p.2 #2 · Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5 GM OSS Image Thread
arbitrage wrote:
My 100-400 arrives today (although probably won't be home to sign for it so will get it Friday). I have my friend's 200-600 at hand. I also have a ridiculously sharp copy of the original 100-400 which does better with the 1.4TC than the 200-600 does bare (both for IQ and AF).
So this new 100-400 actually has a lot to live up to....not against the 200-600 but against my copy of the 100-400 f4.5-5.6 GM lens.
I've spent the last few weeks shooting the 200-600 and the 100-400 to remind myself what they are capable of.
Now it is time to see if this new lens justifies its price point.
Also will the 300GM/2xTC be better than this lens with the 1.4TC? We shall see. But it will probably take a couple weeks to really get my thoughts solidified....Show more →
'THE TEST' that I'm waiting for
It'll be very interesting to see how it hold up against your sharp 100-400 and 200-600
p.2 #3 · Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5 GM OSS Image Thread
arbitrage wrote:
My 100-400 arrives today (although probably won't be home to sign for it so will get it Friday). I have my friend's 200-600 at hand. I also have a ridiculously sharp copy of the original 100-400 which does better with the 1.4TC than the 200-600 does bare (both for IQ and AF)..
That latter comparison (between 100-400 lenses) sone that really interests me. Apologies in advance if I’m misinforned, but think that means you are comparing the new internal zoom lens to the older “telescoping” lens.
An excellent telescoping lens has an advantage over the internal zoom models — it packs smaller, which is not an unimportant factor. But if the new lens is appreciably better optically (and, for example, works well with 1.4x and 2x TCs) then the extra bulk could well be worth it.
p.2 #4 · Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5 GM OSS Image Thread
arbitrage wrote:
My 100-400 arrives today (although probably won't be home to sign for it so will get it Friday). I have my friend's 200-600 at hand. I also have a ridiculously sharp copy of the original 100-400 which does better with the 1.4TC than the 200-600 does bare (both for IQ and AF).
So this new 100-400 actually has a lot to live up to....not against the 200-600 but against my copy of the 100-400 f4.5-5.6 GM lens.
I've spent the last few weeks shooting the 200-600 and the 100-400 to remind myself what they are capable of.
Now it is time to see if this new lens justifies its price point.
Also will the 300GM/2xTC be better than this lens with the 1.4TC? We shall see. But it will probably take a couple weeks to really get my thoughts solidified....Show more →
Can't wait for your test, Geoff. I just bought a very sharp copy of the 200-600, I sold my very sharp copy of the 100-400GM few months ago and now regret it.. I won't sell my 300GM even if the new 100-400+1.4TC is close to the sharpness of the 300GM+2X TC, that combo is so light and compact, a real joy to shoot with. The 100-400 f4.5 without TC is already longer than the 200-600.
p.2 #5 · Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5 GM OSS Image Thread
It is 10 days now that I have not collected my copy of 100-400/4.5 waiting on the shelf in the friendly shop.
GM 300/2.8 + 2xTC is so light and so good.400-800/6.3-8.0 is so sharp.My second,sharp copy of the GM 100-400/4.5-5.6 does the job.Motivation is fading away.
Meanwhile I think of buying 200-600 again.It was very handy in many situations.
p.2 #6 · Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5 GM OSS Image Thread
Alex Phan wrote:
one thing for sure is the new four custom-optimized XD (extreme dynamic) linear autofocus motors help a lot in term of focusing, subject acquisition from Full/infinity to MFD compare to the ONE motor on 200-600.
2-6 is out of the question since it is very slow. I would use 400-800 over 100-400 with TC.
Is 100-400 with 2x TC still comparable performance and IQ wise to 400-800 if not the same at 800mm.. much like how 300 2.8 is fantastic with 2x at 600mm surely wouldn't replace 600 f/4 but defn rivals it at a compact package just with 2x TC and gets great perf and IQ so when you need to carry less weight and don't mind swapping TCs - 300 2.8 does shine
p.2 #7 · Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5 GM OSS Image Thread
gdanmitchell wrote:
That latter comparison (between 100-400 lenses) sone that really interests me. Apologies in advance if I’m misinforned, but think that means you are comparing the new internal zoom lens to the older “telescoping” lens.
An excellent telescoping lens has an advantage over the internal zoom models — it packs smaller, which is not an unimportant factor. But if the new lens is appreciably better optically (and, for example, works well with 1.4x and 2x TCs) then the extra bulk could well be worth it.
Yes that is correct. I will be able to compare the new 100-400/4.5 to my very nice copy of the telescoping 100-400GM. I've owned 2 copies and this 2nd one is a sharper copy than my first. My first was about equal to my 200-600 when compared at 400mm and the 200-600 was sharper at 600mm than the 100-400/1.4TC at 560mm. But my 2nd copy is actually is sharper than the 200-600 even with the 1.4TC on it. Those comparisons I did back when I owned the 200-600. I currently have a friend's 200-600 and it seems to be very similar to my copy. There are rumours out there of very sharp 200-600 lenses. I've yet to find one in the wild
p.2 #8 · Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5 GM OSS Image Thread
Picked up my 100-400mm f/4.5 today from my local camera shop. Did not have a lot of time to get out to photograph this afternoon, but took this image of a flower on my deck. I was at close to minimum focus distance at 400mm. I loaned my 1.4x to my son for a trip he is taking, so can't experiment with that until he gets back.
A couple things I noticed with this quick test: The control of in focus to out of focus is handled very well. the bokeh is very good for a zoom. I will need to evaluate that with more challenging situations, but this was very nice and much better than my G tele zooms. It is very sharp as one would expect. color rendering is also nice. This image is pretty much straight out of camera (Raw imported to Lightroom Classic) with a minor change in brightness and then export to jpeg.
p.2 #11 · Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5 GM OSS Image Thread
While I'm waiting for Wed night's soccer match to really put a test on the new 100-400 ƒ/4.5, the wife got on her horse for the first time in a couple of years so I took the opportunity to grab a few shots hand held.
Here is one of them:
ILCE-1M2FE 100-400mm F4.5 GM OSS lens288mmf/5.61/2000s640 ISO+0.3 EV
p.2 #17 · Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5 GM OSS Image Thread
Douglas L wrote:
Thanks to testing all these, Geoff. So, what's your take on the 100-400+2X TC?
Seemed to work fairly well but I didn't use it much. For sure AF takes a hit. IQ seems pretty good when AF succeeds.
I've never shot the 400-800 so don't know how it compares. I have seen a few people say now that the 100-400/2x is just as good as there 400-800.
p.2 #19 · Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5 GM OSS Image Thread
arbitrage wrote:
Seemed to work fairly well but I didn't use it much. For sure AF takes a hit. IQ seems pretty good when AF succeeds.
I've never shot the 400-800 so don't know how it compares. I have seen a few people say now that the 100-400/2x is just as good as there 400-800.
Can't you post links to some full resolution images ? All your images on this site appear to be just 1600px wide and look pretty ordinary but they look like they shouldn't look ordinary.
p.2 #20 · Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5 GM OSS Image Thread
arbitrage wrote:
Seemed to work fairly well but I didn't use it much. For sure AF takes a hit. IQ seems pretty good when AF succeeds.
I've never shot the 400-800 so don't know how it compares. I have seen a few people say now that the 100-400/2x is just as good as there 400-800.
Interesting. I myself haven't seen folks saying the 100-400+2X TC is as good as the 400-800. I might need to get one to do my own testing.
. I won't sell my 300GM even if the new 100-400+1.4TC is close to the sharpness of the 300GM+2X TC, that combo is so light and compact, a real joy to shoot with. The 100-400 f4.5 without TC is already longer than the 200-600. 
