Sony 100-400 f/4.5
p.9 #1Sony 100-400 f/4.5
arbitrage wrote:
A few size comparison shots I took...
Thank you Sir. The 300 look fatter
Do you still think 100-400 with 1.4x has AF advantage compared to 300+2X?
A few size comparison shots I took...
Thank you Sir. The 300 look fatter
Do you still think 100-400 with 1.4x has AF advantage compared to 300+2X?
Jun 22, 2026 at 03:54 PM
p.9 #2Sony 100-400 f/4.5
Jemini wrote:
arbitrage wrote
A few size comparison shots I took...Do you still think 100-400 with 1.4x has AF advantage compared to 300+2X?
After three more days of shooting I think it may have a small advantage but I don’t think it is a big advantage. I only did some back to back of those two on Friday. Saturday/Sunday did more comparisons between 300/1.4 and bare 100-400.
If having zoom flexibility is really important then the 100-400 may be a better choice than the 300. But I still feel the 300 is the better lens. I think the 100-400 is a way better choice than the 200-600 other than the cost of entry.
Jun 22, 2026 at 05:21 PM
p.9 #3Sony 100-400 f/4.5
Are you saying that the 100-400 with 1.4x TC (560mm) is better than the 200-600 at 600mm? Or do you mean the 100-400 is better if you can get 50% closer to the species and frame the same size? The latter would be expected, but I'm not sure about the former. The front end is only about 89mm minimum compared to 95mm for the 200-600. I so do wish the 100-400 were a fixed f/4.
EBH
EBH
Jun 22, 2026 at 05:44 PM
p.9 #4Sony 100-400 f/4.5
arbitrage wrote:
Thank you Sir. The 300 look fatter
Do you still think 100-400 with 1.4x has AF advantage compared to 300+2X?After three more days of shooting I think it may have a small advantage but I don’t think it is a big advantage. I only did some back to back of those two on Friday. Saturday/Sunday did more comparisons between 300/1.4 and bare 100-400.
If having zoom flexibility is really important then the 100-400 may be a better choice than the 300. But I still feel the 300 is the better lens. I think the 100-400 is a way better choice than the 200-600 other than the cost of entry.
I don't expect a huge difference here. What do you think about 300/1.4 vs bare 100-400? I'm going to be a dual system shooter for some time (may be until we see Nikon's next move) and zoom fit my requirement at this point. I love 300. It's a hard decision.
Jemini wrote
arbitrage wrote
A few size comparison shots I took...Do you still think 100-400 with 1.4x has AF advantage compared to 300+2X?
If having zoom flexibility is really important then the 100-400 may be a better choice than the 300. But I still feel the 300 is the better lens. I think the 100-400 is a way better choice than the 200-600 other than the cost of entry.
I don't expect a huge difference here. What do you think about 300/1.4 vs bare 100-400? I'm going to be a dual system shooter for some time (may be until we see Nikon's next move) and zoom fit my requirement at this point. I love 300. It's a hard decision.
Jun 22, 2026 at 07:18 PM
p.9 #5Sony 100-400 f/4.5
Jemini wrote:
Thank you Sir. The 300 look fatter
Do you still think 100-400 with 1.4x has AF advantage compared to 300+2X?After three more days of shooting I think it may have a small advantage but I don’t think it is a big advantage. I only did some back to back of those two on Friday. Saturday/Sunday did more comparisons between 300/1.4 and bare 100-400.
If having zoom flexibility is really important then the 100-400 may be a better choice than the 300. But I still feel the 300 is the better lens. I think the 100-400 is a way better choice than the 200-600 other than the cost of entry.I don't expect a huge difference here. What do you think about 300/1.4 vs bare 100-400? I'm going to be a dual system shooter for some time (may be until we see Nikon's next move) and zoom fit my requirement at this point. I love 300. It's a hard decision.
I think the 300/1.4 has a slight edge. I was just going through sequences of martins and swallows IF and the 300/1.4 just have that slightly sharper catchlight. Again, they are close. AF hit rate is excellent for both. But I'd give the win to the 300/1.4x.
The 100-400 is really if one wants a zoom lens. Otherwise the 300GM can't be beat. It is amazing that even though the 300GM needs and extra TC factor to get to each equivalent focal length it still is just as good or slightly better than the new 100-400.
arbitrage wrote
Jemini wrote
arbitrage wrote
A few size comparison shots I took...Do you still think 100-400 with 1.4x has AF advantage compared to 300+2X?
If having zoom flexibility is really important then the 100-400 may be a better choice than the 300. But I still feel the 300 is the better lens. I think the 100-400 is a way better choice than the 200-600 other than the cost of entry.
I think the 300/1.4 has a slight edge. I was just going through sequences of martins and swallows IF and the 300/1.4 just have that slightly sharper catchlight. Again, they are close. AF hit rate is excellent for both. But I'd give the win to the 300/1.4x.
The 100-400 is really if one wants a zoom lens. Otherwise the 300GM can't be beat. It is amazing that even though the 300GM needs and extra TC factor to get to each equivalent focal length it still is just as good or slightly better than the new 100-400.
Jun 22, 2026 at 07:23 PM
p.9 #6Sony 100-400 f/4.5
EB-1 wrote:
Are you saying that the 100-400 with 1.4x TC (560mm) is better than the 200-600 at 600mm? Or do you mean the 100-400 is better if you can get 50% closer to the species and frame the same size? The latter would be expected, but I'm not sure about the former. The front end is only about 89mm minimum compared to 95mm for the 200-600. I so do wish the 100-400 were a fixed f/4.
EBH
I'm saying the 100-400 with 1.4TC is better than the 200-600 in most ways.
The IQ is very similar if shooting a perched bird or a lens chart.
But the AF is better with the 100-400/1.4TC so for BIF I was getting much better hit rates.
The 100-400/1.4 is also way better balanced in hand and significantly lighter to handhold all morning long.
And of course the 100-400 can be a 100-400/4.5 which the 200-600 cannot.
The 200-600 is the value buy and if one is looking for reach to shoot more static subjects then it is a better buy. But otherwise the 100-400 is better.
Are you saying that the 100-400 with 1.4x TC (560mm) is better than the 200-600 at 600mm? Or do you mean the 100-400 is better if you can get 50% closer to the species and frame the same size? The latter would be expected, but I'm not sure about the former. The front end is only about 89mm minimum compared to 95mm for the 200-600. I so do wish the 100-400 were a fixed f/4.
EBH
I'm saying the 100-400 with 1.4TC is better than the 200-600 in most ways.
The IQ is very similar if shooting a perched bird or a lens chart.
But the AF is better with the 100-400/1.4TC so for BIF I was getting much better hit rates.
The 100-400/1.4 is also way better balanced in hand and significantly lighter to handhold all morning long.
And of course the 100-400 can be a 100-400/4.5 which the 200-600 cannot.
The 200-600 is the value buy and if one is looking for reach to shoot more static subjects then it is a better buy. But otherwise the 100-400 is better.
Jun 22, 2026 at 07:33 PM
p.9 #7Sony 100-400 f/4.5
The 300 is a classic for sure. I haven't seen any other lens thst perform this well with 2X. Your conclusion doesn't surprise me. Those new/extra focus motors in 100-400 may have slight edge with one less TC.
Thanks again. Happy shooting
arbitrage wrote:
Thank you Sir. The 300 look fatter
Do you still think 100-400 with 1.4x has AF advantage compared to 300+2X?After three more days of shooting I think it may have a small advantage but I don’t think it is a big advantage. I only did some back to back of those two on Friday. Saturday/Sunday did more comparisons between 300/1.4 and bare 100-400.
If having zoom flexibility is really important then the 100-400 may be a better choice than the 300. But I still feel the 300 is the better lens. I think the 100-400 is a way better choice than the 200-600 other than the cost of entry.I don't expect a huge difference here. What do you think about 300/1.4 vs bare 100-400? I'm going to be a dual system shooter for some time (may be until we see Nikon's next move) and zoom fit my requirement at this point. I love 300. It's a hard decision.I think the 300/1.4 has a slight edge. I was just going through sequences of martins and swallows IF and the 300/1.4 just have that slightly sharper catchlight. Again, they are close. AF hit rate is excellent for both. But I'd give the win to the 300/1.4x.
The 100-400 is really if one wants a zoom lens. Otherwise the 300GM can't be beat. It is amazing that even though the 300GM needs and extra TC factor to get to each equivalent focal length it still is just as good or slightly better than the new 100-400.
Thanks again. Happy shooting
arbitrage wrote:
Jemini wrote
arbitrage wrote
Jemini wrote
arbitrage wrote
A few size comparison shots I took...Do you still think 100-400 with 1.4x has AF advantage compared to 300+2X?
If having zoom flexibility is really important then the 100-400 may be a better choice than the 300. But I still feel the 300 is the better lens. I think the 100-400 is a way better choice than the 200-600 other than the cost of entry.
The 100-400 is really if one wants a zoom lens. Otherwise the 300GM can't be beat. It is amazing that even though the 300GM needs and extra TC factor to get to each equivalent focal length it still is just as good or slightly better than the new 100-400.
Jun 23, 2026 at 02:00 AM
p.9 #8Sony 100-400 f/4.5
My 2 cents so far.
- the 1-400 plus tc is a killer macro combo for insects too, way better than the 200-600
- Af consistency is superior on the 100-400 plus tc than the 200-600
- My impression is that the 300f2.8 , even with converters is better to equal to the 100-400 depending on converter combo. But the 300 is a lighter, more compact package than the 100-400 and it's much easier for flight shots because of that.
- the 1-400 is a better flight lens for sure, lighter makes it easier to swing around and to handhold
- one thing that bugs me about the 1-400 is the creeping zoom. You can tighten with the switch, but I like the speed and smoothness of it in the loose setting. It's not a deal breaker, but I do have to ensure I zoom in as soon as I pick it up. It does creep very quickly.
- but as arbitrage stated, the 200-600 is value buy in comparison.
- the 1-400 plus tc is a killer macro combo for insects too, way better than the 200-600
- Af consistency is superior on the 100-400 plus tc than the 200-600
- My impression is that the 300f2.8 , even with converters is better to equal to the 100-400 depending on converter combo. But the 300 is a lighter, more compact package than the 100-400 and it's much easier for flight shots because of that.
- the 1-400 is a better flight lens for sure, lighter makes it easier to swing around and to handhold
- one thing that bugs me about the 1-400 is the creeping zoom. You can tighten with the switch, but I like the speed and smoothness of it in the loose setting. It's not a deal breaker, but I do have to ensure I zoom in as soon as I pick it up. It does creep very quickly.
- but as arbitrage stated, the 200-600 is value buy in comparison.
Jun 23, 2026 at 07:20 AM
p.9 #9Sony 100-400 f/4.5
scott f wrote:
My 2 cents so far.
- the 1-400 plus tc is a killer macro combo for insects too, way better than the 200-600
- Af consistency is superior on the 100-400 plus tc than the 200-600
- My impression is that the 300f2.8 , even with converters is better to equal to the 100-400 depending on converter combo. But the 300 is a lighter, more compact package than the 100-400 and it's much easier for flight shots because of that.
- the 1-400 is a better flight lens for sure, lighter makes it easier to swing around and to handhold
- one thing that...Show more →
For someone leaning towards the zoom here's my perspective
- 100-400 + 1.4C is almost same weight as 300+1.4+2X (travel weight)
- Zoom is great if you mix large mammals and birds (a trip to Yellowstone or something like that)
- You can achieve 800mm in a pinch with 100-400 and 2X (additional weight and loss of light). Can't do that with 300
- AF at 560-600mm is pretty much same from what I'm hearing
- AF at 400mm is pretty much same
- After all 100-400 is way cheaper if you are buying brand new
My 2 cents so far.
- the 1-400 plus tc is a killer macro combo for insects too, way better than the 200-600
- Af consistency is superior on the 100-400 plus tc than the 200-600
- My impression is that the 300f2.8 , even with converters is better to equal to the 100-400 depending on converter combo. But the 300 is a lighter, more compact package than the 100-400 and it's much easier for flight shots because of that.
- the 1-400 is a better flight lens for sure, lighter makes it easier to swing around and to handhold
- one thing that...Show more →
For someone leaning towards the zoom here's my perspective
- 100-400 + 1.4C is almost same weight as 300+1.4+2X (travel weight)
- Zoom is great if you mix large mammals and birds (a trip to Yellowstone or something like that)
- You can achieve 800mm in a pinch with 100-400 and 2X (additional weight and loss of light). Can't do that with 300
- AF at 560-600mm is pretty much same from what I'm hearing
- AF at 400mm is pretty much same
- After all 100-400 is way cheaper if you are buying brand new
Jun 23, 2026 at 08:09 AM
p.9 #10Sony 100-400 f/4.5
I'm certainly keeping both 300GM and 100-400GM. Heck I'm even keeping my "old" 100-400GM. I'm certainly not buying a 200-600 nor 400-800 (even though I've never tried the 4-8). The 200-600 I've been testing against is my friend's copy. He has 100-400 on order (and also has 300GM). He said once I give the 200-600 back he will be selling it right away.
One cool thing I sort of stumbled onto with the new 100-400GM is I found some baby Pacific Tree frogs. They are about 1 to 1.5cm long. But there was a lot of leaves and grass in my way trying to shoot them when standing back at the 400mm MFD. Then I remembered that the max magnification is just as good at the 100mm mark....you just need to get closer. So I zoomed out to 100mm and got really close (frog was almost inside the hood...
). Then I could get around all the leaves and get a clear view.
One cool thing I sort of stumbled onto with the new 100-400GM is I found some baby Pacific Tree frogs. They are about 1 to 1.5cm long. But there was a lot of leaves and grass in my way trying to shoot them when standing back at the 400mm MFD. Then I remembered that the max magnification is just as good at the 100mm mark....you just need to get closer. So I zoomed out to 100mm and got really close (frog was almost inside the hood...
). Then I could get around all the leaves and get a clear view. ILCE-1M2 FE 100-400mm F4.5 GM OSS + 1.4X Teleconverter lens 140mm f/8.0 1/1600s 1250 ISO 0.0 EV
ILCE-1M2 FE 100-400mm F4.5 GM OSS + 1.4X Teleconverter lens 140mm f/13.0 1/1250s 1250 ISO 0.0 EV
Jun 23, 2026 at 09:36 AM
|
p.9 #11Sony 100-400 f/4.5
I recently shot butterflies at two gardens and compared two lenses: the 100-400mm and 70-200mm II, each with the Sony 1.4X TC. With perched butterflies, I have not had any issue getting physically close, so going in I was thinking that the 70-200mm might have an advantage in two ways: a higher maximum magnification, and the ability to stop down further before reaching the same aperture size as the 100-400mm. Based on about a thousand shots with each, the 100-400mm had superior IQ at f/6.3 even compared to the 70-200mm at f/8, and I also felt the OIS was more effective even with the longer focal length. I was surprised because I have always found the 70-200mm II very sharp. It could be that the 100-400mm is better a a close-up performer despite lower maximum magnification. The main advantage of the 70-200mm was size, sometimes the butterflies were close and I needed to zoom out or back up to get the shot, as well as giving others in the garden the space to walk by. Overall, I currently lean towards the 100-400mm for close up shooting with the TC.
In the near future I would like to compare maximum magnification on the 100-400mm at 100/200/300/400. I saw someone (Mark Galer?) show that the 100mm magnification was slightly higher than 400mm, but I also found that if I was too close at 400mm then a slight zoom out would solve the problem, indicating it's not a fixed MFD. With the 70-200mm II, my sense is that you get higher maximum magnification at 70mm and 200mm (better at 70mm), but in between it drops.
In the near future I would like to compare maximum magnification on the 100-400mm at 100/200/300/400. I saw someone (Mark Galer?) show that the 100mm magnification was slightly higher than 400mm, but I also found that if I was too close at 400mm then a slight zoom out would solve the problem, indicating it's not a fixed MFD. With the 70-200mm II, my sense is that you get higher maximum magnification at 70mm and 200mm (better at 70mm), but in between it drops.
Jun 23, 2026 at 12:36 PM
p.9 #12Sony 100-400 f/4.5
arbitrage wrote:
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.
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.
Not going to happen - their finances would look like Nikons if they kept give free upgrades via firmware
A1iii should be out in 2 years time and a9iii in 1 year though - gonna seem like eternity
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
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.
Not going to happen - their finances would look like Nikons if they kept give free upgrades via firmware
A1iii should be out in 2 years time and a9iii in 1 year though - gonna seem like eternity
Jun 23, 2026 at 07:33 PM
p.9 #13Sony 100-400 f/4.5
what's the verdict of the lens with the Sony 2x? I saw Dustin Abbott tested it with a Viltrox 2x which made little sense to me? I have the the 300gm, 70-200gmii and 600 gm and and lots of tcs, I struggle to see whether this lens would fit into my shooting. I enjoy the 300 with tcs that much. Taking a trip to YNP would be nice with the 100-400 and 300 + 2x if the 100-400 could get me decent 800mm iq in a pinch. That's my question. I really only use the 600 with 1.4 anymore. I bought the 400-800 but the weight was so close to 600/1.4 that I sold the 4-8. Thanks in advance.
Jun 23, 2026 at 10:29 PM
p.9 #14Sony 100-400 f/4.5
ps09 wrote:
what's the verdict of the lens with the Sony 2x? I saw Dustin Abbott tested it with a Viltrox 2x which made little sense to me? I have the the 300gm, 70-200gmii and 600 gm and and lots of tcs, I struggle to see whether this lens would fit into my shooting. I enjoy the 300 with tcs that much. Taking a trip to YNP would be nice with the 100-400 and 300 + 2x if the 100-400 could get me decent 800mm iq in a pinch. That's my question. I really only use the 600 with 1.4 anymore. I...Show more →
Its okay. I've never used the 400-800 so I don't know how it compares for IQ and AF to that lens. Most reports I've read from people that own 400-800 and 100-400 say the 100-400/2x is similar IQ to their 400-800 at 800mm. Some say better, some said just as good, some just a little worse. But IQ is only one part of things. AF consistency is another and I haven't read any reports really comparing that. The one thing that will surely be better with the 100-400/2x over 400-800 is the weight and handholablility.
I've had good results with the 100-400/2x at 800mm but I'm not sure if it is better to just do a deeper crop on the 100-400/1.4TC. AF certainly takes a noticeable hit with the 2x vs the 1.4x. IQ can be quite good when it hits. I think it will be best used at 800 to fill the frame more with a subject at a reasonable distance. Not to be used to try and reach out to a distant subject. It will not compete with images you get with the 600GM/1.4TC. But it will be way easier to handhold.
Here are some samples I've processed over the past 2 weeks shooting the lens with 2xTC....
what's the verdict of the lens with the Sony 2x? I saw Dustin Abbott tested it with a Viltrox 2x which made little sense to me? I have the the 300gm, 70-200gmii and 600 gm and and lots of tcs, I struggle to see whether this lens would fit into my shooting. I enjoy the 300 with tcs that much. Taking a trip to YNP would be nice with the 100-400 and 300 + 2x if the 100-400 could get me decent 800mm iq in a pinch. That's my question. I really only use the 600 with 1.4 anymore. I...Show more →
Its okay. I've never used the 400-800 so I don't know how it compares for IQ and AF to that lens. Most reports I've read from people that own 400-800 and 100-400 say the 100-400/2x is similar IQ to their 400-800 at 800mm. Some say better, some said just as good, some just a little worse. But IQ is only one part of things. AF consistency is another and I haven't read any reports really comparing that. The one thing that will surely be better with the 100-400/2x over 400-800 is the weight and handholablility.
I've had good results with the 100-400/2x at 800mm but I'm not sure if it is better to just do a deeper crop on the 100-400/1.4TC. AF certainly takes a noticeable hit with the 2x vs the 1.4x. IQ can be quite good when it hits. I think it will be best used at 800 to fill the frame more with a subject at a reasonable distance. Not to be used to try and reach out to a distant subject. It will not compete with images you get with the 600GM/1.4TC. But it will be way easier to handhold.
Here are some samples I've processed over the past 2 weeks shooting the lens with 2xTC....
ILCE-1M2 FE 100-400mm F4.5 GM OSS + 2X Teleconverter lens 800mm f/9.0 1/4000s 2500 ISO 0.0 EV
ILCE-1M2 FE 100-400mm F4.5 GM OSS + 2X Teleconverter lens 800mm f/9.0 1/4000s 2500 ISO 0.0 EV
ILCE-1M2 FE 100-400mm F4.5 GM OSS + 2X Teleconverter lens 800mm f/9.0 1/4000s 2500 ISO 0.0 EV
ILCE-1M2 FE 100-400mm F4.5 GM OSS + 2X Teleconverter lens 800mm f/9.0 1/3200s 3200 ISO 0.0 EV
ILCE-1M2 FE 100-400mm F4.5 GM OSS + 2X Teleconverter lens 800mm f/9.0 1/4000s 2500 ISO 0.0 EV
ILCE-1M2 FE 100-400mm F4.5 GM OSS + 2X Teleconverter lens 800mm f/9.0 1/4000s 2500 ISO 0.0 EV
ILCE-1M2 FE 100-400mm F4.5 GM OSS + 2X Teleconverter lens 552mm f/9.0 1/3200s 2500 ISO 0.0 EV
ILCE-1M2 FE 100-400mm F4.5 GM OSS + 2X Teleconverter lens 800mm f/9.0 1/2000s 1600 ISO 0.0 EV
ILCE-1M2 FE 100-400mm F4.5 GM OSS + 2X Teleconverter lens 800mm f/9.0 1/4000s 2500 ISO 0.0 EV
ILCE-1M2 FE 100-400mm F4.5 GM OSS + 2X Teleconverter lens 800mm f/9.0 1/4000s 2500 ISO 0.0 EV
ILCE-1M2 FE 100-400mm F4.5 GM OSS + 2X Teleconverter lens 800mm f/9.0 1/2500s 1250 ISO 0.0 EV
ILCE-1M2 FE 100-400mm F4.5 GM OSS + 2X Teleconverter lens 736mm f/9.0 1/2500s 1250 ISO 0.0 EV
Jun 24, 2026 at 07:08 AM
p.9 #15Sony 100-400 f/4.5
ps09 wrote:
what's the verdict of the lens with the Sony 2x? I saw Dustin Abbott tested it with a Viltrox 2x which made little sense to me? I have the the 300gm, 70-200gmii and 600 gm and and lots of tcs, I struggle to see whether this lens would fit into my shooting. I enjoy the 300 with tcs that much. Taking a trip to YNP would be nice with the 100-400 and 300 + 2x if the 100-400 could get me decent 800mm iq in a pinch. That's my question. I really only use the 600 with 1.4 anymore. I...Show more →
I have the 4-800 and will test it shortly. My early shots with the 1-400 plus 2x show that it is usable for sure in good light, but f9 is pretty dark, so I only plan to use it when it's bright. Same problem as the 4-800, f8 is dark as well.
what's the verdict of the lens with the Sony 2x? I saw Dustin Abbott tested it with a Viltrox 2x which made little sense to me? I have the the 300gm, 70-200gmii and 600 gm and and lots of tcs, I struggle to see whether this lens would fit into my shooting. I enjoy the 300 with tcs that much. Taking a trip to YNP would be nice with the 100-400 and 300 + 2x if the 100-400 could get me decent 800mm iq in a pinch. That's my question. I really only use the 600 with 1.4 anymore. I...Show more →
I have the 4-800 and will test it shortly. My early shots with the 1-400 plus 2x show that it is usable for sure in good light, but f9 is pretty dark, so I only plan to use it when it's bright. Same problem as the 4-800, f8 is dark as well.
Jun 24, 2026 at 08:17 AM
p.9 #16Sony 100-400 f/4.5
I've had full sunny days for my first two weekends with the lens. That is about to change for this upcoming weekend. I will be very interested to see how this lens does with and without the TCs when the light levels are much lower during full overcast and maybe light rain.
Jun 24, 2026 at 09:58 AM
p.9 #17Sony 100-400 f/4.5
Thanks for the info guys. I found the 4-8 to be acceptable in the right conditions, but found the handling of it so close to the 600 f4 that I sold it at a $600 loss to a friend that doesn't have a 600f4. I figured that saving 1.3# wasn't worth being at f8 from 600mm on. For some reason I find the 600f4 easier to handhold than the 4-8. I kinda dig my fingers inside the hood of the 600 and I can be quite steady. For me, I figured if I was going to be on a monopod I'd rather have the 600.
I had a great usage case for the 100-400 plus 1.4 on Monday. I was in the kayak photographing loons when an intruder loon landed on the lake. I was maybe 75' from the male while it was feeding the loonlet. I was using the 600 instead of the 300 because I was on and off with the 1.4, trying to keep my distance and get depth of field. I had more light than I needed. Mom and the baby came right at me (I think for protection) and the male went wild. Full dives and penguin walk. Splashing like crazy. I had too much lens at 600mm and 350-400 would have been perfect. My images ended up great, except for the 50% that I clipped wings due to being too close. Luckily for me I've photographed this behavior many times. It would have been devastating if this had been my first time photographing this behavior so close.
If I had the 100-400 on a second body Monday, I would have switched as soon as I saw the intruder flying overhead. Thinking back, I should have had the 300 on a second body, but space is at a premium when kayaking, so the 1-4 could be attractive with 2 tcs in the dry bag.
So, to me, the new 1-4 would have to be on par with the 300gm with 1.4, and reasonably acceptable with the 2x for me to consider it. The new 1-4 + 300 and a pocket full of tcs seems like a great YNP two-camera combo.
What's the deal with the zoom creep? That's probably the biggest "piss me off" thing I've heard about the new lens and could keep me from buying it. I assume it creeps to 100mm?
I had a great usage case for the 100-400 plus 1.4 on Monday. I was in the kayak photographing loons when an intruder loon landed on the lake. I was maybe 75' from the male while it was feeding the loonlet. I was using the 600 instead of the 300 because I was on and off with the 1.4, trying to keep my distance and get depth of field. I had more light than I needed. Mom and the baby came right at me (I think for protection) and the male went wild. Full dives and penguin walk. Splashing like crazy. I had too much lens at 600mm and 350-400 would have been perfect. My images ended up great, except for the 50% that I clipped wings due to being too close. Luckily for me I've photographed this behavior many times. It would have been devastating if this had been my first time photographing this behavior so close.
If I had the 100-400 on a second body Monday, I would have switched as soon as I saw the intruder flying overhead. Thinking back, I should have had the 300 on a second body, but space is at a premium when kayaking, so the 1-4 could be attractive with 2 tcs in the dry bag.
So, to me, the new 1-4 would have to be on par with the 300gm with 1.4, and reasonably acceptable with the 2x for me to consider it. The new 1-4 + 300 and a pocket full of tcs seems like a great YNP two-camera combo.
What's the deal with the zoom creep? That's probably the biggest "piss me off" thing I've heard about the new lens and could keep me from buying it. I assume it creeps to 100mm?
Jun 24, 2026 at 12:39 PM
p.9 #18Sony 100-400 f/4.5
I just noticed in a video review that the 100-400 has a bracket attached to the lens so that a security cable can be put through it. Wish the 300gm had this.
Jun 24, 2026 at 12:52 PM
p.9 #19Sony 100-400 f/4.5
ps09 wrote:
Thanks for the info guys. I found the 4-8 to be acceptable in the right conditions, but found the handling of it so close to the 600 f4 that I sold it at a $600 loss to a friend that doesn't have a 600f4. I figured that saving 1.3# wasn't worth being at f8 from 600mm on. For some reason I find the 600f4 easier to handhold than the 4-8. I kinda dig my fingers inside the hood of the 600 and I can be quite steady. For me, I figured if I was going to be on a monopod...Show more →
Yes,, it creeps to 100 pretty quickly, but taking the zoom control off smooth solves it.
Thanks for the info guys. I found the 4-8 to be acceptable in the right conditions, but found the handling of it so close to the 600 f4 that I sold it at a $600 loss to a friend that doesn't have a 600f4. I figured that saving 1.3# wasn't worth being at f8 from 600mm on. For some reason I find the 600f4 easier to handhold than the 4-8. I kinda dig my fingers inside the hood of the 600 and I can be quite steady. For me, I figured if I was going to be on a monopod...Show more →
Yes,, it creeps to 100 pretty quickly, but taking the zoom control off smooth solves it.
Jun 24, 2026 at 12:55 PM
p.9 #20Sony 100-400 f/4.5
Creep report: holding mine pointed down while standing still no creep. Walking with the lens pointing down it takes about 7-8 steps to get it to 140mm where it seems to stop. I think mine was in the second batch from B&H. I haven't had a chance to really use it much yet though.
Jun 24, 2026 at 01:04 PM