arbitrage wrote:
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....Show more →
FYI the subject detection on the A7RM6 seems to have brought back that CENTER priority when used in Wide Area mode and the new custom modes is probably the best new feature apart from the sensor - having them remember any adjustments made for the current conditions is just brilliant.
Also I ended up using f/2.8 a lot in the poor light with the A7RM6 because you can crop a crazy amount - that kind of killed the prospect of ever getting rid of the 300. Action at iso100.
Lethimcook wrote:
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.
If money is a concern, the 70-200GMii with the 1.4TC is going to be far more versatile than the 50-150 or the 100-400 f/4.5 for indoor sports. For field sports outdoors, different story. You can only get the near field shots with the 70-200GMii + 1.4TC, but with the new 100-400, I am looking forward to being able to get shots both right in my face as well as across the field
The click setting is for if you want the foot to click at the 1/4 turn marks or just rotate smoothly 360deg. The foot is four screws to remove just like any big lens from Canon, Nikon, Sony. However it is a new pattern (spacing)so doesn’t fit any previous Sony or Canon feet.
EB-1 wrote:
I'm confused about the foot. Is it removable or what is that dial down there, Click On or Off? Does it loosen it for removal?
I’m planning to try one from SPS sometime. The memory modes with auto update and custom button for toggling between two of them is THE KILLER FEATURE for me. I hope they can bring this to A1II in some manner via FW despite not having a * marking on the mode dial.
duncangr wrote:
FYI the subject detection on the A7RM6 seems to have brought back that CENTER priority when used in Wide Area mode and the new custom modes is probably the best new feature apart from the sensor - having them remember any adjustments made for the current conditions is just brilliant.
Also I ended up using f/2.8 a lot in the poor light with the A7RM6 because you can crop a crazy amount - that kind of killed the prospect of ever getting rid of the 300. Action at iso100.
Thanks for the note duncangr, I'm sold on the 300GM as the next addition to my kit. You can't cheat light but it seems like a lot of advances in high MP cameras are beginning to allow for super deep crops.
Newenglandrocks,the 100-400 sounds like all you need if you were going 1 body. If you were going 2 body I know a few photographers who use a long tele (300/400) paired with a shorter FL (50-150 or 70-200). With an 85 prime I've been able to get good shots on goal of athletes kicking, dueling, and corner kick chaos in front of the goal where everybody gets in for a header contest. I'm excited to see what I can get downfield with a telephoto.
The 70-200 2.8 is the standard for indoor, and everybody and their mother has one. For video its pretty much perfect for both indoor and outdoor if you're only shooting one team. But I'm not the biggest fan for photo because taking it outside of pro-stadiums or venues with great light leads to questionable performance even at 2.8. At the moment the sports that pay for me are youth level or recreational leagues, also known as shooting in really dingy gyms with bad lighting.
Jun 20, 2026 at 11:01 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Lethimcook wrote:
Thanks for the note duncangr, I'm sold on the 300GM as the next addition to my kit. You can't cheat light but it seems like a lot of advances in high MP cameras are beginning to allow for super deep crops.
Newenglandrocks,the 100-400 sounds like all you need if you were going 1 body. If you were going 2 body I know a few photographers who use a long tele (300/400) paired with a shorter FL (50-150 or 70-200). With an 85 prime I've been able to get good shots on goal of athletes kicking, dueling, and corner kick chaos in front of the goal where everybody gets in for a header contest. I'm excited to see what I can get downfield with a telephoto.
The 70-200 2.8 is the standard for indoor, and everybody and their mother has one. For video its pretty much perfect for both indoor and outdoor if you're only shooting one team. But I'm not the biggest fan for photo because taking it outside of pro-stadiums or venues with great light leads to questionable performance even at 2.8. At the moment the sports that pay for me are youth level or recreational leagues, also known as shooting in really dingy gyms with bad lighting.
Yes, cropping with hi MP cameras is an interesting option. Keep in mind, however, that cropping means not only less megapixels in the image, but greater apparent noise because the noise is magnified, that also means less dynamic range, and a bit weaker color performance. A reasonably good way to think about it is that cropping not only reduces the number of pixels, for a 1.4/1.5 X crop you are basically turning up the ISO a stop, and for a 2X crop you are turning up the ISO a couple of stops. So, ISO 1600 will look a lot like ISO 3200 with a 1.4X crop and a lot like ISO 6400 with a 2X crop. That may or may not affect how you perceive your image. Cropping isn't a free lunch, but it can be nice in a number of situations.
