Sony 100-400 f/4.5
p.17 #1Sony 100-400 f/4.5
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...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.
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...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.
Aug 07, 2026 at 01:02 PM
p.17 #2Sony 100-400 f/4.5
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.
Aug 07, 2026 at 11:24 PM
p.17 #3Sony 100-400 f/4.5
Hmm... interesting. The 300 2.8 +1.4tc sharper than the 400 2.8?
Aug 08, 2026 at 07:00 AM
p.17 #4Sony 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.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.
Pixel Perfect wrote
Cliff L. wrote
Pixel Perfect wrote
IQ is about a wash with the 1.4x attached.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.
Aug 08, 2026 at 10:00 PM
p.17 #5Sony 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.
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.
I am not sure these reports are at odds. Arbitrage is mostly talking about tracking AF and Douglas L. is talking about bird eye AF and the drop in performance might well be seen for more stationary birds. I think there is room for both reports to be consistent. Note I am not saying they aren't seeing different things and just noting that they aren't necessarily at odds.
Cliff L. wrote
Pixel Perfect wrote
IQ is about a wash with the 1.4x attached.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.
I am not sure these reports are at odds. Arbitrage is mostly talking about tracking AF and Douglas L. is talking about bird eye AF and the drop in performance might well be seen for more stationary birds. I think there is room for both reports to be consistent. Note I am not saying they aren't seeing different things and just noting that they aren't necessarily at odds.
Aug 09, 2026 at 06:23 AM
p.17 #6Sony 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.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.
It's okay. I'm just a little more demanding when it comes to focus precision, so I'm used to hearing brand fanboys squealing about my opinions.
Cliff L. wrote
Pixel Perfect wrote
Cliff L. wrote
Pixel Perfect wrote
IQ is about a wash with the 1.4x attached.It's okay. I'm just a little more demanding when it comes to focus precision, so I'm used to hearing brand fanboys squealing about my opinions.
Aug 09, 2026 at 10:36 AM
p.17 #7Sony 100-400 f/4.5
Steve Spencer 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.I am not sure these reports are at odds. Arbitrage is mostly talking about tracking AF and Douglas L. is talking about bird eye AF and the drop in performance might well be seen for more stationary birds. I think there is room for both reports to be consistent. Note I am not saying they aren't seeing different things and just noting that they aren't necessarily at odds.
Hi Steve, You must have mistaken Cliff L. for me (Douglas L). I went through this whole thread and didn't see any post by me, I do have the 100-400 f4.5 but haven't really shot much birds with it. It's simply not long enough for birds without a TC for me. Even with a 1.4XTC, 560mm is way too short for where I shoot bald eagles and ospreys. Shooting hummingbirds in my yard is OK but for that I have the 300 GM+2X TC which I really enjoy to use, so much so that I sold the 600 GM.
I have a very sharp copy of the 200-600 and have gotten really sharp airshow pictures from it. I haven't tested the 100-400 f4.5 +1.4TC vs the 200-600. If the sharpness is about the same, I may sell the 200-600 or give it to my daughter.
As crazy as it may sound, I just bought back a 100-400 GM original from the B&S board here few hours ago. I agree with Geoff, the old 100-400 GM and the new 100-400 f4.5 are really different lenses for different things, for me at least.
Pixel Perfect wrote
Cliff L. wrote
Pixel Perfect wrote
IQ is about a wash with the 1.4x attached.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.
Hi Steve, You must have mistaken Cliff L. for me (Douglas L). I went through this whole thread and didn't see any post by me, I do have the 100-400 f4.5 but haven't really shot much birds with it. It's simply not long enough for birds without a TC for me. Even with a 1.4XTC, 560mm is way too short for where I shoot bald eagles and ospreys. Shooting hummingbirds in my yard is OK but for that I have the 300 GM+2X TC which I really enjoy to use, so much so that I sold the 600 GM.
I have a very sharp copy of the 200-600 and have gotten really sharp airshow pictures from it. I haven't tested the 100-400 f4.5 +1.4TC vs the 200-600. If the sharpness is about the same, I may sell the 200-600 or give it to my daughter.
As crazy as it may sound, I just bought back a 100-400 GM original from the B&S board here few hours ago. I agree with Geoff, the old 100-400 GM and the new 100-400 f4.5 are really different lenses for different things, for me at least.
Aug 09, 2026 at 02:46 PM
|
p.17 #8Sony 100-400 f/4.5
Douglas 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.I am not sure these reports are at odds. Arbitrage is mostly talking about tracking AF and Douglas L. is talking about bird eye AF and the drop in performance might well be seen for more stationary birds. I think there is room for both reports to be consistent. Note I am not saying they aren't seeing different things and just noting that they aren't necessarily at odds.Hi Steve, You must have mistaken Cliff L. for me (Douglas L). I went through this whole thread and didn't see any post by me, I do have the 100-400 f4.5 but haven't really shot much birds with it. It's simply not long enough for birds without a TC for me. Even with a 1.4XTC, 560mm is way too short for where I shoot bald eagles and ospreys. Shooting hummingbirds in my yard is OK but for that I have the 300 GM+2X TC which I really enjoy to use, so much so that I sold the 600 GM....Show more →
Hi Douglas,
Please accept my apology for confusing you and Cliff (likewise Cliff I am sorry for the confusion). No real excuse I just wasn't paying enough attention to who was posting. I do love your airshow pictures Douglas. Thanks for sharing those.
Steve Spencer wrote
Pixel Perfect wrote
Cliff L. wrote
Pixel Perfect wrote
IQ is about a wash with the 1.4x attached.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.
Hi Douglas,
Please accept my apology for confusing you and Cliff (likewise Cliff I am sorry for the confusion). No real excuse I just wasn't paying enough attention to who was posting. I do love your airshow pictures Douglas. Thanks for sharing those.
Aug 09, 2026 at 05:21 PM
p.17 #9Sony 100-400 f/4.5
Some images of Hummingbirds taken with my 100-400 f/4.5. Some with the 1.4, some without.
ILCE-1M2 FE 100-400mm F4.5 GM OSS lens 400mm f/4.5 1/2000s 12800 ISO 0.0 EV
ILCE-1M2 FE 100-400mm F4.5 GM OSS lens 400mm f/4.5 1/2000s 3200 ISO 0.0 EV
ILCE-1M2 FE 100-400mm F4.5 GM OSS + 1.4X Teleconverter lens 560mm f/6.3 1/2000s 1250 ISO 0.0 EV
ILCE-1M2 FE 100-400mm F4.5 GM OSS + 1.4X Teleconverter lens 560mm f/6.3 1/2000s 2500 ISO 0.0 EV
ILCE-1M2 FE 100-400mm F4.5 GM OSS + 1.4X Teleconverter lens 560mm f/6.3 1/2000s 2500 ISO 0.0 EV
ILCE-1M2 FE 100-400mm F4.5 GM OSS lens 400mm f/4.5 1/2000s 2500 ISO 0.0 EV
ILCE-1M2 FE 100-400mm F4.5 GM OSS lens 400mm f/4.5 1/2000s 250 ISO 0.0 EV
Aug 10, 2026 at 02:14 PM
p.17 #11Sony 100-400 f/4.5
Has anyone used the 100-400 F4.5 for auto race? I have never shot an auto race and want to try it a week from now in DC. The circuit will have safety fence. I am thinking of using the Tamron 35-150 f2-2.8 on one camera, the 100-400 f4.5 or the 300 f2.8 GM on another camera. Not sure if f4.5 of the 100-400 will be bright enough to eliminate the mesh of the fence in the frame if I put the lens as close to the fence as possible. I know the 300 F2.8 would do a better job for that purpose but the 100-400 has the focal range flexibility.
Aug 14, 2026 at 08:43 PM
juxwox
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
p.17 #12Sony 100-400 f/4.5
That’s a great shot. The detail is really impressive, especially handheld with the 1.4x. Looks like the GM is going to be a lot of fun for sports too.
Aug 14, 2026 at 08:49 PM
p.17 #13Sony 100-400 f/4.5
Pixel Perfect wrote:
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.
Not that you would care, but the Eye-AF issue I was seeing was, as I suggested earlier, a camera (or camera + lens) issue with the A7R VI, not a lens issue. That's why I thought a firmware update might be in order.
The 100-400 f4.5 + 1.4x TC is a very sharp combo, and bird eye AF in my A7cR nails the focus every time.
Pine Siskin (Spinus pinus)
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.
Not that you would care, but the Eye-AF issue I was seeing was, as I suggested earlier, a camera (or camera + lens) issue with the A7R VI, not a lens issue. That's why I thought a firmware update might be in order.
The 100-400 f4.5 + 1.4x TC is a very sharp combo, and bird eye AF in my A7cR nails the focus every time.
 |
||
 |
||
|
Pine Siskin (Spinus pinus)
ILCE-7CR FE 100-400mm F4.5 GM OSS + 1.4X Teleconverter lens 560mm f/6.3 1/1000s 3200 ISO +0.3 EV
Aug 15, 2026 at 09:27 AM
p.17 #14Sony 100-400 f/4.5
Would you switch 70200 II f2.8 GM and 400 f2.8 with 100-400 f4.5 and 50-150 f2 GM?
Aug 24, 2026 at 01:38 PM