freaklikeme wrote:
I'm shooting it on the a6700, primarily, which has a theoretical limit of 6.1, so I'm already blowing it with the old GM and 1.4x and haven't been disappointed with the results. The impact's fairly light at mid-to-close distances. It'll be interesting if the same thing applies to the slower lens.
For A6700 if you calculate for a blue subject (400nm) then the diffraction cutoff is about f/8.
Its still plausible you get some benefit using a 1.4x on the 100-400/5.6 for some subjects
On the 100-400/8 I think the TC would not be better than cropping probably.
aCuria wrote:
why not the 70-350G? 625g and its 350/6.3
Isn’t the 79-350G a rather old lens. Does this come with a downside, such as slower AF? So, older, faster, more restricted focal length, easier to clean and 200gm heavier.
AGeoJO wrote:
@hansenbein - where did you get the info of "massively better IQ" from, please?
Christopher Frost's review - just out on YT - shows that I am completely right. The IQ from the Sony is really nothing to write home about, while the Tamron 50-300,for example, is one really nice and sharp lens. While you can crop the Tamron at 300mm and still get very decent resolution, it's not so easy with the Sony.
hasenbein wrote:
Christopher Frost's review - just out on YT - shows that I am completely right. The IQ from the Sony is really nothing to write home about, while the Tamron 50-300,for example, is one really nice and sharp lens. While you can crop the Tamron at 300mm and still get very decent resolution, it's not so easy with the Sony.
Well, this kind of belief in "being completely right" raises many doubts, especially when it's stated by someone who hasn't used the lens in question, relying on only one review. And a so-so one at that.
Peire wrote:
Well, this kind of belief in "being completely right" raises many doubts, especially when it's stated by someone who hasn't used the lens in question, relying on only one review. And a so-so one at that.
And I couldn't find that review he referred to on YT. The only review I found from Christoper Frost is the one he posted a few hours ago (according to YT's time line) of the Sony 100-400mm lens used in combo with a 2X TC. Here is the link: ?is=cuYxD-jYTBd3GsLL. I didn't bother finishing that video review. I am not that interested in the new Sony lens, just hasenbein's remark of "massively better IQ" struck me as odd.
hasenbein wrote:
The Tamron 50-300 weighs 665 grams, so for all intents and purposes the same weight as this new lens. At the same time massively better IQ, brighter, better versatility (the extension to 50mm makes it possible to go with just two zooms and have the whole range from 16 to 300mm), even smaller, even cheaper. Just sayin'.
True, but 300 isn’t 400
I have Tamron 28-300 F4-7.1 weighs just 610g and is so tiny. Ridicilous fast AF and good IQ on a Z8.
After watching Christopher Frost's review I'd dare to say this lens will work better in cameras like a7III, A7C, a7IV, ac7II, etc. More than 33 mpx seems to be as far as it can go in terms of "good performance", due to the diffraction.
AGeoJO wrote:
And I couldn't find that review he referred to on YT. The only review I found from Christoper Frost is the one he posted a few hours ago (according to YT's time line) of the Sony 100-400mm lens used in combo with a 2X TC. Here is the link: ?is=cuYxD-jYTBd3GsLL. I didn't bother finishing that video review. I am not that interested in the new Sony lens, just hasenbein's remark of "massively better IQ" struck me as odd.
This guy drives me crazy. He always remarks about lenses being so expensive. He must live in a closet and drive a tricycle.
That said, the lens seemed to perform at a level commensurate with the price.
bwcolor wrote:
Isn’t the 70-350G a rather old lens. Does this come with a downside, such as slower AF? So, older, faster, more restricted focal length, easier to clean and 200gm heavier.
70-350G is 625g, how is that 200g heavier?
70-350G uses XD linear motors, better than the 100-400/8 which is just linear motors.
aCuria wrote:
Although the 100-400/8 physically can take an extender, the extender is useless because of diffraction
So I can crop to 13MP to match the 1.4x extender and have to sharpen and uprez to print or I can use the 1.4x and all 26MP, which will need some sharpening.
freaklikeme wrote:
So I can crop to 13MP to match the 1.4x extender and have to sharpen and uprez to print or I can use the 1.4x and all 26MP, which will need some sharpening.
Still sounds worth a shot to me.
Yeah its still an interesting lens IMO, especially for full frame.
Aug 08, 2026 at 03:54 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Alpunto wrote:
After watching Christopher Frost's review I'd dare to say this lens will work better in cameras like a7III, A7C, a7IV, ac7II, etc. More than 33 mpx seems to be as far as it can go in terms of "good performance", due to the diffraction.
I think people are misunderstanding diffraction. Diffraction always occurs as the lens is stopped down. Even stopping a lens down from f/1.2 to f/1.4 causes some diffraction. The question is just when can you start to see the impact of diffraction. This lens has a small enough aperture that you will start to see diffraction but it is not as if when you see start to see diffraction or when you pass a diffraction limit that the image will be ruined. The affect of diffraction is gradual and whether it is acceptable is a subjective and depends on how much you magnify the image.
It is not as though if you shoot it on a 33 MP camera the lens will be fine and if you shoot it on a 67 MP it won't. That is not how it works. If you shoot it on a 67 MP camera and downsize the file to 33 MP, it will look just like the image shot on the 33 MP camera. You may not be able to take advantage of the higher MP of a higher MP camera once diffraction starts to be bothersome, but it is not as though the shots are ruined on the higher resolution camera. Many of us have shot high resolution cameras at f/11 and find the results more than acceptable. Will they be as sharp as the same lens shot at f/5.6, in most cases not, but they often and typically are more than sharp enough for my purposes, but of course YMMV, and that is the point whether diffraction is a problem or whether you have hit a limit of whether the effects are acceptable is subjective.
You guys are funny.
On other occasions everything else than GM lenses seems below any recommendability.
But in this case the lens seems downright sacred (Father, you gave us 400mm at 650 grams for $850! Better than manna! Halleluja! Amen!), and anyone who dares to criticize it is burned as a heretic 😅
Theoretically you wont see an improvement with the extender unless your subject is blue, your camera is <= 33MP and the TC has negligible image degradation.
The diffraction limit drawn assumes the best case scenario (perfect lens, perfect TC). In reality you may not see an improvement even if the TC point is below the line.
These graphs are useful, but the diffraction limit should not be misunderstood. The diffraction limit is not an f/number that you should never shoot at or God forbid go shoot higher than. There can be good reason to shoot at that f/number or higher (e.g., wanted more depth of field and willing to trade off a little sharpness for that.) Relevant to this lens the reason you might like this lens is being willing to tradeoff a much smaller and lighter lens for the loss of a little bit of sharpness. Don't think that the image will be shit if it goes above the diffraction limit. It doesn't work like that. You may or may not find the results acceptable, but that is a subjective decision and how much your are willing to accept the tradeoff in a slightly less sharp lens to get the small size and low weight will definitely be a subjective decision.
Aug 08, 2026 at 07:20 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
hasenbein wrote:
You guys are funny.
On other occasions everything else than GM lenses seems below any recommendability.
But in this case the lens seems downright sacred, and anyone who dares to criticize it is burned as a heretic 😅
Nobody is burning you as a heretic, and in my view nobody should think anything less than a GM lens shouldn't be recommended. It is just obviously early reports of this lens and it doesn't have many reviews yet, so it seems to me early to make any strong conclusions. It does seem to be a lens that trades off small size and low weight for some reduction in sharpness. It takes more than a few reviews to know just how big that reduction in sharpness is, IMO. Those who want the size and weight reduction are, as would be expected, less likely to quickly dismiss the image quality of the lens.
Edit: and nobody is saying the lens is sacred either, IMO. There are people who are saying they like the size and weight and price, but that is far different from saying the lens is sacred.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Nobody is burning you as a heretic, and in my view nobody should think anything less than a GM lens shouldn't be recommended. It is just obviously early reports of this lens and it doesn't have many reviews yet, so it seems to me early to make any strong conclusions. It does seem to be a lens that trades off small size and low weight for some reduction in sharpness. It takes more than a few reviews to know just how big that reduction in sharpness is, IMO. Those who want the size and weight reduction are, as would be expected, less likely to quickly dismiss the image quality of the lens.
Edit: and nobody is saying the lens is sacred either, IMO. There are people who are saying they like the size and weight and price, but that is far different from saying the lens is sacred....Show more →
You surely have many strenghts, but humor doesn't seem to be one of them 😉😎
