100-200mm f/4, anyone?
p.1 #1100-200mm f/4, anyone?
I've been playing with a Minolta AF 100-200/4.5 I picked up for free. This is not an endorsement of the lens. The optics aren't ever great and the 1.8m MFD should very much be a warning of limited use (I call it the restraining order). For me, it serves the specific purpose of tele when I'm going out to shoot IR and probably won't need a tele but it's possible. For that purpose, it's very usable between 135 and 180.
Still, I like the concept. It's beautifully compact, which keeps it in the kit. I'd like to see a refresh with better optics and better MFD (1:4 at some point in the range) with an extendable zoom to keep the pack size down. A sub-500g zoom with those specs would fill out my travel kit nicely.
Would a lens like that interest anyone else or am I alone in that?
Still, I like the concept. It's beautifully compact, which keeps it in the kit. I'd like to see a refresh with better optics and better MFD (1:4 at some point in the range) with an extendable zoom to keep the pack size down. A sub-500g zoom with those specs would fill out my travel kit nicely.
Would a lens like that interest anyone else or am I alone in that?
Sep 16, 2026 at 12:14 PM
p.1 #2100-200mm f/4, anyone?
Maybe but unlikely for me. Would have to be really tiny to replace the 70-200 F4.
That’s a nice, compact, sharp and light lens.
That’s a nice, compact, sharp and light lens.
Sep 16, 2026 at 12:44 PM
p.1 #3100-200mm f/4, anyone?
What kit would you build with such a lens? A different flavor of 20-70+70-200 f4?
Seems like a narrow niche between the Tamron 25/28-200 and Sony 70-200/4 II or Tamron 70-180/2.8. Maybe a modern update of a 100-200/4 design could be smaller than the Tamron superzooms.
I'm pretty satisfied with the 25-200 to cover a wide range so that I can pick more specialized lenses (usually primes) for my 2nd and/or 3rd lens when traveling.
Seems like a narrow niche between the Tamron 25/28-200 and Sony 70-200/4 II or Tamron 70-180/2.8. Maybe a modern update of a 100-200/4 design could be smaller than the Tamron superzooms.
I'm pretty satisfied with the 25-200 to cover a wide range so that I can pick more specialized lenses (usually primes) for my 2nd and/or 3rd lens when traveling.
Sep 16, 2026 at 02:27 PM
p.1 #4100-200mm f/4, anyone?
I'm a no on that idea, but I would love a high-quality 100-300 f4.
Sep 16, 2026 at 08:58 PM
p.1 #5100-200mm f/4, anyone?
Back in the 20th century I very much wanted a 100-300/4 or 75-300/4. Sigma made several 100-300/4s, but not the greatest by modern standards. There are so many 100-400/5.6 etc. today that the market probably isn't there, unless it goes to 70 or 75 at the wide end.
EBH
EBH
Sep 16, 2026 at 09:34 PM
p.1 #6100-200mm f/4, anyone?
My imagined kit would cover 16 to 200 (potentially with gaps). The type of travel kit I'm looking at is stuff I cover with a 6700 now, but I picked up a 7cII in a trade when I dropped my dedicated video kit and I am liking it more than I thought I would. I really like the Tamron 35-100/2.8, which is my tele-zoom for APSC, but it turns out I'm very impressed with it on a FF. I took it and 7cII on our long weekend to see my guy's family in Belfast and could've done the whole trip with just that lens.
So I asked myself what would kit best with it for a longer, more involved family vacation in which there's more potential for me to shoot subjects other than the family. A modest UW zoom, like the Sigma 10-18/2.8 I have for the 6700 would do, and there's a plethora of choices there. I don't want a power zoom at all, and I'd like to keep it under a grand per lens in the kit, so I'm looking at the Tamron 16-30 or 17-28, Sigma 16-28, or a Sony 16-25, any of which would do. I've got the Sigma right now, so I'll use it for illustrative purposes here, but it's subject to change.
At the long end, the choices narrow considerably. The Tamron 70-180/2.8's performance at the long end isn't great or that long, the Sigma 70-200/2.8's a bit of a tank and about as good as the original GM but the AF isn't as good, and, were I starting from scratch, the only Sony I could afford would be a used 70-200/4. There, though, I could break my own rule, since I already have the GII in my wildlife kit (bug hunter) and use that. Here's that kit...
Screenshot 2026-09-16 at 2.47.15 PM by Bradley Clemens, on Flickr
Not bad. I've traveled with bigger, heavier kits and less coverage. If I ever talk my guy into traveling with me and a macro longer than 50mm, I wouldn't have a huge problem with it. Still, when I look at the size of my GII and the size of the 100-200/4.5, I can't help but think a modern take on it would look more like this...
Screenshot 2026-09-16 at 2.54.36 PM by Bradley Clemens, on Flickr
...if not smaller. That, to me, would be a head-turning difference. I also think it could also be a lens of interest to 24-105/4 devotees, especially if Sony revisits that lens with an upgrade.
Anyway, this isn't a problem I'm trying to solve. I've found MF to be easier on the cII than I expected, so I could just stay with whichever UW sticks and the Tamron and augment them with a 28/2 or the little 7A 35/1.4 for character, and I've got plenty of teles between 135 and 200 to choose from if a tele is really necessary. I mostly wanted to know if anyone else saw the value in the lens type.
So I asked myself what would kit best with it for a longer, more involved family vacation in which there's more potential for me to shoot subjects other than the family. A modest UW zoom, like the Sigma 10-18/2.8 I have for the 6700 would do, and there's a plethora of choices there. I don't want a power zoom at all, and I'd like to keep it under a grand per lens in the kit, so I'm looking at the Tamron 16-30 or 17-28, Sigma 16-28, or a Sony 16-25, any of which would do. I've got the Sigma right now, so I'll use it for illustrative purposes here, but it's subject to change.
At the long end, the choices narrow considerably. The Tamron 70-180/2.8's performance at the long end isn't great or that long, the Sigma 70-200/2.8's a bit of a tank and about as good as the original GM but the AF isn't as good, and, were I starting from scratch, the only Sony I could afford would be a used 70-200/4. There, though, I could break my own rule, since I already have the GII in my wildlife kit (bug hunter) and use that. Here's that kit...
Screenshot 2026-09-16 at 2.47.15 PM by Bradley Clemens, on FlickrNot bad. I've traveled with bigger, heavier kits and less coverage. If I ever talk my guy into traveling with me and a macro longer than 50mm, I wouldn't have a huge problem with it. Still, when I look at the size of my GII and the size of the 100-200/4.5, I can't help but think a modern take on it would look more like this...
Screenshot 2026-09-16 at 2.54.36 PM by Bradley Clemens, on Flickr...if not smaller. That, to me, would be a head-turning difference. I also think it could also be a lens of interest to 24-105/4 devotees, especially if Sony revisits that lens with an upgrade.
Anyway, this isn't a problem I'm trying to solve. I've found MF to be easier on the cII than I expected, so I could just stay with whichever UW sticks and the Tamron and augment them with a 28/2 or the little 7A 35/1.4 for character, and I've got plenty of teles between 135 and 200 to choose from if a tele is really necessary. I mostly wanted to know if anyone else saw the value in the lens type.
Sep 16, 2026 at 11:42 PM
p.1 #7100-200mm f/4, anyone?
I could use this as an excuse to forget the wide zoom and pick up the Batis 18. It's nicely priced used and a better 18 than any of the zooms under consideration at that focal length. It would only require an APSH crop to get to 24, which would still leave me 19mp- plenty for even the biggest vacation pic I've printed.
As obsessed as I'm getting about this kit, you'd think I'd decided to keep the camera, which I haven't.
As obsessed as I'm getting about this kit, you'd think I'd decided to keep the camera, which I haven't.
Sep 17, 2026 at 04:11 AM
p.1 #8100-200mm f/4, anyone?
For real reach 200mm is not much, it only is a halfway compact compromise. I have an old Sigma Apo 180/5,6, converted from useless AF to MF. It is slim but a bit long with its adapter an has a nice image quality. It is similar to the one tested here: https://phillipreeve.net/blog/review-sigma-180mm-5-6-apo-macro-mf/#Conclusion
The more modern interpretation of the slow -200 zoom might be the Tamron 50-300. Quite compact, semi macro, very sharp, attractive reach, a bit more character than I like due to optical vignetting
The more modern interpretation of the slow -200 zoom might be the Tamron 50-300. Quite compact, semi macro, very sharp, attractive reach, a bit more character than I like due to optical vignetting
Sep 17, 2026 at 11:28 AM
|
p.1 #9100-200mm f/4, anyone?
70-200 GII is already so small that you'd have to be much smaller than that to make sense with reduced coverage. And 70-200 GII is also super versatile being a 1:2 Macro.
Sep 17, 2026 at 11:40 AM
p.1 #10100-200mm f/4, anyone?
freaklikeme wrote:
At the long end, the choices narrow considerably. The Tamron 70-180/2.8's performance at the long end isn't great or that long, the Sigma 70-200/2.8's a bit of a tank and about as good as the original GM but the AF isn't as good, and, were I starting from scratch, the only Sony I could afford would be a used 70-200/4. There, though, I could break my own rule, since I already have the GII in my wildlife kit (bug hunter) and use that.
FWIW, the Tamron 70-180 image quality is excellent at the long end. The MTF is easily as good as the Sony 70-200/4 G II wide open at max focal length. I compared my own Tamron with a borrowed GII and couldn't see anything between them really. The choice comes down to the other attributes, but not IQ.
At the long end, the choices narrow considerably. The Tamron 70-180/2.8's performance at the long end isn't great or that long, the Sigma 70-200/2.8's a bit of a tank and about as good as the original GM but the AF isn't as good, and, were I starting from scratch, the only Sony I could afford would be a used 70-200/4. There, though, I could break my own rule, since I already have the GII in my wildlife kit (bug hunter) and use that.
FWIW, the Tamron 70-180 image quality is excellent at the long end. The MTF is easily as good as the Sony 70-200/4 G II wide open at max focal length. I compared my own Tamron with a borrowed GII and couldn't see anything between them really. The choice comes down to the other attributes, but not IQ.
Sep 17, 2026 at 02:41 PM
p.1 #11100-200mm f/4, anyone?
grahamgibson wrote:
FWIW, the Tamron 70-180 image quality is excellent at the long end. The MTF is easily as good as the Sony 70-200/4 G II wide open at max focal length. I compared my own Tamron with a borrowed GII and couldn't see anything between them really. The choice comes down to the other attributes, but not IQ.
The GII isn't all that great at the long end, either.
freaklikeme wrote
At the long end, the choices narrow considerably. The Tamron 70-180/2.8's performance at the long end isn't great or that long, the Sigma 70-200/2.8's a bit of a tank and about as good as the original GM but the AF isn't as good, and, were I starting from scratch, the only Sony I could afford would be a used 70-200/4. There, though, I could break my own rule, since I already have the GII in my wildlife kit (bug hunter) and use that.The GII isn't all that great at the long end, either.
Sep 17, 2026 at 02:42 PM
p.1 #12100-200mm f/4, anyone?
grahamgibson wrote:
FWIW, the Tamron 70-180 image quality is excellent at the long end. The MTF is easily as good as the Sony 70-200/4 G II wide open at max focal length. I compared my own Tamron with a borrowed GII and couldn't see anything between them really. The choice comes down to the other attributes, but not IQ.
Well, you should have seen a difference of 20mm at the long end, which is not irrelevant, and the close up is much better in the Sony. The Tamron is a nice lens, but I sold mine as the 20mm on long end and macro was more valuable than the 1 stop of speed.
freaklikeme wrote
At the long end, the choices narrow considerably. The Tamron 70-180/2.8's performance at the long end isn't great or that long, the Sigma 70-200/2.8's a bit of a tank and about as good as the original GM but the AF isn't as good, and, were I starting from scratch, the only Sony I could afford would be a used 70-200/4. There, though, I could break my own rule, since I already have the GII in my wildlife kit (bug hunter) and use that.Well, you should have seen a difference of 20mm at the long end, which is not irrelevant, and the close up is much better in the Sony. The Tamron is a nice lens, but I sold mine as the 20mm on long end and macro was more valuable than the 1 stop of speed.
Sep 17, 2026 at 02:47 PM
p.1 #13100-200mm f/4, anyone?
Altglas wrote:
For real reach 200mm is not much, it only is a halfway compact compromise. I have an old Sigma Apo 180/5,6, converted from useless AF to MF. It is slim but a bit long with its adapter an has a nice image quality. It is similar to the one tested here: https://phillipreeve.net/blog/review-sigma-180mm-5-6-apo-macro-mf/#Conclusion
The more modern interpretation of the slow -200 zoom might be the Tamron 50-300. Quite compact, semi macro, very sharp, attractive reach, a bit more character than I like due to optical vignetting
I agree with that sentiment if I'm out for wildlife. For more typical sight-seeing vacations with the family, I've rarely felt the need for anything longer (I did take the original 100-400GM when part of the trip included whale watching).
I think the Tamron 50-300 is the latest iteration of the 70-300, but isn't all that compact.
For real reach 200mm is not much, it only is a halfway compact compromise. I have an old Sigma Apo 180/5,6, converted from useless AF to MF. It is slim but a bit long with its adapter an has a nice image quality. It is similar to the one tested here: https://phillipreeve.net/blog/review-sigma-180mm-5-6-apo-macro-mf/#Conclusion
The more modern interpretation of the slow -200 zoom might be the Tamron 50-300. Quite compact, semi macro, very sharp, attractive reach, a bit more character than I like due to optical vignetting
I agree with that sentiment if I'm out for wildlife. For more typical sight-seeing vacations with the family, I've rarely felt the need for anything longer (I did take the original 100-400GM when part of the trip included whale watching).
I think the Tamron 50-300 is the latest iteration of the 70-300, but isn't all that compact.
Sep 17, 2026 at 11:57 PM
p.1 #14100-200mm f/4, anyone?
freaklikeme wrote:
Would a lens like that interest anyone else or am I alone in that?
I understand the sentiment but it's a "no" for me. My zooms are already close enough for the purpose: Nikkor 70-200/4 AF-S and Canon nFD 80-200/4. The weight and size margins are easily recovered by a modern 200/4 which I would find compelling. In this class I own the Yashica 200/4 MLC which is optically adequate for a classic formula and really quite light considering its all-metal build. Therefore, I vote for an apo 200/4 (or slower) with AF and quality plastic construction. Are you listening, Viltrox?
Would a lens like that interest anyone else or am I alone in that?
I understand the sentiment but it's a "no" for me. My zooms are already close enough for the purpose: Nikkor 70-200/4 AF-S and Canon nFD 80-200/4. The weight and size margins are easily recovered by a modern 200/4 which I would find compelling. In this class I own the Yashica 200/4 MLC which is optically adequate for a classic formula and really quite light considering its all-metal build. Therefore, I vote for an apo 200/4 (or slower) with AF and quality plastic construction. Are you listening, Viltrox?
Sep 18, 2026 at 07:43 PM
p.1 #15100-200mm f/4, anyone?
Okay, what if it were a 100-200/2.8 roughly the size of the Tamron 35-100/2.8 (a friend of mine is convinced that's their next release)?
Sep 19, 2026 at 12:31 AM
p.1 #16100-200mm f/4, anyone?
Tamron is on a tear to fill every conceivable zoom range—kudos. However, the optical formulas are quite basic to hit their price point and, therefore, make for larger zooms. The Yashica 200/4 MLC weighs 535g and I feel a modern weight-sensitive design should achieve 400g. The weight and size penalty of a zoom lens is inescapable.
Sep 19, 2026 at 12:48 AM