jayviary wrote:
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. ...Show more →
Your findings mirror mine fairly closely.
At 800mm it is serviceable but I don't really feel worth it over cropping a 1.4 shot to match FOV. It may be worth it for static subjects but certainly not for flight where AF hit takes a nose dive.
I shoot pro sports for the last bunch of years, I replaced my 400 2.8 with the 200-600 for all day light games. Even at night with good lighting. I shot the new lens 100-400 4.5 for the first time this past weekend I have a great copy of the 200-600 I seem to have the same opinions of everyone else the 100-400 is better with the 200-600 with a 1.4 x on it the focus is better the oof areas is better much better, It is sharper, I have not tried it with the 2 x . I can use this lens on night games and keep my 300 now in the bag. I am older and no longer want the weight of the 400 so use the 300 with extenders and with a 1.4 on it sharper the 400 is without one.
Cliff L. wrote:
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.
I'm pretty sure I couldn't care less. You are the only one complaining about AF with the 1.4x. So I'll take the other dozens of tests and reviews I've seen more seriously than your sample size of 1.
