p.3 #1 · 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.
When people say the 400-800 isn't sharp at 800mm, I often wonder about the shooting conditions. At 800mm, you're looking through a lot of air between the camera and the subject, and atmospheric instability can have a significant impact on image quality(and AF accuracy if the image is shimmering). Add in the small pixels of cameras like the A1, and the high magnification demands excellent technique and stability, and the relatively slow maximum aperture of f/8 makes matters worse, resulting in the long end becoming challenging.
In my experience, the lens performs very consistently at 800mm on the A9 III, whereas results on the A1 are less consistent. Whether that's due to the A1's higher pixel density being less forgiving of technique and atmospheric conditions, or some combination of factors, I'm not sure. But I think there is often more at play than lens sharpness alone when evaluating performance at 800mm.
p.3 #2 · Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5 GM OSS Image Thread
scott f wrote:
When people say the 400-800 isn't sharp at 800mm, I often wonder about the shooting conditions. At 800mm, you're looking through a lot of air between the camera and the subject, and atmospheric instability can have a significant impact on image quality(and AF accuracy if the image is shimmering). Add in the small pixels of cameras like the A1, and the high magnification demands excellent technique and stability, and the relatively slow maximum aperture of f/8 makes matters worse, resulting in the long end becoming challenging.
In my experience, the lens performs very consistently at 800mm on the A9 III, whereas results on the A1 are less consistent. Whether that's due to the A1's higher pixel density being less forgiving of technique and atmospheric conditions, or some combination of factors, I'm not sure. But I think there is often more at play than lens sharpness alone when evaluating performance at 800mm. ...Show more →
Have a look at Hatch's 2nd image - this is shot at 800mm - sharp enough I think
p.3 #3 · Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5 GM OSS Image Thread
shac wrote:
Have a look at Hatch's 2nd image - this is shot at 800mm - sharp enough I think
I have no issues with that lens in terms of sharpness, subject to atmospheric instability of course and limitations of f8 in low light. But, IMO, it's a sharp lens.
p.3 #4 · Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5 GM OSS Image Thread
shac wrote:
Have a look at Hatch's 2nd image - this is shot at 800mm - sharp enough I think
I have no doubt there are 400-800s out in the wild which struggle, I ran across this with the 1st 200-600 I owned, copy #2 is super sharp.
The 400-800 I have is also very sharp. The issues I've had with it, I turned off full time DMF. The ring is "fluid/smooth" and easy to bump IMO, this was causing me to miss focus on a lot of shots. I turned it off, keeper rate shot right up. I also added a skin and this helped put tension on the ring when I do go to use it.
Heat is a pain in the neck, haze/heat distortion is no fun!
I've had the lens glued to my camera since I bought it. I of course wish it didn't need high noon sunlight to keep the ISO levels low but it is what it is.
p.3 #5 · Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5 GM OSS Image Thread
duncangr wrote:
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.
I've provided a link to my backyard test shots to get an idea of how the lens compares to the 100-400 4.5-5.6GM, 200-600 and 300GM.
Take these with this caveat. I sat in a chair and shot them handheld. Distance to target may have varied slightly based on how I sat back and braced to shoot. Distance was ~25ft?? OSS was on 1 for all lenses. I took a burst of shots and picked the sharpest to share. Most were about equal with a few duds. I focused centre of the $5 bill. I can't guarantee being square to the target. All I can say is I did the same thing for each lens and lens/TC combo and focal length (I provided a 300mm from the 100-400 if you want to compare to 300GM). Also a 560mm from the 200-600.
I will also throw a few RAWs of some of the shots I've been posting. Then you can at least get an idea of subject size in the frame. The Purple Martin images were shot from a kayak with OSS off. The swallow shots are from land (handheld) with OSS on at 1.
p.3 #6 · Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5 GM OSS Image Thread
arbitrage wrote:
I've provided a link to my backyard test shots to get an idea of how the lens compares to the 100-400 4.5-5.6GM, 200-600 and 300GM.
Take these with this caveat. I sat in a chair and shot them handheld. Distance to target may have varied slightly based on how I sat back and braced to shoot. Distance was ~25ft?? OSS was on 1 for all lenses. I took a burst of shots and picked the sharpest to share. Most were about equal with a few duds. I focused centre of the $5 bill. I can't guarantee being square to the target. All I can say is I did the same thing for each lens and lens/TC combo and focal length (I provided a 300mm from the 100-400 if you want to compare to 300GM). Also a 560mm from the 200-600.
I will also throw a few RAWs of some of the shots I've been posting. Then you can at least get an idea of subject size in the frame. The Purple Martin images were shot from a kayak with OSS off. The swallow shots are from land (handheld) with OSS on at 1.
p.3 #7 · Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5 GM OSS Image Thread
hatch1921 wrote:
I have no doubt there are 400-800s out in the wild which struggle, I ran across this with the 1st 200-600 I owned, copy #2 is super sharp.
The 400-800 I have is also very sharp. The issues I've had with it, I turned off full time DMF. The ring is "fluid/smooth" and easy to bump IMO, this was causing me to miss focus on a lot of shots. I turned it off, keeper rate shot right up. I also added a skin and this helped put tension on the ring when I do go to use it.
Heat is a pain in the neck, haze/heat distortion is no fun!
I've had the lens glued to my camera since I bought it. I of course wish it didn't need high noon sunlight to keep the ISO levels low but it is what it is.
p.3 #9 · Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5 GM OSS Image Thread
Thanks for sharing these Geoff
My observations
Compared to 200-600
100-400+1.4X is slightly sharper and contrasty compared to 200-600
100-400+1.4X and 200-600 at 600mm is pretty close in magnification. This makes 200-600 a 200-560mm lens. This was my experience too.
Compared to 300/2.8
300/2.8 1.4X TC is sharper than 100-400 at 400mm
300/2.8 + 2X TC is pretty close to 100-400 with 1.4TC This makes 300/2.8 an amazing lens (nothing new here)
From what you said earlier 100-400 with 1.4TC is better in AF compared to 300+2X TC
Do you agree?
arbitrage wrote:
I've provided a link to my backyard test shots to get an idea of how the lens compares to the 100-400 4.5-5.6GM, 200-600 and 300GM.
Take these with this caveat. I sat in a chair and shot them handheld. Distance to target may have varied slightly based on how I sat back and braced to shoot. Distance was ~25ft?? OSS was on 1 for all lenses. I took a burst of shots and picked the sharpest to share. Most were about equal with a few duds. I focused centre of the $5 bill. I can't guarantee being square to the target. All I can say is I did the same thing for each lens and lens/TC combo and focal length (I provided a 300mm from the 100-400 if you want to compare to 300GM). Also a 560mm from the 200-600.
I will also throw a few RAWs of some of the shots I've been posting. Then you can at least get an idea of subject size in the frame. The Purple Martin images were shot from a kayak with OSS off. The swallow shots are from land (handheld) with OSS on at 1.
p.3 #10 · Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5 GM OSS Image Thread
Jemini wrote:
Thanks for sharing these Geoff
My observations
Compared to 200-600
100-400+1.4X is slightly sharper and contrasty compared to 200-600
100-400+1.4X and 200-600 at 600mm is pretty close in magnification. This makes 200-600 a 200-560mm lens. This was my experience too.
Compared to 300/2.8
300/2.8 1.4X TC is sharper than 100-400 at 400mm
300/2.8 + 2X TC is pretty close to 100-400 with 1.4TC This makes 300/2.8 an amazing lens (nothing new here)
From what you said earlier 100-400 with 1.4TC is better in AF compared to 300+2X TC
Do you agree?
Yes, I'd agree with that.
300GM is such a good lens that it can keep up with one less TC factor in play.
And yes, I do feel AF consistency is a bit better 100-400/1.4x vs 300/2x. I'm going to take both out in the kayak this weekend and compare a bit more between those two combos.
p.3 #11 · Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5 GM OSS Image Thread
Swimming_trouble_718 wrote:
Great shots! How does this lens compare to the 300 GM for you?
Thanks
Similar IQ at a given focal length. 300/1.4TC is very similar to the 100-400 bare lens at 400. 300/2x is very similar to 100-400/1.4x at 560mm. But I feel AF of 100-400/1.4x is a bit better than 300/2x.
100-400 feels way lighter than it should. It is a very odd feeling picking it up as your brain expects much heavier for the size. It is a much larger lens than the 300 but in the hand the weight doesn't feel that much more.
The 100-400 is for someone who wants the versatility of being able to zoom. The 300 is for those that either need f/2.8 and/or want the smallest and lightest package.
I'm keeping both and I'm now having a hard time deciding which one to take out and shoot with. It has been years since I used a zoom lens as my main bird lens and having the zoom was kind of nice. I forgot how useful it can be.
p.3 #12 · Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5 GM OSS Image Thread
arbitrage wrote:
I've provided a link to my backyard test shots to get an idea of how the lens compares to the 100-400 4.5-5.6GM, 200-600 and 300GM.
Take these with this caveat. I sat in a chair and shot them handheld. Distance to target may have varied slightly based on how I sat back and braced to shoot. Distance was ~25ft?? OSS was on 1 for all lenses. I took a burst of shots and picked the sharpest to share. Most were about equal with a few duds. I focused centre of the $5 bill. I can't guarantee being square to the target. All I can say is I did the same thing for each lens and lens/TC combo and focal length (I provided a 300mm from the 100-400 if you want to compare to 300GM). Also a 560mm from the 200-600.
I will also throw a few RAWs of some of the shots I've been posting. Then you can at least get an idea of subject size in the frame. The Purple Martin images were shot from a kayak with OSS off. The swallow shots are from land (handheld) with OSS on at 1.
p.3 #14 · Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5 GM OSS Image Thread
arbitrage wrote:
Yes, I'd agree with that.
300GM is such a good lens that it can keep up with one less TC factor in play.
And yes, I do feel AF consistency is a bit better 100-400/1.4x vs 300/2x. I'm going to take both out in the kayak this weekend and compare a bit more between those two combos.
Well with a 2x TC lens speed is the biggest factor and the f/2.8 mitigates effectively 1 stop of light loss, and 600 f/5.6 is still brighter than 560 f/6.3, so I would expect them to be close. Still wish Sony did a 400 f/4GM so I could get away with just a 1.4x and it should be as about light as a 300 f/2.8. Smaller aperture but slightly longer body.
Steve Perry showed that the 200-600G @ 600 produced a much smaller image than the 600 f/4 at same distance to test chart and I think most analysis pegs this as a 200-560/565. Even the old 100-400GM + 1.4x was about the same @ 560.
p.3 #16 · Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5 GM OSS Image Thread
arbitrage wrote:
Thanks
Similar IQ at a given focal length. 300/1.4TC is very similar to the 100-400 bare lens at 400. 300/2x is very similar to 100-400/1.4x at 560mm. But I feel AF of 100-400/1.4x is a bit better than 300/2x.
100-400 feels way lighter than it should. It is a very odd feeling picking it up as your brain expects much heavier for the size. It is a much larger lens than the 300 but in the hand the weight doesn't feel that much more.
The 100-400 is for someone who wants the versatility of being able to zoom. The 300 is for those that either need f/2.8 and/or want the smallest and lightest package.
I'm keeping both and I'm now having a hard time deciding which one to take out and shoot with. It has been years since I used a zoom lens as my main bird lens and having the zoom was kind of nice. I forgot how useful it can be....Show more →
They're really close indeed. I own the 300GM and both teleconverters, and I'm tempted to add the new 100-400. The 300GM + 1.4x has slightly smoother bokeh than the 100-400 at 400 f4.5 (as expected), but not sure I'd choose one over another based on the tiny differences I see in your shots.
I can see why it's difficult to decide the one you take out. You RAW files are very informative and there are some nice ones with the birds, thanks for sharing !
