Sony 100-400 f/4.5
p.16 #1Sony 100-400 f/4.5
gdanmitchell wrote:
Hmm, that is news to me… ;-)
Testes with corners?
EB-1 wrote
You can see the testes for the low cost zooms have issues in the edges and corners…Testes with corners?
Aug 01, 2026 at 08:14 PM
p.16 #2Sony 100-400 f/4.5
Cliff L. wrote:
Hmm, that is news to me… ;-)Testes with corners?
Yes, It's cubic balls. Comes from wearing "boxers".
gdanmitchell wrote
EB-1 wrote
You can see the testes for the low cost zooms have issues in the edges and corners…Yes, It's cubic balls. Comes from wearing "boxers".
Aug 02, 2026 at 06:42 AM
p.16 #3Sony 100-400 f/4.5
schlotz wrote:
Yup, it will be a night game although this time of the year 7pm starts with the sunset a bit after 9pm isn't a full ISO challenge. The exceptions are heavy cloud cover and weather. Last Sat it poured in the second half and the ISO went up a ton. I'll try to post here my first impressions after the 6/17 match. FYI, I usually post game captures the next day. See link in the www.
Well things got busy and I haven't circled back. Here are three (all at 400mm) from the previous home match. Sun doesn't set until 9pm 'ish so the match gets done before it gets dark. That will change as we head into September where I'll get a better feel on how well it works under higher ISO's. I've made a note on the amount of crop on each of them. Shot almost the entire match using just the 100-400 ƒ4.5, although a few captures were with the 50-150. So far, my take is this lens performs. It was a pleasure to be able to shoot the majority of a match with only one body (A1 MkII).
Note: re: 60% crop. I was stationed on the side line by the top of the 18 yard box (approx 3/4 of the field away from the action).
Matt
Crop was 33%
Crop was 50%
Crop was 60%
Yup, it will be a night game although this time of the year 7pm starts with the sunset a bit after 9pm isn't a full ISO challenge. The exceptions are heavy cloud cover and weather. Last Sat it poured in the second half and the ISO went up a ton. I'll try to post here my first impressions after the 6/17 match. FYI, I usually post game captures the next day. See link in the www.
Well things got busy and I haven't circled back. Here are three (all at 400mm) from the previous home match. Sun doesn't set until 9pm 'ish so the match gets done before it gets dark. That will change as we head into September where I'll get a better feel on how well it works under higher ISO's. I've made a note on the amount of crop on each of them. Shot almost the entire match using just the 100-400 ƒ4.5, although a few captures were with the 50-150. So far, my take is this lens performs. It was a pleasure to be able to shoot the majority of a match with only one body (A1 MkII).
Note: re: 60% crop. I was stationed on the side line by the top of the 18 yard box (approx 3/4 of the field away from the action).
Matt
Crop was 33%
ILCE-1M2 FE 100-400mm F4.5 GM OSS lens 400mm f/4.5 1/2000s 400 ISO -0.3 EV
Crop was 50%
ILCE-1M2 FE 100-400mm F4.5 GM OSS lens 400mm f/4.5 1/2000s 500 ISO -0.3 EV
Crop was 60%
ILCE-1M2 FE 100-400mm F4.5 GM OSS lens 400mm f/4.5 1/2000s 400 ISO -0.3 EV
Aug 02, 2026 at 07:07 AM
p.16 #4Sony 100-400 f/4.5
Andyuk109 wrote:
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
I've now come back from a week using the 100-400 with the 1.4TC shooting mainly landscapes and slow and big seagulls in flight. I didn't find the lens to be particularly compelling versus the 200-600 for this use case with the A1ii. I also shot some butterflies at distance hand-held and the form factor was better due to the weight difference and distribution. For these use cases, if you have a good mounting system like a series 3 class tripod with a gimbal, I can't see a compelling reason to switch the 100-400 f/4.5.
I am going to rent the 100-400 again next time my younger daughter has a frisbee tournament later this summer. I suspect this is the killer use case for me for this lens and if it delivers as advertised, would be enough for me to sell the 200-600 and replace it with the 100-400
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
I've now come back from a week using the 100-400 with the 1.4TC shooting mainly landscapes and slow and big seagulls in flight. I didn't find the lens to be particularly compelling versus the 200-600 for this use case with the A1ii. I also shot some butterflies at distance hand-held and the form factor was better due to the weight difference and distribution. For these use cases, if you have a good mounting system like a series 3 class tripod with a gimbal, I can't see a compelling reason to switch the 100-400 f/4.5.
I am going to rent the 100-400 again next time my younger daughter has a frisbee tournament later this summer. I suspect this is the killer use case for me for this lens and if it delivers as advertised, would be enough for me to sell the 200-600 and replace it with the 100-400
Aug 03, 2026 at 12:05 PM
p.16 #5Sony 100-400 f/4.5
A couple from this weekend.
Pelican Approach by Brian Caslis, on Flickr
Egret by Brian Caslis, on Flickr
Pelican Approach by Brian Caslis, on FlickrEgret by Brian Caslis, on FlickrAug 03, 2026 at 07:56 PM
p.16 #6Sony 100-400 f/4.5
Cliff L. 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 f4.5. If I was going to travel to photograph wildlife I would take both. That is where my Gura Gear pack shines.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.
Agree, my 200-600 is sharp wide open at 600mm, I get amazing feather detail with the A1 and have never thought gee I wish this was much sharper.
I will only swap the 200-600 for the 100-400 f/4.5 due the superior AF performance, better balancing, better mfd. IQ is about a wash with the 1.4x attached. If I need more than 600mm I have my Nikon Z9 and 800 PF for that. I would never buy the 400-800. The fact it's f/8 at 600mm and an other 300gm heavier than the 200-6000, is a hard pass. ISO's already climb too high in low light with f/6.3.
CPWarner wrote
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.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.
Agree, my 200-600 is sharp wide open at 600mm, I get amazing feather detail with the A1 and have never thought gee I wish this was much sharper.
I will only swap the 200-600 for the 100-400 f/4.5 due the superior AF performance, better balancing, better mfd. IQ is about a wash with the 1.4x attached. If I need more than 600mm I have my Nikon Z9 and 800 PF for that. I would never buy the 400-800. The fact it's f/8 at 600mm and an other 300gm heavier than the 200-6000, is a hard pass. ISO's already climb too high in low light with f/6.3.
Aug 03, 2026 at 08:51 PM
p.16 #7Sony 100-400 f/4.5
Pixel Perfect wrote:
IQ is about a wash with the 1.4x attached.
After a week of using the 100-400 f4.5 on the A7R VI, I've observed that the bird eye AF performance drops significantly with the 1.4x attached, even in bright mid-day sunlight. It might just need a firmware tweak in either the camera or the lens (or both).
IQ is about a wash with the 1.4x attached.
After a week of using the 100-400 f4.5 on the A7R VI, I've observed that the bird eye AF performance drops significantly with the 1.4x attached, even in bright mid-day sunlight. It might just need a firmware tweak in either the camera or the lens (or both).
Aug 03, 2026 at 09:40 PM
p.16 #8Sony 100-400 f/4.5
Newenglandrocks wrote:
Andyuk109 wrote
Me neither when it comes to bird photography, hence needing every little bit of help possible from whichever lens I hire for this tripDid 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
I am going to rent the 100-400...Show more →
Thank you for the comments, the positive sentiment towards the 200-600 is a surprise, I used the nikon 180-600 for a while and wasn't hugely impressed at 400mm+ and in my mind they were broadly equivalent but doesnt look to be correct based on the feedback and images here
Still a dilemma for the upcoming trip, ill be on the back of a small boat and shooting handheld (which completely rules out the 300-600 f4)
Longer reach would be nice for the long, slowish glide in, but the action shot of the eagle grabbing the fish will be very fast and at 400mm max
At the minute I'm leaning towards hiring the 300mm and my existing 70-200 gmii or 100-400 as backups
Thanks
Aug 05, 2026 at 08:43 AM
p.16 #9Sony 100-400 f/4.5
Thank you for the comments, the positive sentiment towards the 200-600 is a surprise, I used the nikon 180-600 for a while and wasn't hugely impressed at 400mm+ and in my mind they were broadly equivalent but doesnt look to be correct based on the feedback and images here
Still a dilemma for the upcoming trip, ill be on the back of a small boat and shooting handheld (which completely rules out the 300-600 f4)
Longer reach would be nice for the long, slowish glide in, but the action shot of the eagle grabbing the fish will be very fast and at 400mm...Show more →
If you are sure that 400mm is enough, the 100-400 f/4.5 would give flexibility that the 300 does not. If I knew that I had no need for more than 400mm, I would personally pick the 100-400mm over the 300. Yes the 300 is crazy sharp and faster minimum aperture. However, the ability to zoom out and give some room for environmental shots and space between a bird and edge of the frame would seem to be important. It also is 2/3 to 1 stop faster than the 200-600. Beyond 400mm might be tough to manage with a rocking small boat and diminish the value of the longer zoom range of the 200-600 or other options. I was in a 25 foot boat trying to photograph sealions on rocks at the shore between Juneau and Haynes last fall. I needed my 400-800 to isolate sealions. I was hard to keep them in the frame at 600mm and beyond, and we were not in high seas. Personally, I would pick flexibility of the 100-400 f/4.5 over the 300 and not take the 300.
Aug 05, 2026 at 09:01 AM
p.16 #10Sony 100-400 f/4.5
Well 16 pages later, I would say for those on a budget I don't see much point in getting the f4.5 over the f5.6 version unless the IQ and/or AF are noticeably better. More weight, more money, and only 2/3 stops more light gathering. Some of the f4.5 images look better, but then many look the same or worse.
https://cameradecision.com/lenses/compare/Sony-FE-100-400mm-F4.5-5.6-GM-OSS-vs-Sony-FE-100-400mm-F4.5-GM-OSS
https://cameradecision.com/lenses/compare/Sony-FE-100-400mm-F4.5-5.6-GM-OSS-vs-Sony-FE-100-400mm-F4.5-GM-OSS
Aug 05, 2026 at 10:44 AM
|
p.16 #11Sony 100-400 f/4.5
I think you are correct, have switched the hire to the 100-400 f4.5
Was thinking id hire the 300 and take my existing 100-400 but probably not practical to switch lenses or bodies to get any value from this
Thank you
CPWarner wrote:
Still a dilemma for the upcoming trip, ill be on the back of a small boat and shooting handheld (which completely rules out the 300-600 f4)
Longer reach would be nice for the long, slowish glide in, but the action shot of the eagle grabbing the fish will be very fast and at 400mm max
At the minute I'm leaning towards hiring the 300mm and my existing 70-200 gmii or 100-400 as backupsIf you are sure that 400mm is enough, the 100-400 f/4.5 would give flexibility that the 300 does not. If I knew that I had no need for more than 400mm, I would personally pick the 100-400mm over the 300. Yes the 300 is crazy sharp and faster minimum aperture. However, the ability to zoom out and give some room for environmental shots and space between a bird and edge of the frame would seem to be important. It also is 2/3 to 1 stop faster than the 200-600. Beyond 400mm might be tough to manage with a rocking small...Show more →
Was thinking id hire the 300 and take my existing 100-400 but probably not practical to switch lenses or bodies to get any value from this
Thank you
CPWarner wrote:
Earlier quote
Thank you for the comments, the positive sentiment towards the 200-600 is a surprise, I used the nikon 180-600 for a while and wasn't hugely impressed at 400mm+ and in my mind they were broadly equivalent but doesnt look to be correct based on the feedback and images hereStill a dilemma for the upcoming trip, ill be on the back of a small boat and shooting handheld (which completely rules out the 300-600 f4)
Longer reach would be nice for the long, slowish glide in, but the action shot of the eagle grabbing the fish will be very fast and at 400mm max
At the minute I'm leaning towards hiring the 300mm and my existing 70-200 gmii or 100-400 as backups
Aug 06, 2026 at 04:32 AM
p.16 #12Sony 100-400 f/4.5
These last several posts are highlighting the conundrum that the Sony long lens line up has become for me. Which pair is the perfect pair? I have way too much Sony glass what should I keep or sell?
I have the 300 GM the old 100-400 4.5-5.6 and the 400-800. I also have the 70-200mm GM II.
I sold the 200-600 and don't miss it.
While I'm not sure how frequently I would carry the 300 for travel, it will hang around for use on small birds and hiking locally. So good for finches and hummingbirds.
Last trip to Yellowstone I took the 400-800 which was perfect for mammals along with the old 100-400 GM which was OK but always a bit underwhelming for landscape if I leave the 70-200mm GM II home.
Trip to Florida for birding, I took 400-800 and the 300 GM leaving the 100-400 home but bringing the 70-200. On that trip it always seemed like I had the wrong pair when hiking. If I had the 400-800 and the 70-200, I seemed to regret not having the 300 GM. If I had the 300mm with 2X for 600 and the 70-200 on a 1.4X TC, then I really needed 800mm.
I keep wondering if the 300mm with a 2X TC for 600mm and a new 100-400 f4.5 would be the perfect pairing, and in a pinch if you really needed 800, putting the 2X on the 100-400.
Would I really sell my 400-800, old 100-400 and 70-200GM II? Gulp? Not sure, but I do love reading what decisions others are making.
I have the 300 GM the old 100-400 4.5-5.6 and the 400-800. I also have the 70-200mm GM II.
I sold the 200-600 and don't miss it.
While I'm not sure how frequently I would carry the 300 for travel, it will hang around for use on small birds and hiking locally. So good for finches and hummingbirds.
Last trip to Yellowstone I took the 400-800 which was perfect for mammals along with the old 100-400 GM which was OK but always a bit underwhelming for landscape if I leave the 70-200mm GM II home.
Trip to Florida for birding, I took 400-800 and the 300 GM leaving the 100-400 home but bringing the 70-200. On that trip it always seemed like I had the wrong pair when hiking. If I had the 400-800 and the 70-200, I seemed to regret not having the 300 GM. If I had the 300mm with 2X for 600 and the 70-200 on a 1.4X TC, then I really needed 800mm.
I keep wondering if the 300mm with a 2X TC for 600mm and a new 100-400 f4.5 would be the perfect pairing, and in a pinch if you really needed 800, putting the 2X on the 100-400.
Would I really sell my 400-800, old 100-400 and 70-200GM II? Gulp? Not sure, but I do love reading what decisions others are making.
Aug 06, 2026 at 02:01 PM
p.16 #13Sony 100-400 f/4.5
Cliff L. wrote:
After a week of using the 100-400 f4.5 on the A7R VI, I've observed that the bird eye AF performance drops significantly with the 1.4x attached, even in bright mid-day sunlight. It might just need a firmware tweak in either the camera or the lens (or both).
IIRC this seems at odds with Arbitrage's results.
It'll be several more months before I decide but maybe with SAR saying we are getting a 400 f/4.5 and 600 f/6.3 things might change.
Pixel Perfect wrote
IQ is about a wash with the 1.4x attached.IIRC this seems at odds with Arbitrage's results.
It'll be several more months before I decide but maybe with SAR saying we are getting a 400 f/4.5 and 600 f/6.3 things might change.
Aug 07, 2026 at 01:19 AM
p.16 #14Sony 100-400 f/4.5
Agreed, I really wanted the 100-400 to be an absolute knockout
Then it would be the 100-400 and 1.4tc when required, sell the 300-600 f4 if/when sony update the 600f4 and 70-200gmii
First world problems admittedly but did feel like the upgrade path on Nikon was cleaner with the midrange primes and integrated TCs on the super primes
billsnature wrote:
These last several posts are highlighting the conundrum that the Sony long lens line up has become for me. Which pair is the perfect pair? I have way too much Sony glass what should I keep or sell?
I have the 300 GM the old 100-400 4.5-5.6 and the 400-800. I also have the 70-200mm GM II.
I sold the 200-600 and don't miss it.
While I'm not sure how frequently I would carry the 300 for travel, it will hang around for use on small birds and hiking locally. So good for finches and hummingbirds.
Last trip to Yellowstone I took the...Show more →
Then it would be the 100-400 and 1.4tc when required, sell the 300-600 f4 if/when sony update the 600f4 and 70-200gmii
First world problems admittedly but did feel like the upgrade path on Nikon was cleaner with the midrange primes and integrated TCs on the super primes
billsnature wrote:
These last several posts are highlighting the conundrum that the Sony long lens line up has become for me. Which pair is the perfect pair? I have way too much Sony glass what should I keep or sell?
I have the 300 GM the old 100-400 4.5-5.6 and the 400-800. I also have the 70-200mm GM II.
I sold the 200-600 and don't miss it.
While I'm not sure how frequently I would carry the 300 for travel, it will hang around for use on small birds and hiking locally. So good for finches and hummingbirds.
Last trip to Yellowstone I took the...Show more →
Aug 07, 2026 at 02:13 AM
p.16 #15Sony 100-400 f/4.5
I have the 300 GM,the old 100-400 4.5-5.6,the 400-800 and 70-200mm GM II.I sold the 200-600 but quickly missed it and re-acquired an even sharper copy of it.Also the sharp copy of G 70-300/4-5.6 sits on my shelf.Yet I decided to buy Sony GM 100-400/4.5.Why? It renders clearer (sharper and contrastier) picture than any 70-100-200-400 to 300-400-600-800 zoom I have ever tried.In fact it's IQ is not far away from a very good/excellent long/fast tele prime like GM 300/2.8.
Aug 07, 2026 at 03:08 AM
p.16 #16Sony 100-400 f/4.5
And yet a lot of people rank it closely to the 200-600 & old 100-400 which is confusing for those of us mulling it over
Genuinely looking forward to using it and seeing first hand, for someone like me who struggles with primes i could see it edging out the 300gm as an option, replacing my 100-400 and maybe 70-200gmii
Add in a 70-200 f4 for travel and light macro use and done
Peire wrote:
I have the 300 GM,the old 100-400 4.5-5.6,the 400-800 and 70-200mm GM II.I sold the 200-600 but quickly missed it and re-acquired an even sharper copy of it.Also the sharp copy of G 70-300/4-5.6 sits on my shelf.Yet I decided to buy Sony GM 100-400/4.5.Why? It renders clearer (sharper and contrastier) picture than any 70-100-200-400 to 300-400-600-800 zoom I have ever tried.In fact it's IQ is not far away from a very good/excellent long/fast tele prime like GM 300/2.8.
Genuinely looking forward to using it and seeing first hand, for someone like me who struggles with primes i could see it edging out the 300gm as an option, replacing my 100-400 and maybe 70-200gmii
Add in a 70-200 f4 for travel and light macro use and done
Peire wrote:
I have the 300 GM,the old 100-400 4.5-5.6,the 400-800 and 70-200mm GM II.I sold the 200-600 but quickly missed it and re-acquired an even sharper copy of it.Also the sharp copy of G 70-300/4-5.6 sits on my shelf.Yet I decided to buy Sony GM 100-400/4.5.Why? It renders clearer (sharper and contrastier) picture than any 70-100-200-400 to 300-400-600-800 zoom I have ever tried.In fact it's IQ is not far away from a very good/excellent long/fast tele prime like GM 300/2.8.
Aug 07, 2026 at 04:53 AM
p.16 #17Sony 100-400 f/4.5
Having used the original 100-400 for a number of years in sports coverage on a second body I can definitively say the new 100-400 ƒ4.5 demonstrates a nice improvement in both AF acquisition and IQ BUT, that is just me. IMO it comes down to how and where one uses the lens. It might not be as useful in other venues for some. I still have the 200-600, 400 2.8, 70-200 2.8 II. Each of them have their uses which is why I still own them. If there's an outlier I'd say it be the 200-600. For me, it might be the first to go but I'm not there yet.
Aug 07, 2026 at 05:33 AM
p.16 #18Sony 100-400 f/4.5
Yep, could see sports as a strong use case for this lens
Slowish wildlife (which it would be for me) maybe a little less so given the other options available
An interesting debate either way and looking forward to using it!
Slowish wildlife (which it would be for me) maybe a little less so given the other options available
An interesting debate either way and looking forward to using it!
Aug 07, 2026 at 05:52 AM
p.16 #19Sony 100-400 f/4.5
Pixel Perfect wrote:
After a week of using the 100-400 f4.5 on the A7R VI, I've observed that the bird eye AF performance drops significantly with the 1.4x attached, even in bright mid-day sunlight. It might just need a firmware tweak in either the camera or the lens (or both).IIRC this seems at odds with Arbitrage's results.
I'm pretty sure I didn't let him use my lens or my camera, so that's pretty meaningless... the only results that matter to me are those from the gear I'm actually using.
Cliff L. wrote
Pixel Perfect wrote
IQ is about a wash with the 1.4x attached.I'm pretty sure I didn't let him use my lens or my camera, so that's pretty meaningless... the only results that matter to me are those from the gear I'm actually using.
Aug 07, 2026 at 08:52 AM
p.16 #20Sony 100-400 f/4.5
The lens is quite excellent. Center sharpness with a 1.4x is about as good as a good copy of the 200-600. Contrast is better, and background rendering removes the swirl effect that the 200-600 produces. Sharpness across the frame is better even with the 1.4x.
The handling is better, thanks to better weight distribution. I still like the throw of the 200-600 a bit better, but the 100-400/4.5 is still good.
The AF, even with a 1.4x is far superior to the 200-600mm, which ultimately results in more sharp shots per burst.
For tougher subjects, like swallows, if I got roughly 5 out of 10 sharp shots with the 200-600, I’d get closer to 9 out of 10 with the 100-400/4.5. I wish I still had an A9iii to really push the tracking and precapture a bit more.
The bare lens is close to the 300/2.8 in terms of sharpness. The AF is roughly equal, or really hard to tell. The AF on both is about the same with a 1.4x, although the 300/2.8 is near as sharp as the 100-400/4.5 bare.
I think the 200-600, 100-400/4.5(1.4x), and 300/2.8(2x) are all close in center sharpness. I do think the AF is just a tad bit snappier than the 300/2.8 (2x), although both are much better than the 200-600 in that regard when shooting more difficult subjects.
I’ll be trying it with a 2x soon. I don’t usually need 800, but a serviceable option would be nice.
The handling is better, thanks to better weight distribution. I still like the throw of the 200-600 a bit better, but the 100-400/4.5 is still good.
The AF, even with a 1.4x is far superior to the 200-600mm, which ultimately results in more sharp shots per burst.
For tougher subjects, like swallows, if I got roughly 5 out of 10 sharp shots with the 200-600, I’d get closer to 9 out of 10 with the 100-400/4.5. I wish I still had an A9iii to really push the tracking and precapture a bit more.
The bare lens is close to the 300/2.8 in terms of sharpness. The AF is roughly equal, or really hard to tell. The AF on both is about the same with a 1.4x, although the 300/2.8 is near as sharp as the 100-400/4.5 bare.
I think the 200-600, 100-400/4.5(1.4x), and 300/2.8(2x) are all close in center sharpness. I do think the AF is just a tad bit snappier than the 300/2.8 (2x), although both are much better than the 200-600 in that regard when shooting more difficult subjects.
I’ll be trying it with a 2x soon. I don’t usually need 800, but a serviceable option would be nice.
Aug 07, 2026 at 10:15 AM