EB-1 wrote:
Why would it be so good? Sony should upgrade the 100-400/5.6 to a series II.
100-400/5.6-8 will be a lower grade lens with numerous compromises for the budget.
At f/8 it will be into diffraction already with the high-res cameras and also have the bonus of wide open light falloff.
EBH
I may be wrong but I don't recall reading about Sony making unsharp lenses in the last 3 or 4 years, even the tiny 28-60 kit lens is crazy sharp. I have no doubt this rumored 100-400 will be sharp, maybe not as sharp as the more expensive ones in corners or something. You are right, it's all about tradeoffs and compromises. For those who want a compact, light, inexpensive tele zoom lens for travel, hiking type of stuff, this 100-400 may be good enough. I tried the Tamron 50-400mm, very good lens but still a bit too big and heavy for my usage of such a lens. I am not concerned about F8. Plenty of professional photographers, like Albert Dros shoot landscape at f13, f16. A lot of us here on FM are gear heads and like to check corner sharpness at 100% crop. But in reality, no one can really tell when they are posted on internet or viewed on phones/tablets. Those who routinely print big probably don't mind carrying an heavier/bigger lens for this range. Just my 2 cents.
Jul 24, 2026 at 04:32 AM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
howard wrote:
There is no such lens, new or otherwise.
Yup, it is a rumor and like all rumors should be taken with a big grain of salt. The only people who know whether the rumor has any merit are very unlikely to talk,
Jul 24, 2026 at 05:23 AM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
IlyaSnopchenko wrote:
Yeah, something went wrong with the rumor mill.
Incidentally, my (ex-)wife is going on a trip to the wilderlands soon, but she doesn't want to carry a big tele lens, so one like this would probably be right up her alley. It's unlikely that this lens would be out and available in time for her journey, though. Maybe we'll trade in a few more lenses and the Tamron 50-400 will be obtained, IDK yet.
If she can live with an APS-C crop then she might also consider the Sony 70-350 f/4.5-6.3 G, it is in some ways similar to this lens, but only covers the APS-C part of a FF sensor. The rumored lens would be in a way a FF variant of that lens and it weighs just 625g as opposed to 1,150g for the Tamron 50-400.
Jul 24, 2026 at 05:29 AM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
EB-1 wrote:
Why would it be so good? Sony should upgrade the 100-400/5.6 to a series II.
100-400/5.6-8 will be a lower grade lens with numerous compromises for the budget.
At f/8 it will be into diffraction already with the high-res cameras and also have the bonus of wide open light falloff.
EBH
Sony could have three 100-400 lenses. The new 100-400 f/4.5, a 100-400 f/4.5-5.6, and this rumored 100-400 f/5.6-8. No reason in time that Sony couldn't make both this lens as a Mark II of the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6. The aperture matters enough for both the size of the lens and capability of the lens that these would be 3 very different lenses. I suppose the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 Mark II might get relabelled as a G lens, but IMO it was that different from a G lens anyway, but either way having a top level lens that is large but highest performing, having a mid-level lens that is smaller and takes up less space but still with excellent performance, and having a small consumer oriented lens might work well.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Sony could have three 100-400 lenses. The new 100-400 f/4.5, a 100-400 f/4.5-5.6, and this rumored 100-400 f/5.6-8. No reason in time that Sony couldn't make both this lens as a Mark II of the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6. The aperture matters enough for both the size of the lens and capability of the lens that these would be 3 very different lenses. I suppose the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 Mark II might get relabelled as a G lens, but IMO it was that different from a G lens anyway, but either way having a top level lens that is large but highest performing, having a mid-level lens that is smaller and takes up less space but still with excellent performance, and having a small consumer oriented lens might work well....Show more →
Agree. This feels more like a good replacement to a 70-300. Third party manufacturers make more compelling options for that lens, anyway, and that has been almost universally true for the last 20 years. When and if there have been performance differences, they have not been large enough to justify the price. However, lots of people would likely buy for 400mm and OEM rather than 300mm and third party - I know I would, and I certainly prefer not to carry anything too large.
AFAIK, no third party manufacturer has made a light weight compact 100-400mm lens meant as a travel tele zoom or as a budget friendly alternative to 100-400mm GM lenses. Lenses that reach only 300mm are not and should not be considered in this category. They belong to a different category aimed at consumers who do not need or want to reach 400mm that is for them 300mm is adequate. My guess is that this lens will sell very well if not for the reason that as of now, it is a unique lens in the E mount system without an alternative in its category. This would be the case whether or not some perfectionists in online forums ditch it or dismiss it.
With the switch set to full range, the lens will focus down to 1.13m (3.7ft) at the short end of its range and 0.86m (2.8ft) at the long end. This gives a maximum magnification of 0.41x.
"The lens’s optical quality is solid. At its best, the lens is reasonably sharp, consistent, and not riddled with aberrations. There are some compromises, though. You give up a bit of performance in the corners."
"The lens’s optical quality is solid. At its best, the lens is reasonably sharp, consistent, and not riddled with aberrations. There are some compromises, though. You give up a bit of performance in the corners."
Interesting looking lens. Wonder why it's not given a 'G' designation.
I probably won't be picking this lens up, since I already have the Nikon 28-400mm, but it definitely sounds like Sony made a nice lens for people looking for a cheepish, compact, and lightweight way to get to 400mm.
I wonder if the fact that they did not make this a G lens leaves the possibility of a future 100-400mm f5.6 G lens, or similar, coming in the future. There is also quite a price gap between $850 and $4,300. Sony, if you're listening, my vote is for a 50-400mm f5.6 G.
DWOfPaul wrote:
I probably won't be picking this lens up, since I already have the Nikon 28-400mm, but it definitely sounds like Sony made a nice lens for people looking for a cheepish, compact, and lightweight way to get to 400mm.
I wonder if the fact that they did not make this a G lens leaves the possibility of a future 100-400mm f5.6 G lens, or similar, coming in the future. There is also quite a price gap between $850 and $4,300. Sony, if you're listening, my vote is for a 50-400mm f5.6 G.
I'm hoping Sony will copy Canon again, like they did with this lens, and bring us a 100-500mm GM zoom to match the Canon RF 100-500L.
I am planning to get one once it becomes available in Canada. Then, I will compare it to the Sigma FE 100-400mm. If the sharpness is adequate, I'll keep it. I really like its magnification reach of 0.41 at the long range. Perfect for shooting insects like butterflies which I regularly shoot.
Lol, they really did copy(scratch that) get inspired by one of Canon's most pedestrian specced lens. But as I said, even I acknowledge the possible market for it (tho I definitely would rather get the Tamron 50-400mm, or stick with my adapted Canon EF 100-400mm, personally).
aCuria wrote:
I wonder if it’s sharper than a 70-200Gii with 2X (also f/8), or a 70-200GMii with 2X
Tamron’s 50-400/6.3 is $1299 and 1155g. If the Sony 100-400/8 is optically as good for $850 and 654g it’s a big win for landscapes
I am waiting for some detailed reviews on this lens shooting landscape. The stabilization seems to be very good based on the few youtube reviews I have seen. If this lens is as sharp as the Tamron 50-400, I may buy one for landscape and for day time airshows (as a supplement to the 400-800).
