Sony 100-400 f/4.5
p.8 #1Sony 100-400 f/4.5
arbitrage 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?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...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
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?
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...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.
Jun 19, 2026 at 06:32 PM
p.8 #2Sony 100-400 f/4.5
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...Show more →
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.
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
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...Show more →
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.
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
Jun 19, 2026 at 07:38 PM
p.8 #3Sony 100-400 f/4.5
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?
EBH
EBH
Jun 19, 2026 at 09:58 PM
p.8 #4Sony 100-400 f/4.5
I don't have one, but there will be 4 screws attaching the foot to the cube like section that does have click on/off dial.
Photo 3 in B&H's photos:
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1969774-REG/sony_fe_100_400mm_f_4_5_gm.html?msockid=0c4531f5895e6038225d245888ce61a8
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?
EBH
Photo 3 in B&H's photos:
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1969774-REG/sony_fe_100_400mm_f_4_5_gm.html?msockid=0c4531f5895e6038225d245888ce61a8
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?
EBH
Jun 20, 2026 at 02:18 AM
p.8 #5Sony 100-400 f/4.5
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?
EBH
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?
EBH
Jun 20, 2026 at 05:55 AM
p.8 #6Sony 100-400 f/4.5
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:
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?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.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.
duncangr wrote:
arbitrage 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?
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.
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.
Jun 20, 2026 at 05:58 AM
p.8 #7Sony 100-400 f/4.5
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.
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 10:01 AM
p.8 #8Sony 100-400 f/4.5
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...Show more →
Hi,
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.
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...Show more →
Hi,
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.
Jun 20, 2026 at 10:31 AM
p.8 #9Sony 100-400 f/4.5
I've noticed that a lot in practice, thanks for pointing it out.
For noise, denoise from PL9 does help a bit, but some images are not salvageable for color and my next step would be to do a black and white rendering.
The 85gmii also does fringe a lot, and I very often have to do color masking to take away greens and purples when cropping intensely as it becomes more magnified and distracting. When I'm very unlucky to control the fringing it also leads to images being unusable, but this only happens maybe 1/200 images.
For noise, denoise from PL9 does help a bit, but some images are not salvageable for color and my next step would be to do a black and white rendering.
The 85gmii also does fringe a lot, and I very often have to do color masking to take away greens and purples when cropping intensely as it becomes more magnified and distracting. When I'm very unlucky to control the fringing it also leads to images being unusable, but this only happens maybe 1/200 images.
Jun 20, 2026 at 12:48 PM
p.8 #10Sony 100-400 f/4.5
arbitrage wrote:
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.
EBH
So how long for a low-profile foot of Wimberley or Kirk, etc. maybe 2027?
EBH
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?EBH
So how long for a low-profile foot of Wimberley or Kirk, etc. maybe 2027?
EBH
Jun 20, 2026 at 01:13 PM
|
p.8 #11Sony 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
All have front lens cap on. The 300 and 100-400 have converters attached since that's how I have them typically equipped. Weights are with converters as shown, w/o front cap, probably need to add 0.25lbs to 100-400 for lens cover on it's way.
I'm not quite as thrilled with the handling of the 100-400 (at least with the 1.4x) as some others are. Not that it's bad, definitely better than the 200-600. The 300 has spoiled me and the 150-400 is a bit easier too. Really wish the zooms had a lock feature.
Edited on Jun 20, 2026 at 02:23 PM · View previous versions
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
All have front lens cap on. The 300 and 100-400 have converters attached since that's how I have them typically equipped. Weights are with converters as shown, w/o front cap, probably need to add 0.25lbs to 100-400 for lens cover on it's way.
I'm not quite as thrilled with the handling of the 100-400 (at least with the 1.4x) as some others are. Not that it's bad, definitely better than the 200-600. The 300 has spoiled me and the 150-400 is a bit easier too. Really wish the zooms had a lock feature.
Edited on Jun 20, 2026 at 02:23 PM · View previous versions
Jun 20, 2026 at 02:12 PM
p.8 #12Sony 100-400 f/4.5
Perfect. Thank you very much. Good to know that the 100-400+1.4Tc is not too heavy compared to 300+2x. It's just longer and little thicker. Not bad for the reach
birderbill1 wrote:
All have front lens cap on. The 300 and 100-400 have converters attached since that's how I have them typically equipped. Weights are w/o front cap, probably need to add 0.25lbs to 100-400 for lens cover on it's way.
birderbill1 wrote:
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 curiousJun 20, 2026 at 02:20 PM
p.8 #13Sony 100-400 f/4.5
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...Show more →
You are saying you think cropping brings you close to actual optical zoom in IQ despite having ~ 32% of the pixels as a 150mm with the 85mm. I find it hard to believe Mark Galer would spread such nonsense.
Often there is discussion of cropping vs adding a 1.4x but never compared to actual optical zoom.
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...Show more →
You are saying you think cropping brings you close to actual optical zoom in IQ despite having ~ 32% of the pixels as a 150mm with the 85mm. I find it hard to believe Mark Galer would spread such nonsense.
Often there is discussion of cropping vs adding a 1.4x but never compared to actual optical zoom.
Jun 20, 2026 at 11:51 PM
p.8 #14Sony 100-400 f/4.5
Umm. I never said that a digital crop brings me anywhere close to optical zoom IQ. Optical > digital and everyone knows this (including myself).
In fact in this post I said a 2.25x crop in 85mm brings me close to 200 and the quality is passable since it goes on instagram. It is implied that the quality is pretty bad since instagram compresses to 1-2MP. Maybe I should say it brings me close to "200mm FOV equivalent" for the utmost clarity? In a previous post in this thread I mentioned that cropping gave me a FOV equivalent, which it does. Again I don't explicitly mention any IQ comparisons because its obvious its worse than optical.
Lastly, if you actually watch Mark Gaeler's videos he frequently does a digital crop on a majority of his reviews, including the 85GMii which I have referenced. In the 85GMii he discusses how if given the choice between the 50gm, 85gm, and 135gm, he would opt for the 85gm because a digital crop would allow him to get a FOV equivalent of the 135gm at a higher f-stop. Here is a video where he straight up covers APS-C (1.5x, 2x, and beyond) cropping. This is a line of thinking he applies to his photographic approach and is thematic across his practice.
" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">here
In fact in this post I said a 2.25x crop in 85mm brings me close to 200 and the quality is passable since it goes on instagram. It is implied that the quality is pretty bad since instagram compresses to 1-2MP. Maybe I should say it brings me close to "200mm FOV equivalent" for the utmost clarity? In a previous post in this thread I mentioned that cropping gave me a FOV equivalent, which it does. Again I don't explicitly mention any IQ comparisons because its obvious its worse than optical.
Lastly, if you actually watch Mark Gaeler's videos he frequently does a digital crop on a majority of his reviews, including the 85GMii which I have referenced. In the 85GMii he discusses how if given the choice between the 50gm, 85gm, and 135gm, he would opt for the 85gm because a digital crop would allow him to get a FOV equivalent of the 135gm at a higher f-stop. Here is a video where he straight up covers APS-C (1.5x, 2x, and beyond) cropping. This is a line of thinking he applies to his photographic approach and is thematic across his practice.
" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">here
Jun 21, 2026 at 09:52 AM
p.8 #15Sony 100-400 f/4.5
The Sony 300 f/2.8 is really featherweight (I use Canon for telephoto)!
Howard
Howard
Jun 21, 2026 at 10:53 AM
p.8 #16Sony 100-400 f/4.5
Jemini wrote:
Perfect. Thank you very much. Good to know that the 100-400+1.4Tc is not too heavy compared to 300+2x. It's just longer and little thicker.
If by "thicker" you are referring to diameter, it is the other way around. The 300 is marginally larger in diameter (4.88 in) than the 100-400 f4.5 G (4.7 in). The hood diameters scale as well with the 100-400 smaller in diameter by about 0.25 in.
Perfect. Thank you very much. Good to know that the 100-400+1.4Tc is not too heavy compared to 300+2x. It's just longer and little thicker.
If by "thicker" you are referring to diameter, it is the other way around. The 300 is marginally larger in diameter (4.88 in) than the 100-400 f4.5 G (4.7 in). The hood diameters scale as well with the 100-400 smaller in diameter by about 0.25 in.
Jun 21, 2026 at 07:35 PM
p.8 #17Sony 100-400 f/4.5
Sorry, I meant to say slightly havier than 300+2x and slightly thicker than 200-600. I'm familiar with these two lenses. Thanks for clarifying.
CPWarner wrote:
If by "thicker" you are referring to diameter, it is the other way around. The 300 is marginally larger in diameter (4.88 in) than the 100-400 f4.5 G (4.7 in). The hood diameters scale as well with the 100-400 smaller in diameter by about 0.25 in.
CPWarner wrote:
Jemini wrote
Perfect. Thank you very much. Good to know that the 100-400+1.4Tc is not too heavy compared to 300+2x. It's just longer and little thicker.Jun 21, 2026 at 08:52 PM
p.8 #18Sony 100-400 f/4.5
Lethimcook wrote:
Umm. I never said that a digital crop brings me anywhere close to optical zoom IQ. Optical > digital and everyone knows this (including myself).
In fact in this post I said a 2.25x crop in 85mm brings me close to 200 and the quality is passable since it goes on instagram. It is implied that the quality is pretty bad since instagram compresses to 1-2MP. Maybe I should say it brings me close to "200mm FOV equivalent" for the utmost clarity? In a previous post in this thread I mentioned that cropping gave me a FOV equivalent, which it does....Show more →
Passable is a very low bar IMO and something most people would avoid. Just because Galer loves digital cropping doesn't mean it's a good idea unless we are talking smaller crops eg You Are thinking of either a 35mm or 50mm lens and with a 61MP camera you choose the 35mm and can crop to 50mm FoV and still have 30MP. That's is a lot better than passable.
Umm. I never said that a digital crop brings me anywhere close to optical zoom IQ. Optical > digital and everyone knows this (including myself).
In fact in this post I said a 2.25x crop in 85mm brings me close to 200 and the quality is passable since it goes on instagram. It is implied that the quality is pretty bad since instagram compresses to 1-2MP. Maybe I should say it brings me close to "200mm FOV equivalent" for the utmost clarity? In a previous post in this thread I mentioned that cropping gave me a FOV equivalent, which it does....Show more →
Passable is a very low bar IMO and something most people would avoid. Just because Galer loves digital cropping doesn't mean it's a good idea unless we are talking smaller crops eg You Are thinking of either a 35mm or 50mm lens and with a 61MP camera you choose the 35mm and can crop to 50mm FoV and still have 30MP. That's is a lot better than passable.
Jun 22, 2026 at 12:58 AM
p.8 #20Sony 100-400 f/4.5
Passable is always a subjective bar, and it would depend on what genre of photography you're doing. Mark Gaeler does a variety of wildlife and sports work and is not afraid of a 2.25 crop or beyond. I think his work is excellent and his approach to photography work flow heavily influences mine. In fashion or wedding, deep crops are likely not acceptable. For sports? I think there is a LOT of leeway on what is acceptable as long as the subject and action of an image is noteworthy. For wildlife? I think so as well. To anchor my perspective I look at competition winners and honorable mentions. Photography competitions are not the definitive guide of what makes images good or bad, but they are judged by industry leaders and in theory use a somewhat consistent criteria.
This shot by Aaron Favila got special mention at the 2026 World Sports Photography Awards. Another one by Jurgen Fromme, special mention. To my eye they are likely deep cropped, and the resolution is not great. Are they the winners of gold/silver/bronze? Not this year. Perhaps if you look into other years more closely there may be similar images of deep cropping that have won.
Favila
Fromme
This shot by Aaron Favila got special mention at the 2026 World Sports Photography Awards. Another one by Jurgen Fromme, special mention. To my eye they are likely deep cropped, and the resolution is not great. Are they the winners of gold/silver/bronze? Not this year. Perhaps if you look into other years more closely there may be similar images of deep cropping that have won.
Favila
Fromme
Jun 22, 2026 at 09:47 AM