According to that rumor site, a new Sony 100-400mm f5.6-8 will be announced on July 22. If it turns out to be true, I have no doubt it will be sharp. Would really like to see the weight and size.
Jul 20, 2026 at 04:37 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Douglas L wrote:
According to that rumor site, a new Sony 100-400mm f5.6-8 will be announced on July 22. If it turns out to be true, I have no doubt it will be sharp. Would really like to see the weight and size.
I have the Canon 100-400 f/5.6-8 and I like it a lot. The Canon lens weighs just 633g. I suspect the Sony would be a similar size and it is great for when you want reach but do not want to carry a heavier lens. The slow aperture means you need high ISO unless there is a lot of light and moderately high ISO even in pretty good light if your target is moving and you need higher shutter speeds. It is in a whole different weight class than other lenses that have this much reach.
Even the 70-200 f/4 G II with the 2X TC would weigh 1,000g and likely almost 400g more than this lens and yet would also be 400mm f/8 at the long end just like this lens.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I have the Canon 100-400 f/5.6-8 and I like it a lot. The Canon lens weighs just 633g. I suspect the Sony would be a similar size and it is great for when you want reach but do not want to carry a heavier lens. The slow aperture means you need high ISO unless there is a lot of light and moderately high ISO even in pretty good light if your target is moving and you need higher shutter speeds. It is in a whole different weight class than other lenses that have this much reach.
Even the 70-200 f/4 G II with the 2X TC would weigh 1,000g and likely almost 400g more than this lens and yet would also be 400mm f/8 at the long end just like this lens. ...Show more →
If I get such a lens, it will be primarily for landscape compression shots, F8 is fine. Weight and size are the key for me.
Thang wrote:
Sony is doing away with the 100-400 4.5-5.6 GM replacement it seems…
Certainly looks that way. I can't imagine with the 100-400 f4.5 and this rumored 100-400 f5.6-8, Sony would still make a real successor of the old 100-400 F4.5-5.6. I have the new 100-400 f4.5 but I will never take a lens this size for travel or landscape stuff.
Maybe that means there will be space for Sigma to create a (nearly) high-end 80-400mm f/4(.5)-5.6 lens sometime. The niche will be vacated soon, and the existing Sony 100-400mm isn't exactly a super high performance lens. It's good but not outstanding, and pretty pricey, too.
IlyaSnopchenko wrote:
Maybe that means there will be space for Sigma to create a (nearly) high-end 80-400mm f/4(.5)-5.6 lens sometime. The niche will be vacated soon, and the existing Sony 100-400mm isn't exactly a super high performance lens. It's good but not outstanding, and pretty pricey, too.
The Tamron 50-400 is very good but it's still too heavy and bulky for MY intended usage of such a lens.
I hope this lens is equal or smaller in size than the Tamron 50-300; with sharper IQ and better AF. I was hoping for a 100-500/5.6-8 as a travel tele, but let's see what we end up with.
This could be a very nice travel lens. I have enjoyed using the Nikon 28-400mm f4-8 when the lighting is good. This won't be as versatile, being 100mm on the short end, but maybe Sony can optimize the IQ on the long end better than Nikon. Admittedly, I was hoping Sony would update the 100-400mm 4.5-5.6 GM. Ideally, I would have liked something like a 70-400 4.5-5.6 GM. But I doubt Sony would make 3 new 100-400mm ish lenses.
DWOfPaul wrote:
This could be a very nice travel lens. I have enjoyed using the Nikon 28-400mm f4-8 when the lighting is good. This won't be as versatile, being 100mm on the short end, but maybe Sony can optimize the IQ on the long end better than Nikon. Admittedly, I was hoping Sony would update the 100-400mm 4.5-5.6 GM. Ideally, I would have liked something like a 70-400 4.5-5.6 GM. But I doubt Sony would make 3 new 100-400mm ish lenses.
There is a Sony 70-300, I have never owned it. Most people say it's just OK. It's an old lens though. For me, it would be even better if Sony updates that lens.
mudlake wrote:
THIS is the lens I was hoping for. I'm sure it will be excellent. Crossing my fingers it is under 1,000 grams.
I can't imagine it will be close to 1,000g. The Canon lens is 633g and is a nice lens with quite decent AF. Yes, the corners could be sharper, but otherwise a quite decent sharpness. It is a great travel and hiking lens. I expect the Sony to be as well.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I can't imagine it will be close to 1,000g. The Canon lens is 633g and is a nice lens with quite decent AF. Yes, the corners could be sharper, but otherwise a quite decent sharpness. It is a great travel and hiking lens. I expect the Sony to be as well.
While some may think that a very compact 100-400 would be great for travel, I disagree.
You additionally need not only a wide angle zoom (for example the really compact and light Sony 16-35 PZ), but also a standard zoom or something like that for the FL between 35 and 100. So 3 lenses minimum to schlep around!
If you want 400mm, the Tamron 50-400 remains the best solution, because you can go with just 2 lenses (Tamron plus a 16-35; the gap between 35 and 50 mm is negligible). Or, if you are fine with only 300mm, you take the Tamron 50-300 for an even lighter setup.
And believe me, if you have a tele capable of 400mm, you will want, at some point, to photograph some wildlife or something like that. Even the f6.3 of the Tamron are often a bit too dark for that (even if you are OK with high ISO, the AF will become unreliable for faster moving subjects!), and f8 is simply too much.
Jul 21, 2026 at 01:16 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
hasenbein wrote:
While some may think that a very compact 100-400 would be great for travel, I disagree.
You additionally need not only a wide angle zoom (for example the really compact and light Sony 16-35 PZ), but also a standard zoom or something like that for the FL between 35 and 100. So 3 lenses minimum to schlep around!
If you want 400mm, the Tamron 50-400 remains the best solution, because you can go with just 2 lenses (Tamron plus a 16-35; the gap between 35 and 50 mm is negligible). Or, if you are fine with only 300mm, you take the Tamron 50-300 for an even lighter setup.
And believe me, if you have a tele capable of 400mm, you will want, at some point, to photograph some wildlife or something like that. Even the f6.3 of the Tamron are often a bit too dark for that (even if you are OK with high ISO, the AF will become unreliable for faster moving subjects!), and f8 is simply too much. ...Show more →
Well a travel kit is all about what sort of compromises you are willing to make to keep the kit small. I find 3 lens kits for travel to work well. For Sony and this proposed lens I would think that a kit with the 16-35 PZ, the 50 f.2,5 G (or the Sigma 65 f/2 I series) and this lens together with an A7C series camera would make a quite good travel kit. Yeah the lens has a slow max aperture, but that is the price one must pay if you want some reach and you want to keep the lens small.
I have the Canon lens and with Canon it AFs well even at f/8. I see no reason that wouldn't be true for Sony and I especially like the lens when traveling to the beach. My wife loves the water and spends 90% of the day in the water at the beach, but me not so much. I mostly just take quick dips to cool off--I am a pretty poor swimmer. That means I have lots of time for photography and most beaches have interesting shore birds and in that settings there is almost always plenty of light even for this lens. For me it is much more useful than you suggest.
And although I like the Tamron 50-400 f/4.5-6.3 that lens weighs 1,150 grams almost double the weigh of the Canon lens. The 16-35 PZ and the Tamoron lens even though it is a two lens kit weighs just over 1,500g in lenses and your fastest lens is an f/4.
The heavier 3 lens kit I suggested with the 16-35 PZ, the Sigma i-series 65 f/2, and if we sub in the Canon lens would weigh just under 1,400g, so actually less weight and would provide a lens that is 2 stops faster for when the light gets lower. That is what the smaller lens that reaches to 400mm gets you.
And if you want a two lens kit and can live with a slower zooms and don't want to add a fast prime, then I think a lot of people would be happy with the Sony 20-70 f/4 G and this new lens. Again if we sub in the weight of the Canon lens that two lens kit comes in at just over 1,100g so almost a pound lighter than your proposed 16-35 PZ and Tamron 50-400 solution and the gap from 70 to 100 would likely be for most people as non-consequential as the gap from 35 to 50.
hasenbein wrote:
While some may think that a very compact 100-400 would be great for travel, I disagree.
You additionally need not only a wide angle zoom (for example the really compact and light Sony 16-35 PZ), but also a standard zoom or something like that for the FL between 35 and 100. So 3 lenses minimum to schlep around!
If you want 400mm, the Tamron 50-400 remains the best solution, because you can go with just 2 lenses (Tamron plus a 16-35; the gap between 35 and 50 mm is negligible). Or, if you are fine with only 300mm, you take the Tamron 50-300 for an even lighter setup.
And believe me, if you have a tele capable of 400mm, you will want, at some point, to photograph some wildlife or something like that. Even the f6.3 of the Tamron are often a bit too dark for that (even if you are OK with high ISO, the AF will become unreliable for faster moving subjects!), and f8 is simply too much. ...Show more →
If I get this new Sony, and I know there will be a good chance to use 400mm, my travel kit would be, Sony 20-70, this 100-400 and the CV 15 or Viltrox 14, in case I need wider than 20mm. But that is not quite as simple as a 16-35 and 50-400. I had the Tamron 50-400, great range but still too heavy and bulky for flight and long walk, for me anyway.
Douglas L wrote:
The Tamron 50-400 is very good but it's still too heavy and bulky for MY intended usage of such a lens.
Well unfortunately, it's a zero-sum situation. Or, to be precise, the sliding scale of IQ/aperture vs. size/price
The Canon 100-400mm f/5.6-8 isn't really an exciting lens, if the OpticalLimits review is to be believed (though some people seem to swear by it). Small wonder given the cave dim aperture and the obvious goal of building this lens to the goal of small size.
Still, the Tamron 50-400 looks well-nigh unbeatable, even though it's f/6.3 for most of its range which may be a little hard to stomach for some people, but then again, the Canon 100-400 or Nikon 28-400 are f/8 for most of their ranges anyway, and f/6.3 is the new f/5.6 anyway.
The idea of the 16-35 + 50-400 combo looks super attractive. Maybe I'll be there if I offload my beater Canon 100-400L some day. I know the Tamron is the lens I'd be considering above all else.
DWOfPaul wrote:
This could be a very nice travel lens. I have enjoyed using the Nikon 28-400mm f4-8 when the lighting is good. This won't be as versatile, being 100mm on the short end, but maybe Sony can optimize the IQ on the long end better than Nikon. Admittedly, I was hoping Sony would update the 100-400mm 4.5-5.6 GM. Ideally, I would have liked something like a 70-400 4.5-5.6 GM. But I doubt Sony would make 3 new 100-400mm ish lenses.
Come to think of it, Sony did have a (silver-colored, no less) 70-400mm f/4-5.6 lens in the A-mount days. So it CAN be done without breaking the bank or necessitating the use of a gun carriage. Makes me wonder what's keeping them from repeating that?
Jul 21, 2026 at 05:51 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
IlyaSnopchenko wrote:
Well unfortunately, it's a zero-sum situation. Or, to be precise, the sliding scale of IQ/aperture vs. size/price
The Canon 100-400mm f/5.6-8 isn't really an exciting lens, if the OpticalLimits review is to be believed (though some people seem to swear by it). Small wonder given the cave dim aperture and the obvious goal of building this lens to the goal of small size.
Still, the Tamron 50-400 looks well-nigh unbeatable, even though it's f/6.3 for most of its range which may be a little hard to stomach for some people, but then again, the Canon 100-400 or Nikon 28-400 are f/8 for most of their ranges anyway, and f/6.3 is the new f/5.6 anyway.
The idea of the 16-35 + 50-400 combo looks super attractive. Maybe I'll be there if I offload my beater Canon 100-400L some day. I know the Tamron is the lens I'd be considering above all else.
Come to think of it, Sony did have a (silver-colored, no less) 70-400mm f/4-5.6 lens in the A-mount days. So it CAN be done without breaking the bank or necessitating the use of a gun carriage. Makes me wonder what's keeping them from repeating that?...Show more →
By the way, having the Canon lens I would say from my experience very much matches the Optical Limits review. It is a very good performing lens that merely is a good performing lens at the long end and performance gradually reduces as the focal length gets longer. Sharpness is clearly better in the center and especially so in long end. There isn't much bokeh in most shots and it's pretty average. There is some lateral CA, but it is totally eliminated in post processing. The same can be said about vignetting. The AF and stabilization both work well, better than just ok and actually close to excellent. So nothing exciting in the performance, but to me no deal breakers either and for me it is small enough to pack for travel and it costs just $750 brand new (I paid $500 for mine on the B & S board here)..
The Tamron 50-400 is a totally different sort of lens. It is almost double in size has 2/3rd of a stop faster aperture and costs $1,300 new. Not surprisingly it is a sharper lens at the long end.
Comparing these two lenses poses an interesting question about what Sony is going to do with this lens. Will they like Canon keep the price low but with performance to match or will they charge more with performance to match or maybe we will get lucky and they will keep the price low but provide much better performance that you would expect at that price. I wouldn't hold my breath for that last one, but it would of course be interesting if they did. What we know is that the lens will have a max f/8 aperture at the long end and it seems this isn't a G or GM lens, so it will not be designated as a professional lens. Sony has some very nice non G or GM lenses (e.g., the 85 f/1.8) so let's see what they make. It will be interesting how that all shakes out.
If I am not mistaken, Sony has not released any lenses in the recent years which didn't have a G or GM on them (aside from two small kit lenses), so for sure this one will be a G lens. Sony obviously leaves the budget market nearly completely to the 3rd party manufacturers.
I know the Tamron is the lens I'd be considering above all else.