Sony 100-400 f/4.5 or Canon 100-300 f/2.8
p.1 #1Sony 100-400 f/4.5 or Canon 100-300 f/2.8
I know these are apples and oranges (or are they?), but my situation is somewhat unique:
I have both Sony and Canon (EF and RF) kits. I mainly use Sony for the wide to normal range, I have:
A7CR
A7R II
16-35 f/4
24-105 f/4
20 f/1.8
But for historical reasons (coming from Canon EF), I used Canon EF/RF for telephoto, I have:
R7
(several EF bodies)
EF 300 f/2.8, plus TCs
RF 100-500
(many legacy EF lenses covering the whole range)
I have been thinking about consolidating everything into one system.
The new Sony 100-400 f/4.5 caught my eye. My main use for telephotos is wildlife (in particular birds) as opposed to sports, so the large aperture is not as critical. Portability is also a consideration, as I need to travel with my gear.
For that reason, the Sony 100-400 f/4.5 (with a 1.4x TC sometimes, which gives you 560 f/6.3) seems to be on par with the Canon 100-300 f/2.8 (with a 2x TC, which gives you 600 f/5.6). Of course, the Canon has the advantage of being a f/2.8 lens which can be useful in situations. The Sony is also significantly cheaper.
In either case, I will need another body. The Sony lens plus a body (A7V?), plus a TC can fit under $10,000, whereas the Canon lens alone costs that much. Budget is not a main concern for me, but still, I cannon ignore the costs.
What would you do in my situation?
Thanks,
Howard
I have both Sony and Canon (EF and RF) kits. I mainly use Sony for the wide to normal range, I have:
A7CR
A7R II
16-35 f/4
24-105 f/4
20 f/1.8
But for historical reasons (coming from Canon EF), I used Canon EF/RF for telephoto, I have:
R7
(several EF bodies)
EF 300 f/2.8, plus TCs
RF 100-500
(many legacy EF lenses covering the whole range)
I have been thinking about consolidating everything into one system.
The new Sony 100-400 f/4.5 caught my eye. My main use for telephotos is wildlife (in particular birds) as opposed to sports, so the large aperture is not as critical. Portability is also a consideration, as I need to travel with my gear.
For that reason, the Sony 100-400 f/4.5 (with a 1.4x TC sometimes, which gives you 560 f/6.3) seems to be on par with the Canon 100-300 f/2.8 (with a 2x TC, which gives you 600 f/5.6). Of course, the Canon has the advantage of being a f/2.8 lens which can be useful in situations. The Sony is also significantly cheaper.
In either case, I will need another body. The Sony lens plus a body (A7V?), plus a TC can fit under $10,000, whereas the Canon lens alone costs that much. Budget is not a main concern for me, but still, I cannon ignore the costs.
What would you do in my situation?
Thanks,
Howard
Jun 12, 2026 at 10:26 AM
p.1 #2Sony 100-400 f/4.5 or Canon 100-300 f/2.8
You should rent and test them under your conditions of use, but I would also look into the Nikkor 120-300/2.8 w/1.4x TC and a 45MP body. At 300mm and below I'd rather have f/2.8 for isolation. At 400mm f/4.5 is probably more adequate. If budget is tight the slightly lower IQ of the Sony lens might be adequate.
EBH
EBH
Jun 12, 2026 at 10:39 AM
p.1 #3Sony 100-400 f/4.5 or Canon 100-300 f/2.8
I don’t know, if I were consolidating into one system and wildlife was my primary focus, and I had to buy a new body anyway, I would get the Nikon Z8 and the new 120-300 2.8 w/ TC and the 400 2.8 w/ TC and not think about gear again for a very long time. I say that as someone that just received their Sony 100-400 4.5 as a good enough for now for my needs lens. Really thought about getting a Z8 and the 400TC but the Sony was cheaper (albeit slower) than I was expecting so I said what the heck, let’s just roll with good enough and cheap…
Jun 12, 2026 at 11:02 AM
p.1 #4Sony 100-400 f/4.5 or Canon 100-300 f/2.8
Perhaps I can help you think this through. I shot Sony for about 10 years until a few months ago, and I currently switched to Canon (I shot Canon DSLR for about 10 years before switching to mirrorless Sony). Wildlife isn't my primary focus but it was one of things I wanted to be able to shoot.
Here are my thoughts. I think you want to get at least one new camera no matter what lenses you decide to buy. The A7r II, which I owned and liked for many years is not well suited at all for wildlife. It doesn't have very good AF and it doesn't allow burst shooting well at all. And the A7CR has a great sensor and better AF, but doesn't allow very good burst shooting, silent shooting, a deep buffer, or precapture. On top of that it is a pretty small camera to be using for long lenses and has a weak EVF.
On the Canon side, the R7 is more capable (I currently own one), but is APS-C, has a loud shutter, and slow sensor scan speed in electronic shutter mode. It can be used for wildlife but has limitations.
So, here is what i would have done if I stayed with Sony and we in your shoes. I would get a used A1, for the fast silent shutter, good resolution, the great AF, the great burst rate, and it excellent EVF. It is missing one feature, precapture that would matter to some, but I wouldn't want to fork over the several thousand dollars to get that with the A1 II. Then at this point I would add the 100-400 f/4.5 GM and the 400-800 f/6.3-8 G lenses and call it a day with a great kit for wildlife. If I had a bit more money, I would swap out the 100-400 f/4.5 G for the 300 f/2.8 GM and a 1.4X TC and 2X TC. That lens is pretty small and pretty amazing and works really well with both TCs
My plan for Canon, however, in the long run is to use my R5 II (which is a great camera) with the RF 100-500L, which you already have and RF 200-800 f/6.3-9. I might decide to spend more money and get an EF 500 f/4L II to get better performance in lower light, but that costs as much as the other two lenses combined.
Comparing the two kits the Canon kit is considerable smaller, lighter, and cheaper, but has a bit less capability. For me personally, when wildife isn't my focus i think I will be happy with the Canon kit. I think both system are excellent and you could reduce the cost of the Sony kit by going with the 200-600 f/5.6-6.3 G instead of the other two lenses but that would still be a pretty big lens. Either way, I think either system could serve you well and depending on just what EF lenses you have to sell you might have some real resources to build your kit. Both kits have excellent AF and both kits would seem to be very capable for what you want to do. Nevertheless there will be a tradeoff as always between size, capability, and price.
Here are my thoughts. I think you want to get at least one new camera no matter what lenses you decide to buy. The A7r II, which I owned and liked for many years is not well suited at all for wildlife. It doesn't have very good AF and it doesn't allow burst shooting well at all. And the A7CR has a great sensor and better AF, but doesn't allow very good burst shooting, silent shooting, a deep buffer, or precapture. On top of that it is a pretty small camera to be using for long lenses and has a weak EVF.
On the Canon side, the R7 is more capable (I currently own one), but is APS-C, has a loud shutter, and slow sensor scan speed in electronic shutter mode. It can be used for wildlife but has limitations.
So, here is what i would have done if I stayed with Sony and we in your shoes. I would get a used A1, for the fast silent shutter, good resolution, the great AF, the great burst rate, and it excellent EVF. It is missing one feature, precapture that would matter to some, but I wouldn't want to fork over the several thousand dollars to get that with the A1 II. Then at this point I would add the 100-400 f/4.5 GM and the 400-800 f/6.3-8 G lenses and call it a day with a great kit for wildlife. If I had a bit more money, I would swap out the 100-400 f/4.5 G for the 300 f/2.8 GM and a 1.4X TC and 2X TC. That lens is pretty small and pretty amazing and works really well with both TCs
My plan for Canon, however, in the long run is to use my R5 II (which is a great camera) with the RF 100-500L, which you already have and RF 200-800 f/6.3-9. I might decide to spend more money and get an EF 500 f/4L II to get better performance in lower light, but that costs as much as the other two lenses combined.
Comparing the two kits the Canon kit is considerable smaller, lighter, and cheaper, but has a bit less capability. For me personally, when wildife isn't my focus i think I will be happy with the Canon kit. I think both system are excellent and you could reduce the cost of the Sony kit by going with the 200-600 f/5.6-6.3 G instead of the other two lenses but that would still be a pretty big lens. Either way, I think either system could serve you well and depending on just what EF lenses you have to sell you might have some real resources to build your kit. Both kits have excellent AF and both kits would seem to be very capable for what you want to do. Nevertheless there will be a tradeoff as always between size, capability, and price.
Jun 12, 2026 at 11:32 AM
p.1 #5Sony 100-400 f/4.5 or Canon 100-300 f/2.8
A1 or A1ll won’t disappoint. I personally would stick with Sony. So many awesome options.
Jun 12, 2026 at 11:50 AM
p.1 #6Sony 100-400 f/4.5 or Canon 100-300 f/2.8
I've had the RF100-300/2.8 for a 4 days weekend borrowed from CPS along with the R1.
I just received the Sony 100-400GM in the mail today. So I don't have much experience with it yet other than a bit of backyard testing.
The 100-300 did really well with the 2xTC so I don't think the Sony has that big of an advantage because it can get to 560 with "just" a 1.4TC instead of needing a 2xTC. But it may have an advantage in AF speed....TBD.
The lenses are basically identical size. The Sony is way lighter though. It balances very nicely and feels almost as light as the 300GM (even though it isn't). It balances way better than the similar weight 200-600G. The Canon 2xTC is huge so it really makes the heavier lens even heavier, longer and balanced even worse.
Unless you really have a good use for the bare 100-300/2.8 range then I don't think the price or weight of the Canon is worth it. And always keep in mind that unless you won't have to crop a 300 f/2.8 image past 420mm you won't gain IQ by using a stop less ISO vs shooting at f/4 and cropping less.
I just received the Sony 100-400GM in the mail today. So I don't have much experience with it yet other than a bit of backyard testing.
The 100-300 did really well with the 2xTC so I don't think the Sony has that big of an advantage because it can get to 560 with "just" a 1.4TC instead of needing a 2xTC. But it may have an advantage in AF speed....TBD.
The lenses are basically identical size. The Sony is way lighter though. It balances very nicely and feels almost as light as the 300GM (even though it isn't). It balances way better than the similar weight 200-600G. The Canon 2xTC is huge so it really makes the heavier lens even heavier, longer and balanced even worse.
Unless you really have a good use for the bare 100-300/2.8 range then I don't think the price or weight of the Canon is worth it. And always keep in mind that unless you won't have to crop a 300 f/2.8 image past 420mm you won't gain IQ by using a stop less ISO vs shooting at f/4 and cropping less.
Jun 12, 2026 at 02:53 PM
p.1 #7Sony 100-400 f/4.5 or Canon 100-300 f/2.8
isyoox703 wrote:
I don’t know, if I were consolidating into one system and wildlife was my primary focus, and I had to buy a new body anyway, I would get the Nikon Z8 and the new 120-300 2.8 w/ TC and the 400 2.8 w/ TC and not think about gear again for a very long time. I say that as someone that just received their Sony 100-400 4.5 as a good enough for now for my needs lens. Really thought about getting a Z8 and the 400TC but the Sony was cheaper (albeit slower) than I was expecting so I said...Show more →
Yeah....I was just thinking something similar the other day....If Nikon could make a competitive camera in the Z9II or Z8II then a perfect combo for me would be the 120-300TC and 600TC. The stuff dreams are made of for bird photography.
I also just received a 100-400 4.5 GM today....good enough for now
I don’t know, if I were consolidating into one system and wildlife was my primary focus, and I had to buy a new body anyway, I would get the Nikon Z8 and the new 120-300 2.8 w/ TC and the 400 2.8 w/ TC and not think about gear again for a very long time. I say that as someone that just received their Sony 100-400 4.5 as a good enough for now for my needs lens. Really thought about getting a Z8 and the 400TC but the Sony was cheaper (albeit slower) than I was expecting so I said...Show more →
Yeah....I was just thinking something similar the other day....If Nikon could make a competitive camera in the Z9II or Z8II then a perfect combo for me would be the 120-300TC and 600TC. The stuff dreams are made of for bird photography.
I also just received a 100-400 4.5 GM today....good enough for now
Jun 12, 2026 at 02:58 PM
|
p.1 #8Sony 100-400 f/4.5 or Canon 100-300 f/2.8
arbitrage wrote:
Yeah....I was just thinking something similar the other day....If Nikon could make a competitive camera in the Z9II or Z8II then a perfect combo for me would be the 120-300TC and 600TC.
Not to start a war here, but what's wrong with the Z8/Z9? I am brand agnostic and was shoting with the Z8 alongside the A1 II for almost a year. I shoot plenty of action and didn't notice that the Z8 was "not competitive". The reason I standardized on the E-mount was the glass (for my purposes). But if someone believes that a Z-mount lens perfect for them, I can't imagine Z8/Z9 bodies standing in the way as "not competitive".
Yeah....I was just thinking something similar the other day....If Nikon could make a competitive camera in the Z9II or Z8II then a perfect combo for me would be the 120-300TC and 600TC.
Not to start a war here, but what's wrong with the Z8/Z9? I am brand agnostic and was shoting with the Z8 alongside the A1 II for almost a year. I shoot plenty of action and didn't notice that the Z8 was "not competitive". The reason I standardized on the E-mount was the glass (for my purposes). But if someone believes that a Z-mount lens perfect for them, I can't imagine Z8/Z9 bodies standing in the way as "not competitive".
Jun 12, 2026 at 03:14 PM
p.1 #9Sony 100-400 f/4.5 or Canon 100-300 f/2.8
old-gregg wrote:
Not to start a war here, but what's wrong with the Z8/Z9? I am brand agnostic and was shoting with the Z8 alongside the A1 II for almost a year. I shoot plenty of action and didn't notice that the Z8 was "not competitive". The reason I standardized on the E-mount was the glass (for my purposes). But if someone believes that a Z-mount lens perfect for them, I can't imagine Z8/Z9 bodies standing in the way as "not competitive".
I don't feel like dredging that discussion up. It doesn't really matter. If you like those cameras then all the power to you. I've owned them three times...always tempted by newer FW. Always sold after a couple weeks.
I will happily buy into Nikon once I'm happy with the camera...fingers crossed for a great Z9II release.
arbitrage wrote
Yeah....I was just thinking something similar the other day....If Nikon could make a competitive camera in the Z9II or Z8II then a perfect combo for me would be the 120-300TC and 600TC.I don't feel like dredging that discussion up. It doesn't really matter. If you like those cameras then all the power to you. I've owned them three times...always tempted by newer FW. Always sold after a couple weeks.
I will happily buy into Nikon once I'm happy with the camera...fingers crossed for a great Z9II release.
Jun 12, 2026 at 05:31 PM
p.1 #10Sony 100-400 f/4.5 or Canon 100-300 f/2.8
IMO the Canon is simply too heavy and certainly in Australia stupidly overpriced and dearer than the Sony 400 f2.8!
Sony 100-400 is a better choice for wildlife IMO. My ideal combo would be 100-400 and say a 600 f5.6 GM.
Sony 100-400 is a better choice for wildlife IMO. My ideal combo would be 100-400 and say a 600 f5.6 GM.
Jun 12, 2026 at 07:10 PM
p.1 #11Sony 100-400 f/4.5 or Canon 100-300 f/2.8
We have the Canon at work and it's a favorite lens of our event video team. I think it's a superb lens. I would've loved to have a lens that good a couple dozen years ago when I was shooting high school sports regularly. These days, I'd have a hard time fitting it in to my personal kit. The weight alone would make me hesitate, the 112mm filters aren't fun, and the 1.8m MFD is limiting. I'd also find the idea of spending that much on the big guy and still needing extenders and/or cropping to get past 300 intolerable. It's an unquestionably high performing lens, but not the one for me.
We tested the 100-400/4.5GM at work, and I was very impressed. It's not as consistent as the 70-200GMII, but it's also a 4x zoom, and easily the best 100-400 I've used by an impactful margin. It's not the optical rival of the Canon, but it's smaller, lighter, significantly less expensive, takes both drop in and front filters, and has a really useful variable MFD (.63m on the wide end going to 1.5m on the long end). Between the two, that's the one I'd want on a hike.
My actual kit is the Sony 70-200/4 GII, typically on the a6700, and the 300/2.8GM, typically with the 2x on the a1. The close focus capabilities of the GII are great for bugs and small critters. The 300's there if I need to keep more distance or there's a larger animal. It's not as light and easy to pack as the 100-400, but the kit's more reflective of how I use it.
We tested the 100-400/4.5GM at work, and I was very impressed. It's not as consistent as the 70-200GMII, but it's also a 4x zoom, and easily the best 100-400 I've used by an impactful margin. It's not the optical rival of the Canon, but it's smaller, lighter, significantly less expensive, takes both drop in and front filters, and has a really useful variable MFD (.63m on the wide end going to 1.5m on the long end). Between the two, that's the one I'd want on a hike.
My actual kit is the Sony 70-200/4 GII, typically on the a6700, and the 300/2.8GM, typically with the 2x on the a1. The close focus capabilities of the GII are great for bugs and small critters. The 300's there if I need to keep more distance or there's a larger animal. It's not as light and easy to pack as the 100-400, but the kit's more reflective of how I use it.
Jun 13, 2026 at 01:49 PM
p.1 #12Sony 100-400 f/4.5 or Canon 100-300 f/2.8
Nothing wrong with the Z9 at all. Owning both the A1 and Z9 they are equally as good, with strengths and weaknesses in their AF. The Z9 will not cost you shots and Nikon has a better long lens line-up IMO and Sony's 100-400 f/4.5 only partially addresses the large imbalance IMO.
I still think overall Canon has the best AF, but their lens line-up is horrible and the best thing I did was quit them after 20 years for Sony and Nikon.
I still think overall Canon has the best AF, but their lens line-up is horrible and the best thing I did was quit them after 20 years for Sony and Nikon.
Jun 13, 2026 at 07:50 PM
p.1 #13Sony 100-400 f/4.5 or Canon 100-300 f/2.8
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Nothing wrong with the Z9 at all. Owning both the A1 and Z9 they are equally as good, with strengths and weaknesses in their AF. The Z9 will not cost you shots and Nikon has a better long lens line-up IMO and Sony's 100-400 f/4.5 only partially addresses the large imbalance IMO.
I still think overall Canon has the best AF, but their lens line-up is horrible and the best thing I did was quit them after 20 years for Sony and Nikon.
Well, IMO, horrible to describe the Canon lens line-up is an exaggeration. It depends on what you use most and what you need. Personally, I prefer the Canon 100-500 f/4.5-7.1 over either the Nikon 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 or the Sony 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 and those would be my most used lenses with any system. The Sony 100-400 f/4.5 is an interesting alternative but it is quite a bit bigger and more expensive. Although less comparable, I also personally prefer the Canon 200-800 f/6.3-9 over the Sony 200-600 f/5.6-6.3 or the Nikon 180-600 f/5.6-6.3, In both cases the extra reach with a slower max aperture at the long end provides much the same capability as adding a 1.25X TC and I appreciate the extra reach for my shooting.
It is totally true that Sony has a few interesting lenses that nobody else has in mirrorless the 50-150 f/2, the 300 f/2.8, and the 400-800 f/6.3-8, and Nikon has a great set of small for telephoto primes in the 400 f/4.5, 600 f/6.3 PF, and 800 f/6.3 PF, and their 400 f/2.8 and 600 f/4 with built-in TC are especially nice. Canon has no RF lenses that compete with any of these, but the only ones I would consider because of price are the Sony 400-800 f/6.3-8 and the Nikon 400 f/4.5.
But that is just me. I don't think the Canon lineup is terrible even though I do hope they continue to develop a few more lenses for RF. I am not sure I would buy anyting beyond the 100-500 f/4.5-7.1 or the 200-800 f/6.3-8, but I would love to have a few more options.
Nothing wrong with the Z9 at all. Owning both the A1 and Z9 they are equally as good, with strengths and weaknesses in their AF. The Z9 will not cost you shots and Nikon has a better long lens line-up IMO and Sony's 100-400 f/4.5 only partially addresses the large imbalance IMO.
I still think overall Canon has the best AF, but their lens line-up is horrible and the best thing I did was quit them after 20 years for Sony and Nikon.
Well, IMO, horrible to describe the Canon lens line-up is an exaggeration. It depends on what you use most and what you need. Personally, I prefer the Canon 100-500 f/4.5-7.1 over either the Nikon 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 or the Sony 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 and those would be my most used lenses with any system. The Sony 100-400 f/4.5 is an interesting alternative but it is quite a bit bigger and more expensive. Although less comparable, I also personally prefer the Canon 200-800 f/6.3-9 over the Sony 200-600 f/5.6-6.3 or the Nikon 180-600 f/5.6-6.3, In both cases the extra reach with a slower max aperture at the long end provides much the same capability as adding a 1.25X TC and I appreciate the extra reach for my shooting.
It is totally true that Sony has a few interesting lenses that nobody else has in mirrorless the 50-150 f/2, the 300 f/2.8, and the 400-800 f/6.3-8, and Nikon has a great set of small for telephoto primes in the 400 f/4.5, 600 f/6.3 PF, and 800 f/6.3 PF, and their 400 f/2.8 and 600 f/4 with built-in TC are especially nice. Canon has no RF lenses that compete with any of these, but the only ones I would consider because of price are the Sony 400-800 f/6.3-8 and the Nikon 400 f/4.5.
But that is just me. I don't think the Canon lineup is terrible even though I do hope they continue to develop a few more lenses for RF. I am not sure I would buy anyting beyond the 100-500 f/4.5-7.1 or the 200-800 f/6.3-8, but I would love to have a few more options.
Jun 14, 2026 at 04:31 AM