Sony 100-400 f/4.5
p.7 #1Sony 100-400 f/4.5
Nikon 800 E FL had that "matched" 1.25x external TC that came with the lens.
Not sure how "matched" each of those were.
There was nothing to compare with as you couldn't buy a generic 1.25x and see how it compared to the "matched" one.
Not sure how "matched" each of those were.
There was nothing to compare with as you couldn't buy a generic 1.25x and see how it compared to the "matched" one.
Jun 18, 2026 at 07:17 AM
p.7 #2Sony 100-400 f/4.5
EB-1 wrote:
I for one agree with the approach of the 300GM without TCs. It's lightweight, and anyone that wants a TC can buy the appropriate one, and then shift said TCs onto the lens they want to use at the moment. It's modular. Rather than pay for a built-in TC 3-4 times you just pay once, and deal with the quirks of putting them on or off lenses.Part of the value of built-in TCs is that they are tuned to the lens and therefore lead to better performance. Sometimes that is quite noticeable. Canon builds TC into the 400 f/2.8 and 600 f/4 RF lenses and the built-in TCs produce better results than the ir regular modular TC. I think that is the primary reason to build in a TC. Modularity is good, but so is better performance and if you are going to spend over ten thousand for a lens, spending a couple thousand more for optimal TC performance seems like something a lot of people willing to spend that kind of money would want.
With regard to just making a zoom lens a variable aperture lens instead, I don't think it is that easy. I think adding a TC and making a variable aperture lens are very different designs and no variable aperture zoom that I know of has performance at 1.4X less than the max aperture at 1.4X less than the max focal length. So, for example, if the 100-400 f/4.5 was a 140-560 lens, I have never seen a variable aperture zoom that would be f/4.5 at 400, so you would be sacrificing versatility at 400, and at least some of the focal length range below that, to make it a variable aperture zoom instead of a fixed aperture zoom that also takes a TC.That certainly seems logical, but I don't think it's always true. I seem to recall Nikon users saying the 180-400 with built in converter wasn't as sharp as it was using an external 1.4x.If that were true, then that would be a fail from Nikon for that lens. They ought to be able with a dedicated tuned TC get better performance than a generic TC that has to work with many different lenses and if they can't, then they should just introduce the lens without a buit-in TC, IMO. Maybe there was a construction issue with that lens and they had trouble making it to specifications and when the TC was engaged in at least some copies it didn't operate as it was designed.I've seen people report that not just with the 180-400 but with the 400/600 primes. Usually it is very close but sometimes an external ends up being slightly better than the internal.
Same with Canon. My 200-400TC was slightly better with my external 1.4 vs the internal. But I'm sure there were others that had the opposite experience.
People always claim the internal ones should be so much better but user experience has proven that to be false for both Canon and Nikon.The 1.4x III was a little better than the internal TC of the 200-400/4. I no longer have access to optical engineers to explain if it is a true limitation or depends on the particular combination. Maybe a lens designer here can chime in.
EBH
I'm not a lens designer and I can't quantify how much difference it makes, but a principal difference between external and internal TCs is that external TCs extend the total length of the optical path whereas the internal ones do not. So you clearly can't use the same design. This might be an advantage for the external one, as shallower angles are easier to compensate. A probably bigger advantage for internal TCs is that they are (usually) not the last glass in the optical path, which opens design flexibility that does not exist for external TCs.
arbitrage wrote
Steve Spencer wrote
scott f wrote
Steve Spencer wrote
Lethimcook wrote
This might be a silly thought but don't built in TCs on zooms just make the lens a variable aperture zoom?I for one agree with the approach of the 300GM without TCs. It's lightweight, and anyone that wants a TC can buy the appropriate one, and then shift said TCs onto the lens they want to use at the moment. It's modular. Rather than pay for a built-in TC 3-4 times you just pay once, and deal with the quirks of putting them on or off lenses.
With regard to just making a zoom lens a variable aperture lens instead, I don't think it is that easy. I think adding a TC and making a variable aperture lens are very different designs and no variable aperture zoom that I know of has performance at 1.4X less than the max aperture at 1.4X less than the max focal length. So, for example, if the 100-400 f/4.5 was a 140-560 lens, I have never seen a variable aperture zoom that would be f/4.5 at 400, so you would be sacrificing versatility at 400, and at least some of the focal length range below that, to make it a variable aperture zoom instead of a fixed aperture zoom that also takes a TC.
Same with Canon. My 200-400TC was slightly better with my external 1.4 vs the internal. But I'm sure there were others that had the opposite experience.
People always claim the internal ones should be so much better but user experience has proven that to be false for both Canon and Nikon.
EBH
I'm not a lens designer and I can't quantify how much difference it makes, but a principal difference between external and internal TCs is that external TCs extend the total length of the optical path whereas the internal ones do not. So you clearly can't use the same design. This might be an advantage for the external one, as shallower angles are easier to compensate. A probably bigger advantage for internal TCs is that they are (usually) not the last glass in the optical path, which opens design flexibility that does not exist for external TCs.
Jun 18, 2026 at 10:53 AM
p.7 #3Sony 100-400 f/4.5
As long as the image quality is close, the internal TC is obviously far more useful for action photography.
A flip of your finger to engage and disengage the internal TC beats the speed of external TC swapping by a country mile.
A flip of your finger to engage and disengage the internal TC beats the speed of external TC swapping by a country mile.
Jun 18, 2026 at 12:14 PM
p.7 #4Sony 100-400 f/4.5
Daran wrote:
With regard to just making a zoom lens a variable aperture lens instead, I don't think it is that easy. I think adding a TC and making a variable aperture lens are very different designs and no variable aperture zoom that I know of has performance at 1.4X less than the max aperture at 1.4X less than the max focal length. So, for example, if the 100-400 f/4.5 was a 140-560 lens, I have never seen a variable aperture zoom that would be f/4.5 at 400, so you would be sacrificing versatility at 400, and at least some of the focal length range below that, to make it a variable aperture zoom instead of a fixed aperture zoom that also takes a TC.That certainly seems logical, but I don't think it's always true. I seem to recall Nikon users saying the 180-400 with built in converter wasn't as sharp as it was using an external 1.4x.If that were true, then that would be a fail from Nikon for that lens. They ought to be able with a dedicated tuned TC get better performance than a generic TC that has to work with many different lenses and if they can't, then they should just introduce the lens without a buit-in TC, IMO. Maybe there was a construction issue with that lens and they had trouble making it to specifications and when the TC was engaged in at least some copies it didn't operate as it was designed.I've seen people report that not just with the 180-400 but with the 400/600 primes. Usually it is very close but sometimes an external ends up being slightly better than the internal.
Same with Canon. My 200-400TC was slightly better with my external 1.4 vs the internal. But I'm sure there were others that had the opposite experience.
People always claim the internal ones should be so much better but user experience has proven that to be false for both Canon and Nikon.The 1.4x III was a little better than the internal TC of the 200-400/4. I no longer have access to optical engineers to explain if it is a true limitation or depends on the particular combination. Maybe a lens designer here can chime in.
EBHI'm not a lens designer and I can't quantify how much difference it makes, but a principal difference between external and internal TCs is that external TCs extend the total length of the optical path whereas the internal ones do not. So you clearly can't use the same design. This might be an advantage for the external one, as shallower angles are easier to compensate. A probably bigger advantage for internal TCs is that they are (usually) not the last glass in the optical path, which opens design flexibility that does not exist for external TCs.
I would really like a double turret internal design where you could flip in one of two different TCs like 1.4x and 2x or 1.25x and 1.6x, but I know that creates additional optical complexities.
EBH
EB-1 wrote
arbitrage wrote
Steve Spencer wrote
scott f wrote
Steve Spencer wrote
Part of the value of built-in TCs is that they are tuned to the lens and therefore lead to better performance. Sometimes that is quite noticeable. Canon builds TC into the 400 f/2.8 and 600 f/4 RF lenses and the built-in TCs produce better results than the ir regular modular TC. I think that is the primary reason to build in a TC. Modularity is good, but so is better performance and if you are going to spend over ten thousand for a lens, spending a couple thousand more for optimal TC performance seems like something a lot of people willing to spend that kind of money would want.With regard to just making a zoom lens a variable aperture lens instead, I don't think it is that easy. I think adding a TC and making a variable aperture lens are very different designs and no variable aperture zoom that I know of has performance at 1.4X less than the max aperture at 1.4X less than the max focal length. So, for example, if the 100-400 f/4.5 was a 140-560 lens, I have never seen a variable aperture zoom that would be f/4.5 at 400, so you would be sacrificing versatility at 400, and at least some of the focal length range below that, to make it a variable aperture zoom instead of a fixed aperture zoom that also takes a TC.
Same with Canon. My 200-400TC was slightly better with my external 1.4 vs the internal. But I'm sure there were others that had the opposite experience.
People always claim the internal ones should be so much better but user experience has proven that to be false for both Canon and Nikon.
EBH
I would really like a double turret internal design where you could flip in one of two different TCs like 1.4x and 2x or 1.25x and 1.6x, but I know that creates additional optical complexities.
EBH
Jun 18, 2026 at 01:01 PM
p.7 #5Sony 100-400 f/4.5
Anyone done any A/B testing against the 300mm prime? I'm debating on this lens vs the 300 prime for sports, indoor and outdoor.
Jun 18, 2026 at 03:37 PM
p.7 #6Sony 100-400 f/4.5
EB-1 wrote:
I would really like a double turret internal design where you could flip in one of two different TCs like 1.4x and 2x or 1.25x and 1.6x, but I know that creates additional optical complexities.
EBH
Are you kidding? And what do you think the monetary complexities would be
I would really like a double turret internal design where you could flip in one of two different TCs like 1.4x and 2x or 1.25x and 1.6x, but I know that creates additional optical complexities.
EBH
Are you kidding? And what do you think the monetary complexities would beJun 18, 2026 at 04:02 PM
p.7 #7Sony 100-400 f/4.5
Imagemaster wrote:
EBH Are you kidding? And what do you think the monetary complexities would be
In the old days we had 4 prime lenses on a turret for filming/video.
It's just mechanical, not that difficult. They just need to duplicate the flip out mechanism on both sides and add some parts for non-interference. Maybe each TC adds $1000? My old-school 200-400 over 12 years ago has a TC in it. It's 2026.
EBH
Edited on Jun 18, 2026 at 04:15 PM · View previous versions
EB-1 wrote
I would really like a double turret internal design where you could flip in one of two different TCs like 1.4x and 2x or 1.25x and 1.6x, but I know that creates additional optical complexities.EBH
Are you kidding? And what do you think the monetary complexities would beIn the old days we had 4 prime lenses on a turret for filming/video.
It's just mechanical, not that difficult. They just need to duplicate the flip out mechanism on both sides and add some parts for non-interference. Maybe each TC adds $1000? My old-school 200-400 over 12 years ago has a TC in it. It's 2026.
EBH
Edited on Jun 18, 2026 at 04:15 PM · View previous versions
Jun 18, 2026 at 04:13 PM
p.7 #8Sony 100-400 f/4.5
Lethimcook wrote:
Anyone done any A/B testing against the 300mm prime? I'm debating on this lens vs the 300 prime for sports, indoor and outdoor.
What metrics do you care most about? Would you be using the 300GM with TCs?
See my previous posts in this thread and the 100-400GM Image thread for my thoughts between the two. I've also linked RAW files in the image thread if you want to compare the IQ of those two lenses.
Anyone done any A/B testing against the 300mm prime? I'm debating on this lens vs the 300 prime for sports, indoor and outdoor.
What metrics do you care most about? Would you be using the 300GM with TCs?
See my previous posts in this thread and the 100-400GM Image thread for my thoughts between the two. I've also linked RAW files in the image thread if you want to compare the IQ of those two lenses.
Jun 18, 2026 at 04:14 PM
p.7 #9Sony 100-400 f/4.5
arbitrage wrote:
What metrics do you care most about? Would you be using the 300GM with TCs?
See my previous posts in this thread and the 100-400GM Image thread for my thoughts between the two. I've also linked RAW files in the image thread if you want to compare the IQ of those two lenses.
Have you compared with the bare 400/2.8 and with TC?
EBH
Lethimcook wrote
Anyone done any A/B testing against the 300mm prime? I'm debating on this lens vs the 300 prime for sports, indoor and outdoor.See my previous posts in this thread and the 100-400GM Image thread for my thoughts between the two. I've also linked RAW files in the image thread if you want to compare the IQ of those two lenses.
Have you compared with the bare 400/2.8 and with TC?
EBH
Jun 18, 2026 at 04:16 PM
p.7 #10Sony 100-400 f/4.5
Oh I do see some conversations comparing the two directly in the image thread, good to know. I currently just own an 85 GMii and the A1. Based on what has been said it the new 100-400 doesn't seem to exceed the 300 in quality with TCs, so I'm likely going to land on the 300mm since 2.8 makes the most sense for indoor sports.
I do a lot of intense cropping (85mm 49MP A1 files to 3.9MP 300mm FOV equiv) so sharpness across the image and lack of chromatic aberration are probably my top metrics. No plans to get a TC, I would probably just crop ultra aggressively until the image quality becomes unusable for instagram.
For this lens my most extreme cropping case would probably be on one goal end of the soccer pitch and photographing the other side. I know that 400s and 600s are pretty standard in soccer, so I'm thinking I can get away with just doing 1.5x or 2.25x crops and getting to 20~10MPs. That being said I don't think I'd come across this scenario often.
I guess what would sway the scales the most would be the F4.5 being usable indoors in mediocre lighting and still achieving a nice rendering.
Other questions:
How is hand holding the 100-400?
Is the AF better on the 300mm?
What are the differences in bokeh rendering and CA?
I do a lot of intense cropping (85mm 49MP A1 files to 3.9MP 300mm FOV equiv) so sharpness across the image and lack of chromatic aberration are probably my top metrics. No plans to get a TC, I would probably just crop ultra aggressively until the image quality becomes unusable for instagram.
For this lens my most extreme cropping case would probably be on one goal end of the soccer pitch and photographing the other side. I know that 400s and 600s are pretty standard in soccer, so I'm thinking I can get away with just doing 1.5x or 2.25x crops and getting to 20~10MPs. That being said I don't think I'd come across this scenario often.
I guess what would sway the scales the most would be the F4.5 being usable indoors in mediocre lighting and still achieving a nice rendering.
Other questions:
How is hand holding the 100-400?
Is the AF better on the 300mm?
What are the differences in bokeh rendering and CA?
Jun 18, 2026 at 08:21 PM
|
p.7 #11Sony 100-400 f/4.5
Lethimcook wrote:
Oh I do see some conversations comparing the two directly in the image thread, good to know. I currently just own an 85 GMii and the A1. Based on what has been said it the new 100-400 doesn't seem to exceed the 300 in quality with TCs, so I'm likely going to land on the 300mm since 2.8 makes the most sense for indoor sports.
I do a lot of intense cropping (85mm 49MP A1 files to 3.9MP 300mm FOV equiv) so sharpness across the image and lack of chromatic aberration are probably my top metrics. No plans to get a...Show more →
What's wrong with the 70-200 f/2.8 GM II which takes a 1.4x beautifully and gives you a 98-280 f/4. Also for indoors you could consider 50-150 f/2 though no TC allowed, or 135 f/1.8 and no TC allowed.
200 f/2.8 will be massive improvement over a hugely cropped 85 f/1.4 shot, you'll end up with ~ 21MP on the A1 instead of 3.9MP. Add a 1.4x and you go to 42MP if FL limited.
Oh I do see some conversations comparing the two directly in the image thread, good to know. I currently just own an 85 GMii and the A1. Based on what has been said it the new 100-400 doesn't seem to exceed the 300 in quality with TCs, so I'm likely going to land on the 300mm since 2.8 makes the most sense for indoor sports.
I do a lot of intense cropping (85mm 49MP A1 files to 3.9MP 300mm FOV equiv) so sharpness across the image and lack of chromatic aberration are probably my top metrics. No plans to get a...Show more →
What's wrong with the 70-200 f/2.8 GM II which takes a 1.4x beautifully and gives you a 98-280 f/4. Also for indoors you could consider 50-150 f/2 though no TC allowed, or 135 f/1.8 and no TC allowed.
200 f/2.8 will be massive improvement over a hugely cropped 85 f/1.4 shot, you'll end up with ~ 21MP on the A1 instead of 3.9MP. Add a 1.4x and you go to 42MP if FL limited.
Jun 18, 2026 at 10:12 PM
p.7 #12Sony 100-400 f/4.5
Lethimcook wrote:
Oh I do see some conversations comparing the two directly in the image thread, good to know. I currently just own an 85 GMii and the A1. Based on what has been said it the new 100-400 doesn't seem to exceed the 300 in quality with TCs, so I'm likely going to land on the 300mm since 2.8 makes the most sense for indoor sports.
I do a lot of intense cropping (85mm 49MP A1 files to 3.9MP 300mm FOV equiv) so sharpness across the image and lack of chromatic aberration are probably my top metrics. No plans to get a...Show more →
The 100-400 is very good to handhold. Your brain expects it to be much heavier than it is because the lens is rather large but not heavy. That said, the 300GM is even better to handhold.
The 300GM is the fastest AF I've had on a Sony lens. The bare 300GM is faster than the bare 100-400, faster than the 400GM, faster than the 600GM. However, once you equalize focal length and put the 1.4x on the 300GM it probably becomes fairly similar to the bare 100-400. I'll have to compare that a bit more to be sure. I do feel the 100-400/1.4TC is a bit better to AF in speed and consistency than the 300GM/2xTC.
I haven't really looked at the CA. Bokeh is probably similar but again, haven't really compared.
Oh I do see some conversations comparing the two directly in the image thread, good to know. I currently just own an 85 GMii and the A1. Based on what has been said it the new 100-400 doesn't seem to exceed the 300 in quality with TCs, so I'm likely going to land on the 300mm since 2.8 makes the most sense for indoor sports.
I do a lot of intense cropping (85mm 49MP A1 files to 3.9MP 300mm FOV equiv) so sharpness across the image and lack of chromatic aberration are probably my top metrics. No plans to get a...Show more →
The 100-400 is very good to handhold. Your brain expects it to be much heavier than it is because the lens is rather large but not heavy. That said, the 300GM is even better to handhold.
The 300GM is the fastest AF I've had on a Sony lens. The bare 300GM is faster than the bare 100-400, faster than the 400GM, faster than the 600GM. However, once you equalize focal length and put the 1.4x on the 300GM it probably becomes fairly similar to the bare 100-400. I'll have to compare that a bit more to be sure. I do feel the 100-400/1.4TC is a bit better to AF in speed and consistency than the 300GM/2xTC.
I haven't really looked at the CA. Bokeh is probably similar but again, haven't really compared.
Jun 19, 2026 at 03:07 AM
p.7 #13Sony 100-400 f/4.5
EB-1 wrote:
What metrics do you care most about? Would you be using the 300GM with TCs?
See my previous posts in this thread and the 100-400GM Image thread for my thoughts between the two. I've also linked RAW files in the image thread if you want to compare the IQ of those two lenses.Have you compared with the bare 400/2.8 and with TC?
EBH
Don't own the 400GM anymore. That lens was a very good bare lens, okay with 1.4TC and a big let down with the 2xTC.
arbitrage wrote
Lethimcook wrote
Anyone done any A/B testing against the 300mm prime? I'm debating on this lens vs the 300 prime for sports, indoor and outdoor.See my previous posts in this thread and the 100-400GM Image thread for my thoughts between the two. I've also linked RAW files in the image thread if you want to compare the IQ of those two lenses.
EBH
Don't own the 400GM anymore. That lens was a very good bare lens, okay with 1.4TC and a big let down with the 2xTC.
Jun 19, 2026 at 03:08 AM
p.7 #14Sony 100-400 f/4.5
arbitrage wrote:
EB-1 wrote
arbitrage wrote
Lethimcook wrote
Anyone done any A/B testing against the 300mm prime? I'm debating on this lens vs the 300 prime for sports, indoor and outdoor.See my previous posts in this thread and the 100-400GM Image thread for my thoughts between the two. I've also linked RAW files in the image thread if you want to compare the IQ of those two lenses.
EBH
I’m thinking the 400f2.8 is due for a revamp. A new version with a built in TC would be nice.
Jun 19, 2026 at 04:35 AM
p.7 #15Sony 100-400 f/4.5
A local photographer recommended me the same 50-150, and when I was making my initial purchase it was a close toss-up between the 85 and the 50-150. Mark Galer's analysis on cropping and MP counts led me to side with the 85 and save some money and weight. 2.25x crop brings me pretty close to 200 and the quality is more than passable since most of my work goes on instagram. I think if I was in wedding I would not be getting away with this.
I think at one point if I have enough of an income stream or career I would love to own this lens alongside a telephoto (300+/400/600). But right now the telephoto is my priority, then potentially a second body or a wider FL like 24mm.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
I do a lot of intense cropping (85mm 49MP A1 files to 3.9MP 300mm FOV equiv) so sharpness across the image and lack of chromatic aberration are probably my top metrics. No plans to get a TC, I would probably just crop ultra aggressively until the image quality becomes unusable for instagram.
For this lens my most extreme cropping case would probably be on one goal end of the soccer pitch and photographing the other side. I know that 400s and 600s are pretty standard in soccer, so I'm thinking I can get away with just doing 1.5x or 2.25x crops and getting to 20~10MPs. That being said I don't think I'd come across this scenario often.
I guess what would sway the scales the most would be the F4.5 being usable indoors in mediocre lighting and still achieving a nice rendering.
Other questions:
How is hand holding the 100-400?
Is the AF better on the 300mm?
What are the differences in bokeh rendering and CA?What's wrong with the 70-200 f/2.8 GM II which takes a 1.4x beautifully and gives you a 98-280 f/4. Also for indoors you could consider 50-150 f/2 though no TC allowed, or 135 f/1.8 and no TC allowed.
200 f/2.8 will be massive improvement over a hugely cropped 85 f/1.4 shot, you'll end up with ~ 21MP on the A1 instead of 3.9MP. Add a 1.4x and you go to 42MP if FL limited.
I think at one point if I have enough of an income stream or career I would love to own this lens alongside a telephoto (300+/400/600). But right now the telephoto is my priority, then potentially a second body or a wider FL like 24mm.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Lethimcook wrote
Oh I do see some conversations comparing the two directly in the image thread, good to know. I currently just own an 85 GMii and the A1. Based on what has been said it the new 100-400 doesn't seem to exceed the 300 in quality with TCs, so I'm likely going to land on the 300mm since 2.8 makes the most sense for indoor sports.I do a lot of intense cropping (85mm 49MP A1 files to 3.9MP 300mm FOV equiv) so sharpness across the image and lack of chromatic aberration are probably my top metrics. No plans to get a TC, I would probably just crop ultra aggressively until the image quality becomes unusable for instagram.
For this lens my most extreme cropping case would probably be on one goal end of the soccer pitch and photographing the other side. I know that 400s and 600s are pretty standard in soccer, so I'm thinking I can get away with just doing 1.5x or 2.25x crops and getting to 20~10MPs. That being said I don't think I'd come across this scenario often.
I guess what would sway the scales the most would be the F4.5 being usable indoors in mediocre lighting and still achieving a nice rendering.
Other questions:
How is hand holding the 100-400?
Is the AF better on the 300mm?
What are the differences in bokeh rendering and CA?
200 f/2.8 will be massive improvement over a hugely cropped 85 f/1.4 shot, you'll end up with ~ 21MP on the A1 instead of 3.9MP. Add a 1.4x and you go to 42MP if FL limited.
Jun 19, 2026 at 08:12 AM
p.7 #16Sony 100-400 f/4.5
Can someone please post a size comparison between 200-600 and new 100-400? I know it's bigger. But by how much? Just curious
Jun 19, 2026 at 02:33 PM
p.7 #18Sony 100-400 f/4.5
Jemini wrote:
Can someone please post a size comparison between 200-600 and new 100-400? I know it's bigger. But by how much? Just curious
I picked one up today. It takes up essentially the same space in my camera bag, but it's way lighter. I didn't have much opportunity to use it today because of high winds blowing everything away, but with the 1.4x, my impression is that it's sharper than my 200-600. Focus consistency is better too. With the doubler, it still seems to be sharp to my eyes. I'll have to compare it with my 400-800 at some point, but overall, I'm impressed by this lens. My 200-600 isn't going to see much use from here on in, I suspect.
Can someone please post a size comparison between 200-600 and new 100-400? I know it's bigger. But by how much? Just curious
I picked one up today. It takes up essentially the same space in my camera bag, but it's way lighter. I didn't have much opportunity to use it today because of high winds blowing everything away, but with the 1.4x, my impression is that it's sharper than my 200-600. Focus consistency is better too. With the doubler, it still seems to be sharp to my eyes. I'll have to compare it with my 400-800 at some point, but overall, I'm impressed by this lens. My 200-600 isn't going to see much use from here on in, I suspect.
Jun 19, 2026 at 05:07 PM
p.7 #19Sony 100-400 f/4.5
Timkr wrote:
It’s an inch shorter and feels a lot lighter
It's half an inch longer (by spec). May be slightly thicker? As an ex 200-600 user I was curious what I'm getting into (mostly)
It’s an inch shorter and feels a lot lighter
It's half an inch longer (by spec). May be slightly thicker? As an ex 200-600 user I was curious what I'm getting into (mostly)
Jun 19, 2026 at 05:20 PM