot. If I need long glass, I am pulling out the 400-800. If I need shorter focal length I grab the 100-400mm f4.5. If I was going to travel to photograph wildlife I would take both. That is where my Gura Gear pack shines.
Jul 31, 2026 at 08:27 AM
p.15 #7Sony 100-400 f/4.5
CPWarner wrote:
Don't regret selling my 200-600 one bit. When I looked at what I used it for, it was typically at 500 to 600mm, with 600mm the most common focal length used. My 400-800 is sharper and focuses significantly faster than my 200-600mm ever did. Never looked back. My take is that TC's always degrade performance and the 2X significantly does that. Maybe there are some super good ones out there, but my 2X seems to degrade performance a lot. If I need long glass, I am pulling out the 400-800. If I need shorter focal length I grab the 100-400mm...Show more →
Nothing screams portability and convenience like carrying two huge zooms instead of one...
I guess I'm one of the few people who have been able to get sharp images from the 200-600, certainly just as good as what I saw from either the two copies of the 400-800 I had.
Cliff L. wrote
I've had the new 100-400 for a week now, and I'm already regretting having sold my 200-600 because it was such a versatile lens.Nothing screams portability and convenience like carrying two huge zooms instead of one...
I guess I'm one of the few people who have been able to get sharp images from the 200-600, certainly just as good as what I saw from either the two copies of the 400-800 I had.
Jul 31, 2026 at 09:14 AM
p.15 #8Sony 100-400 f/4.5
Andyuk109 wrote:
Interesting, wasnt expecting that
Out of curiosity which would you hire given the choice? The slight difference in rental costs isnt a factor, just purely based on use between 200-400mm
Thank you
Have you considered the 200-600 G?Briefly, haven't used either but from what I gather size and weight are broadly similar, Image quality between them is heavily debated but tends to focus on comparisons of the 100-400 & TC @ 600mm vs the 200-600 whereas I imagine ill be between 150-350mm most of the time where I think the 100-400 has a slight edge
Focus speed was the main concern, tricky and changing lighting with a relatively fast moving subject made me think the 100-400 might be the better optionFor your stated use case, I don't think you will find a significant difference in image quality or focusing speed. I've had the new 100-400 for a week now, and I'm already regretting having sold my 200-600 because it was such a versatile lens.
If I was doing a boat trip to photograph eagles and AF speed was my main concern, I would take an A1 II body and the 200-600 G. Otherwise, I would try to make do with the A7R VI (in and out of crop mode) with the 100-400 f4.5; constantly attaching and removing TC's on a moving boat is not fun.
Interesting, wasnt expecting that
Out of curiosity which would you hire given the choice? The slight difference in rental costs isnt a factor, just purely based on use between 200-400mm
Thank you
Cliff L. wrote
Andyuk109 wrote
Cliff L. wrote
Andyuk109 wrote
Have I missed other options or anything to be aware of with the 100-400?Focus speed was the main concern, tricky and changing lighting with a relatively fast moving subject made me think the 100-400 might be the better option
If I was doing a boat trip to photograph eagles and AF speed was my main concern, I would take an A1 II body and the 200-600 G. Otherwise, I would try to make do with the A7R VI (in and out of crop mode) with the 100-400 f4.5; constantly attaching and removing TC's on a moving boat is not fun.
Jul 31, 2026 at 09:45 AM
p.15 #9Sony 100-400 f/4.5
.
Edited on Aug 02, 2026 at 03:13 AM · View previous versions
Edited on Aug 02, 2026 at 03:13 AM · View previous versions
Jul 31, 2026 at 10:53 AM
p.15 #10Sony 100-400 f/4.5
gdanmitchell wrote:
Out of curiosity which would you hire given the choice? The slight difference in rental costs isnt a factor, just purely based on use between 200-400mm
Thank you
Briefly, haven't used either but from what I gather size and weight are broadly similar, Image quality between them is heavily debated but tends to focus on comparisons of the 100-400 & TC @ 600mm vs the 200-600 whereas I imagine ill be between 150-350mm most of the time where I think the 100-400 has a slight edge
Focus speed was the main concern, tricky and changing lighting with a relatively fast moving subject made me think the 100-400 might be the better optionFor your stated use case, I don't think you will find a significant difference in image quality or focusing speed. I've had the new 100-400 for a week now, and I'm already regretting having sold my 200-600 because it was such a versatile lens.If I was doing a boat trip to photograph eagles and AF speed was my main concern, I would take an A1 II body and the 200-600 G. Otherwise, I would try to make do with the A7R VI (in and out of crop mode) with the 100-400 f4.5; constantly attaching and removing TC's on a moving boat is not fun.In many cases, if one is tempted to put their FF camera into crop mode to get extra reach, it probably makes more sense to leave it in the regular FF mode, and have the extra space around the subject. Sometimes subject motion is erratic and we can't always keep it centered, and you can always crop in post.
With a camera like the A7R VI, the memory buffer can be a limitation if the eagle action gets hectic - shooting in crop mode increases the number of shots you can take in a long burst. I have mine set up with a custom button to toggle crop mode on and off so I can quickly switch between the two modes.
Cliff L. wrote
Andyuk109 wrote
Interesting, wasnt expecting thatOut of curiosity which would you hire given the choice? The slight difference in rental costs isnt a factor, just purely based on use between 200-400mm
Thank you
Cliff L. wrote
Andyuk109 wrote
Cliff L. wrote
Have you considered the 200-600 G?Focus speed was the main concern, tricky and changing lighting with a relatively fast moving subject made me think the 100-400 might be the better option
With a camera like the A7R VI, the memory buffer can be a limitation if the eagle action gets hectic - shooting in crop mode increases the number of shots you can take in a long burst. I have mine set up with a custom button to toggle crop mode on and off so I can quickly switch between the two modes.
Jul 31, 2026 at 11:01 AM
|
p.15 #11Sony 100-400 f/4.5
Cliff L. wrote:
Nothing screams portability and convenience like carrying two huge zooms instead of one...
I guess I'm one of the few people who have been able to get sharp images from the 200-600, certainly just as good as what I saw from either the two copies of the 400-800 I had.
Glad the 200-600 works for you, but I had vastly different experience to yours. My 400-800 is way better than the 200-600 I had. No comparison, and that was just sharpness. Focus speed on birds in flight was superior on my 400-800. And if you had to add the 1.4x to get from an effective 560mm (the 200-600 does not actually get to 600mm) to 800mm, the 200-600 was even further behind in sharpness and focus speed. My keeper rate on the 400-800 is vastly superior to what I had with the 200-600.
As to what one is willing to carry, to each their own. If I need maximum focal length range for wildlife in weather conditions or timing that are not conducive to swapping converters. Two bodies and two long zooms is not a big deal. Neither one is close in size or weight to the 600mm f/4, and I would be happy to carry that if I could convince a certain someone to let me buy one
. I would much rather carry two significantly sharper lenses and bodies than one inferior one that has less overall range.
In Alaska last November photographing eagles and Yellowstone in February of this year, I used my 400-800 a ton and if you look at focal lengths I was at 800mm a lot. If I was going back to Yellowstone or Alaska if I could take only one long lens, I would take the 400-800mm. That said neither location would have been a problem with two big zooms as they are all shooting close to a road. I had my 300mm in addition to the 400-800mm in both cases. Grabbing the setup appropriate for a situation or carrying both is not an issue at all. We were not going far at all from a vehicle. On a boat, it would not be an issue to have two setups. I usually do.
If I knew subjects would be small and very close or larger and mid range, and I could only take one lens, I might take the 100-400 f/4.5 and a 1.4X. I definitely would take that over the 200-600mm. That is probably what I would take if going back to Costa Rica, if I did not rent a 300mm for the trip. A lot of the locations there were relatively dark under canopy and the speed of the 100-400mm would be useful.
It seems like what this forum was looking for Sony to make was a 200-800mm f4.5-6.3 GM rather than the recent 100-400 f/4.5. Now that would have been a lens more of us could have agreed on. People want one lens with extensive range. Until some point where that is produced, we will have tradeoff's.
Nothing screams portability and convenience like carrying two huge zooms instead of one...
I guess I'm one of the few people who have been able to get sharp images from the 200-600, certainly just as good as what I saw from either the two copies of the 400-800 I had.
Glad the 200-600 works for you, but I had vastly different experience to yours. My 400-800 is way better than the 200-600 I had. No comparison, and that was just sharpness. Focus speed on birds in flight was superior on my 400-800. And if you had to add the 1.4x to get from an effective 560mm (the 200-600 does not actually get to 600mm) to 800mm, the 200-600 was even further behind in sharpness and focus speed. My keeper rate on the 400-800 is vastly superior to what I had with the 200-600.
As to what one is willing to carry, to each their own. If I need maximum focal length range for wildlife in weather conditions or timing that are not conducive to swapping converters. Two bodies and two long zooms is not a big deal. Neither one is close in size or weight to the 600mm f/4, and I would be happy to carry that if I could convince a certain someone to let me buy one
. I would much rather carry two significantly sharper lenses and bodies than one inferior one that has less overall range. In Alaska last November photographing eagles and Yellowstone in February of this year, I used my 400-800 a ton and if you look at focal lengths I was at 800mm a lot. If I was going back to Yellowstone or Alaska if I could take only one long lens, I would take the 400-800mm. That said neither location would have been a problem with two big zooms as they are all shooting close to a road. I had my 300mm in addition to the 400-800mm in both cases. Grabbing the setup appropriate for a situation or carrying both is not an issue at all. We were not going far at all from a vehicle. On a boat, it would not be an issue to have two setups. I usually do.
If I knew subjects would be small and very close or larger and mid range, and I could only take one lens, I might take the 100-400 f/4.5 and a 1.4X. I definitely would take that over the 200-600mm. That is probably what I would take if going back to Costa Rica, if I did not rent a 300mm for the trip. A lot of the locations there were relatively dark under canopy and the speed of the 100-400mm would be useful.
It seems like what this forum was looking for Sony to make was a 200-800mm f4.5-6.3 GM rather than the recent 100-400 f/4.5. Now that would have been a lens more of us could have agreed on. People want one lens with extensive range. Until some point where that is produced, we will have tradeoff's.
Jul 31, 2026 at 11:28 AM
p.15 #12Sony 100-400 f/4.5
CPWarner wrote:
I guess I'm one of the few people who have been able to get sharp images from the 200-600, certainly just as good as what I saw from either the two copies of the 400-800 I had.Glad the 200-600 works for you, but I had vastly different experience to yours. My 400-800 is way better than the 200-600 I had. No comparison, and that was just sharpness. Focus speed on birds in flight was superior on my 400-800. And if you had to add the 1.4x to get from an effective 560mm (the 200-600 does not actually get to 600mm) to 800mm, the 200-600 was even further behind in sharpness and focus speed. My keeper rate on the 400-800 is vastly superior to what I had with the 200-600.
As to what one is willing to...Show more →
I'm glad your setup is meeting your needs, but your hyperbole is a bit over the top... for a minute there, I thought I had accidentally ended up in the Nikon forum.
Cliff L. wrote
Nothing screams portability and convenience like carrying two huge zooms instead of one...I guess I'm one of the few people who have been able to get sharp images from the 200-600, certainly just as good as what I saw from either the two copies of the 400-800 I had.
As to what one is willing to...Show more →
I'm glad your setup is meeting your needs, but your hyperbole is a bit over the top... for a minute there, I thought I had accidentally ended up in the Nikon forum.
Jul 31, 2026 at 12:06 PM
p.15 #13Sony 100-400 f/4.5
Interesting debate and thank you for sharing your views
Need to have a bit more of a think on this and see if I can squeeze a weekend hire of all the options in before the main trip
Thank you
Need to have a bit more of a think on this and see if I can squeeze a weekend hire of all the options in before the main trip
Thank you
Jul 31, 2026 at 12:06 PM
p.15 #14Sony 100-400 f/4.5
Cliff L. wrote:
I'm glad your setup is meeting your needs, but your hyperbole is a bit over the top... for a minute there, I thought I had accidentally ended up in the Nikon forum.
Sorry you can't handle my experience with the same lenses since it disagrees with your experience. Calling it hyperbole is more than over the top on your part though. My keeper rates and sharpness experience is what I said. I could have had a dud of a 200-600. I readily admit that. But when I look at bursts shot with my 200-600 vs 400-800 there was a significant difference in sharpness and the ability of the lens to keep a bird in flight in focus. Sorry that bothers you. A very good 200-600 that meets peoples needs would be great, bummer that I did not get one.
I'm glad your setup is meeting your needs, but your hyperbole is a bit over the top... for a minute there, I thought I had accidentally ended up in the Nikon forum.
Sorry you can't handle my experience with the same lenses since it disagrees with your experience. Calling it hyperbole is more than over the top on your part though. My keeper rates and sharpness experience is what I said. I could have had a dud of a 200-600. I readily admit that. But when I look at bursts shot with my 200-600 vs 400-800 there was a significant difference in sharpness and the ability of the lens to keep a bird in flight in focus. Sorry that bothers you. A very good 200-600 that meets peoples needs would be great, bummer that I did not get one.
Jul 31, 2026 at 12:47 PM
p.15 #15Sony 100-400 f/4.5
CPWarner wrote:
Sorry you can't handle my experience with the same lenses since it disagrees with your experience. Calling it hyperbole is more than over the top on your part though. My keeper rates and sharpness experience is what I said. I could have had a dud of a 200-600. I readily admit that. But when I look at bursts shot with my 200-600 vs 400-800 there was a significant difference in sharpness and the ability of the lens to keep a bird in flight in focus. Sorry that bothers you. A very good 200-600 that meets peoples needs would be great,...Show more →
I've used lots of Sony G and GM lenses, and the sorts of dramatic performance differences you're claiming between such similar categories of lenses don't really exist.
Meanwhile, back to the actual topic at hand...
Echinacea
Cliff L. wrote
I'm glad your setup is meeting your needs, but your hyperbole is a bit over the top... for a minute there, I thought I had accidentally ended up in the Nikon forum.I've used lots of Sony G and GM lenses, and the sorts of dramatic performance differences you're claiming between such similar categories of lenses don't really exist.
Meanwhile, back to the actual topic at hand...
 |
||
 |
||
|
Echinacea
ILCE-7RM6 FE 100-400mm F4.5 GM OSS lens 400mm f/4.5 1/1000s 5000 ISO 0.0 EV
Jul 31, 2026 at 03:57 PM
p.15 #16Sony 100-400 f/4.5
Cliff L. wrote:
I've used lots of Sony G and GM lenses, and the sorts of dramatic performance differences you're claiming between such similar categories of lenses don't really exist.
So you are saying that there are no discernable differences in performance? What I am saying is that one lens was discernably sharper than the other with the copies of the two lenses I have. And you have a problem with that. Interesting. We will have to agree to disagree.
I've used lots of Sony G and GM lenses, and the sorts of dramatic performance differences you're claiming between such similar categories of lenses don't really exist.
So you are saying that there are no discernable differences in performance? What I am saying is that one lens was discernably sharper than the other with the copies of the two lenses I have. And you have a problem with that. Interesting. We will have to agree to disagree.
Jul 31, 2026 at 04:32 PM
p.15 #17Sony 100-400 f/4.5
You can see the testes for the low cost zooms have issues in the edges and corners. There is also copy variation.
Flying BIFs are some of the worst subjects since test only inform how practical the lens is for that purpose.
Unfortunately the 200-600 has wimpy AF motors. IQ up to r=12 or so is very good in the plane of focus, but the borkahs are messed up (see the deltas between the tangential/sagittal MTF) progressively off axis.
EBH
Flying BIFs are some of the worst subjects since test only inform how practical the lens is for that purpose.
Unfortunately the 200-600 has wimpy AF motors. IQ up to r=12 or so is very good in the plane of focus, but the borkahs are messed up (see the deltas between the tangential/sagittal MTF) progressively off axis.
EBH
Jul 31, 2026 at 05:39 PM
p.15 #18Sony 100-400 f/4.5
CPWarner wrote:
So you are saying that there are no discernable differences in performance? What I am saying is that one lens was discernably sharper than the other with the copies of the two lenses I have. And you have a problem with that. Interesting. We will have to agree to disagree.
Re-read what I actually wrote...
Cliff L. wrote
I've used lots of Sony G and GM lenses, and the sorts of dramatic performance differences you're claiming between such similar categories of lenses don't really exist.Re-read what I actually wrote...
Jul 31, 2026 at 05:51 PM
p.15 #19Sony 100-400 f/4.5
|
||
 |
||
|
Anna's Hummingbird (Calypte anna)
ILCE-7RM6 FE 100-400mm F4.5 GM OSS lens 400mm f/4.5 1/1000s 1600 ISO -0.3 EV
Aug 01, 2026 at 11:23 AM
p.15 #20Sony 100-400 f/4.5
.
Edited on Aug 02, 2026 at 03:11 AM · View previous versions
Edited on Aug 02, 2026 at 03:11 AM · View previous versions
Aug 01, 2026 at 06:55 PM