Night time soccer and Sony's 100-400 ƒ4.5 GM
p.1 #1Night time soccer and Sony's 100-400 ƒ4.5 GM
Finally had the opportunity to use the lens on the A1-II for some evening matches that I shoot for Indy Eleven. The stadium does have LED lighting but it still requires high ISO. Here's a final edit of one that is cropped by 40%. Notice it's at 20,000 ISO. Yup, this lens performs!
Matt
Indy Eleven v Lousiville City
Matt
Indy Eleven v Lousiville City
ILCE-1M2 FE 100-400mm F4.5 GM OSS lens 400mm f/4.5 1/1600s 20000 ISO -0.3 EV
Aug 24, 2026 at 10:28 AM
p.1 #2Night time soccer and Sony's 100-400 ƒ4.5 GM
At the World Cup, Sony, Canon, & Nikon Professional services were all there and had gear for you to use. I know a lot of people were giving this lens a test drive during the day games. It looks like it worked well for you. 20,000 ISO? WIld! 
Aug 24, 2026 at 09:45 PM
p.1 #3Night time soccer and Sony's 100-400 ƒ4.5 GM
I would be super pleased with the results.
Aug 25, 2026 at 08:56 PM
p.1 #4Night time soccer and Sony's 100-400 ƒ4.5 GM
That's great! Quick question - did you think of moving the SS to maybe 1/1250 to keep the iso down a bit more or would you have missed action at that speed?
Aug 26, 2026 at 12:22 PM
p.1 #5Night time soccer and Sony's 100-400 ƒ4.5 GM
pulper11 wrote:
That's great! Quick question - did you think of moving the SS to maybe 1/1250 to keep the iso down a bit more or would you have missed action at that speed?
SS @ 1250 can work but the further you reach out it starts to become a bit marginal for action. Doable, yes, but add to that the lighting there is not perfect with fall offs towards the sides so I choose to keep it at 1600 for the entire match. Regardless, LR's Ai Denoise is your friend
That's great! Quick question - did you think of moving the SS to maybe 1/1250 to keep the iso down a bit more or would you have missed action at that speed?
SS @ 1250 can work but the further you reach out it starts to become a bit marginal for action. Doable, yes, but add to that the lighting there is not perfect with fall offs towards the sides so I choose to keep it at 1600 for the entire match. Regardless, LR's Ai Denoise is your friend
Aug 27, 2026 at 06:19 AM
p.1 #6Night time soccer and Sony's 100-400 ƒ4.5 GM
schlotz wrote:
SS @ 1250 can work but the further you reach out it starts to become a bit marginal for action. Doable, yes, but add to that the lighting there is not perfect with fall offs towards the sides so I choose to keep it at 1600 for the entire match. Regardless, LR's Ai Denoise is your friend
After a very long time with Nikon, I am seriously contemplating the migration over to Sony. I made the mistake of borrowing an a9iii with a 50-150 f/2 during the World Cup and was blown away. I was so moved I used it for a second game lol. I was trying to figure out if this new lens would be able to work as opposed it a 400 prime. It looks promising. my ideal set up would be a 50-150 A1(2) and a 400 paired with an A9iii. Am I on the right track @schlotz? I know its a lot of $$$ there is no getting away from that.
pulper11 wrote
That's great! Quick question - did you think of moving the SS to maybe 1/1250 to keep the iso down a bit more or would you have missed action at that speed?After a very long time with Nikon, I am seriously contemplating the migration over to Sony. I made the mistake of borrowing an a9iii with a 50-150 f/2 during the World Cup and was blown away. I was so moved I used it for a second game lol. I was trying to figure out if this new lens would be able to work as opposed it a 400 prime. It looks promising. my ideal set up would be a 50-150 A1(2) and a 400 paired with an A9iii. Am I on the right track @schlotz? I know its a lot of $$$ there is no getting away from that.
Aug 27, 2026 at 10:14 AM
p.1 #7Night time soccer and Sony's 100-400 ƒ4.5 GM
Hey Carl,
The 100-400 ƒ4.5 will work with decent led lighting without question, it doesn't have to be NFL lighting. I've also been trialing it at the local high school for boys & girls soccer teams which I've shot for the last 18 years. Under those lights (not led) the AF still works fine but boy do you head into the stratosphere on ISO to maintain SS of 1250 or 1600. In most cases LR still lets you get usable results. Poor lighting is still the realm of 2.8 or better glass, period! This is why I never sold my 400mm ƒ2.8.
Regarding the 50-150 which I also have, you already know the wonderful results it can bring. I find it useful on the pitch but tend to limit it to where I won't have to crop more than 50% when used with the Sony A1-II in aps-c mode. F2 at night under the lights, oh yeah! Personally, I looked hard at the A9iii when it came out but decided based on what I do the A1's larger file size combined with built-in aps-c mode was a better solution. Upgraded shortly after when the A1-II came out. As far as soccer goes, the 50-150 doesn't quite cover the quasi short end, i.e. end line shooting out to mid field action without some extra cropping in aps-c mode. However, when combined with the 100-400, total coverage of field action is there. That combo just forces a bit of change in timing, i.e. knowing when to put one down and pick up the other.
I shot Canon for more than 20 years before switching to Sony. One of the better decisions I've made.
BTW there is a A1-II in B&S right now for a good price. From a financial perspective, picking up a used A1 vs an A9iii would be significantly less expensive. Yeah its not 120fps but is that 'really needed'? It's AF is still very good! I shot soccer with 2 original A1's for 4.5 years. They are definitely workhorses. I still have and use one as my third body.
Matt
The 100-400 ƒ4.5 will work with decent led lighting without question, it doesn't have to be NFL lighting. I've also been trialing it at the local high school for boys & girls soccer teams which I've shot for the last 18 years. Under those lights (not led) the AF still works fine but boy do you head into the stratosphere on ISO to maintain SS of 1250 or 1600. In most cases LR still lets you get usable results. Poor lighting is still the realm of 2.8 or better glass, period! This is why I never sold my 400mm ƒ2.8
. Regarding the 50-150 which I also have, you already know the wonderful results it can bring. I find it useful on the pitch but tend to limit it to where I won't have to crop more than 50% when used with the Sony A1-II in aps-c mode. F2 at night under the lights, oh yeah! Personally, I looked hard at the A9iii when it came out but decided based on what I do the A1's larger file size combined with built-in aps-c mode was a better solution. Upgraded shortly after when the A1-II came out. As far as soccer goes, the 50-150 doesn't quite cover the quasi short end, i.e. end line shooting out to mid field action without some extra cropping in aps-c mode. However, when combined with the 100-400, total coverage of field action is there. That combo just forces a bit of change in timing, i.e. knowing when to put one down and pick up the other.
I shot Canon for more than 20 years before switching to Sony. One of the better decisions I've made.
BTW there is a A1-II in B&S right now for a good price. From a financial perspective, picking up a used A1 vs an A9iii would be significantly less expensive. Yeah its not 120fps but is that 'really needed'? It's AF is still very good! I shot soccer with 2 original A1's for 4.5 years. They are definitely workhorses. I still have and use one as my third body.
Matt
Aug 27, 2026 at 11:51 AM
p.1 #8Night time soccer and Sony's 100-400 ƒ4.5 GM
schlotz wrote:
Hey Carl,
The 100-400 ƒ4.5 will work with decent led lighting without question, it doesn't have to be NFL lighting. I've also been trialing it at the local high school for boys & girls soccer teams which I've shot for the last 18 years. Under those lights (not led) the AF still works fine but boy do you head into the stratosphere on ISO to maintain SS of 1250 or 1600. In most cases LR still lets you get usable results. Poor lighting is still the realm of 2.8 or better glass, period! This is why I never sold my 400mm...Show more →
Some good info, Thanks. I found that with the 50-150 the gain on the short end was more useful then the loss of the extra 50mm on the long end when comparing it to a 70-200. and honestly I would most likely get a 400 2.8 since that is what I have had for a long time and I'm not ready to give up on that prime plus aperture.
As a start I may just get a body plus the 50-150 as a start. It really wasn't an issue running two systems.. that would make the switch a lot less painful financially lol
Hey Carl,
The 100-400 ƒ4.5 will work with decent led lighting without question, it doesn't have to be NFL lighting. I've also been trialing it at the local high school for boys & girls soccer teams which I've shot for the last 18 years. Under those lights (not led) the AF still works fine but boy do you head into the stratosphere on ISO to maintain SS of 1250 or 1600. In most cases LR still lets you get usable results. Poor lighting is still the realm of 2.8 or better glass, period! This is why I never sold my 400mm...Show more →
Some good info, Thanks. I found that with the 50-150 the gain on the short end was more useful then the loss of the extra 50mm on the long end when comparing it to a 70-200. and honestly I would most likely get a 400 2.8 since that is what I have had for a long time and I'm not ready to give up on that prime plus aperture.
As a start I may just get a body plus the 50-150 as a start. It really wasn't an issue running two systems.. that would make the switch a lot less painful financially lol
Aug 27, 2026 at 03:46 PM
|
p.1 #9Night time soccer and Sony's 100-400 ƒ4.5 GM
Hear ya regarding the 400 2.8. That's been my workhorse for many many years. Yup, one Sony rig might be the way to start. Doubt you'd have much trouble using both once they are set the way you want them.
Aug 28, 2026 at 06:10 AM
p.1 #10Night time soccer and Sony's 100-400 ƒ4.5 GM
To give an idea of what can be done with a somewhat ok high school field at night (not LED, but terrible light fall off along the sides) here's a final edit on one. Definitely usable even though the ISO was 32,000. It's a 75% crop of a full frame.
Matt
Matt
ILCE-1M2 FE 100-400mm F4.5 GM OSS lens 335mm f/4.5 1/1600s 32000 ISO +0.3 EV
Aug 29, 2026 at 07:36 AM
p.1 #11Night time soccer and Sony's 100-400 ƒ4.5 GM
That looks great but I'm not willing to live in that ISO territory all the time
Aug 31, 2026 at 08:53 AM
p.1 #12Night time soccer and Sony's 100-400 ƒ4.5 GM
carl_g wrote:
That looks great but I'm not willing to live in that ISO territory all the time
While I'm amazed that PP can clean up such high ISO captures, I too don't care much for having to deal with it. Luckily its only for a 2 month period (10-16 matches) which I cover as a supporting contribution to the school.
That looks great but I'm not willing to live in that ISO territory all the time
While I'm amazed that PP can clean up such high ISO captures, I too don't care much for having to deal with it. Luckily its only for a 2 month period (10-16 matches) which I cover as a supporting contribution to the school.
Sep 01, 2026 at 05:15 AM
p.1 #13Night time soccer and Sony's 100-400 ƒ4.5 GM
I might have to take another look at this lens. My current long lens is the canon 400 F4 version 2. I'm very happy with it. Even when I think of moving up to the 2.8 versions, I can't justify it based on how my current lens performs, even in low light thanks to denoise.
however, what interests me is basically getting rid of one lens to carry. Right now I use the long lens on a monopod, and have two cameras and lenses on a dual sling. those cameras are the r3 with the 16-35, and an a9iii with the 70-200 2.8 version 2.
I'm wondering if I use the 100-400 4.5 would I get by with only that lens and the 16-35.
that would lighten the load considerably but I'm concerned the quality of the 100-400 won't match what I'm giving up. I'll have to do some more looking into it, but this post has gotten me thinking!
however, what interests me is basically getting rid of one lens to carry. Right now I use the long lens on a monopod, and have two cameras and lenses on a dual sling. those cameras are the r3 with the 16-35, and an a9iii with the 70-200 2.8 version 2.
I'm wondering if I use the 100-400 4.5 would I get by with only that lens and the 16-35.
that would lighten the load considerably but I'm concerned the quality of the 100-400 won't match what I'm giving up. I'll have to do some more looking into it, but this post has gotten me thinking!
Sep 01, 2026 at 10:07 AM
p.1 #14Night time soccer and Sony's 100-400 ƒ4.5 GM
What are you shooting? Any concern with missing from 35mm to 100mm?
Sep 01, 2026 at 07:44 PM
p.1 #15Night time soccer and Sony's 100-400 ƒ4.5 GM
There really are a few considerations for me. #1 and most important - is the 100-400, at 400, as good as the 400mm F4 version 2 canon (AF, sharpness, and contrast)? #2 is will I miss the 2.8 from 100 to 200mm. and #3, will I miss from 70 to 100mm.
I shoot football, hockey, soccer, lacrosse, and a few other sports from time to time (basketball, nascar).
here is my most recent soccer shoot, which includes some shots at night under the lights.
https://photobybarnick.com/notre-dame-vs-michigan-womens-soccer-photos-2026/
Thanks.
I shoot football, hockey, soccer, lacrosse, and a few other sports from time to time (basketball, nascar).
here is my most recent soccer shoot, which includes some shots at night under the lights.
https://photobybarnick.com/notre-dame-vs-michigan-womens-soccer-photos-2026/
Thanks.
Sep 02, 2026 at 07:52 AM
p.1 #16Night time soccer and Sony's 100-400 ƒ4.5 GM
I'd venture to say yes to #1 but the only way to know for sure would be the rent and see for yourself. I still maintain two bodies on the sidelines. These days the second is married with either the 50-150 ƒ2 or the 70-200 ƒ2.8 depending conditions, what's on the shot list, etc. IMO Sony's 100-400 ƒ4.5 is capable of covering 90-95% of an entire soccer match but there are situations where a wider angle is really needed.
Sep 03, 2026 at 05:15 AM