Sony 400/4.5 GM vs 400/2.8GM and 600/6.3 vs 600/4.0 comparison
p.1 #1Sony 400/4.5 GM vs 400/2.8GM and 600/6.3 vs 600/4.0 comparison
Hey everyone, this took a bit longer than expected!
I’ve also put together a Reel with the results. If you have a second, a thumbs up or a repost would mean the world—it really makes a huge difference for smaller creators.
Watch the full comparison Reel on Instagram
The Test Bench Setup:
- Lighting: Rather dim, using two small continuous LED lights.
- Distance: 6.75 m to the target.
- Gear: Sony A1 mounted securely on a tripod, triggered via a cable release. Optical SteadyShot (OSS) set to Mode 1.
- Camera Settings: ISO 100, shot wide open with variable shutter speeds, firing at 30 fps in continuous autofocus (AF-C).
- Focusing: The banknote was placed in the dead centre, focused using the Spot XS AF point.
- Selection: Picked the sharpest frames (to my eye) from several bursts for each combo.
I wish I could have dialled this in using manual focus with a perfectly parallel, calibrated test chart rig, but that’s the reality of a home-studio setup! Also, keep in mind I didn't test them stopped down to matching apertures—these were all evaluated purely wide open.
Regarding the shots:
400/4.5 vs 400/2.8 no TC
400/4.5 1.4tc vs 400/2.8 1.4 tc
400/4.5 2.0tc vs 400/2.8 2.0 tc
400/4.5 @400% vs 400/4.5/1.4tc @285% vs 400/4.5/2.0tc @200%
600/6.3 vs 600/4
600/6.3 1.4tc vs 600/4 1.4tc
600/6.3 2.0tc vs 600/4 2.0tc
600/6.3 @400% vs 600/6.3/1.4tc @285% vs 600/6.3/2.0tc @200%
400/4.5/1.4tc vs 600/6.3 no TC
400/4.5/2.0tc vs 600/6.3/1.4tc
Our main takeaway? The new lenses are optically superb—no compromises have been made. In our side-by-side sharpness tests shown at 200% magnification, we couldn't spot a meaningful difference between sample pairs at 1:1. Of course, in the field, a faster lens gives you the flexibility to stop down, freeze action with faster shutter speeds at the same ISO, or shoot cleaner files at lower ISO settings.
What do you think?
Regards,
Michal and Wanda
Edited on Sep 22, 2026 at 10:53 AM · View previous versions
I’ve also put together a Reel with the results. If you have a second, a thumbs up or a repost would mean the world—it really makes a huge difference for smaller creators.
Watch the full comparison Reel on Instagram
The Test Bench Setup:
- Lighting: Rather dim, using two small continuous LED lights.
- Distance: 6.75 m to the target.
- Gear: Sony A1 mounted securely on a tripod, triggered via a cable release. Optical SteadyShot (OSS) set to Mode 1.
- Camera Settings: ISO 100, shot wide open with variable shutter speeds, firing at 30 fps in continuous autofocus (AF-C).
- Focusing: The banknote was placed in the dead centre, focused using the Spot XS AF point.
- Selection: Picked the sharpest frames (to my eye) from several bursts for each combo.
I wish I could have dialled this in using manual focus with a perfectly parallel, calibrated test chart rig, but that’s the reality of a home-studio setup! Also, keep in mind I didn't test them stopped down to matching apertures—these were all evaluated purely wide open.
Regarding the shots:
400/4.5 vs 400/2.8 no TC
400/4.5 1.4tc vs 400/2.8 1.4 tc
400/4.5 2.0tc vs 400/2.8 2.0 tc
400/4.5 @400% vs 400/4.5/1.4tc @285% vs 400/4.5/2.0tc @200%
600/6.3 vs 600/4
600/6.3 1.4tc vs 600/4 1.4tc
600/6.3 2.0tc vs 600/4 2.0tc
600/6.3 @400% vs 600/6.3/1.4tc @285% vs 600/6.3/2.0tc @200%
400/4.5/1.4tc vs 600/6.3 no TC
400/4.5/2.0tc vs 600/6.3/1.4tc
Our main takeaway? The new lenses are optically superb—no compromises have been made. In our side-by-side sharpness tests shown at 200% magnification, we couldn't spot a meaningful difference between sample pairs at 1:1. Of course, in the field, a faster lens gives you the flexibility to stop down, freeze action with faster shutter speeds at the same ISO, or shoot cleaner files at lower ISO settings.
What do you think?
Regards,
Michal and Wanda
Edited on Sep 22, 2026 at 10:53 AM · View previous versions
Sep 22, 2026 at 10:25 AM
p.1 #2Sony 400/4.5 GM vs 400/2.8GM and 600/6.3 vs 600/4.0 comparison
Just so I’m clear in what I am looking at, in the 400 images the f4.5 lens is on top and the 2.8 bottom; and you reversed them for the 600, so the f4 lens is on top and the f6.3 lens is bottom?
Only comment is it might not hurt to add a half or even full stop of exposure to the raws for better definition.
Only comment is it might not hurt to add a half or even full stop of exposure to the raws for better definition.
Sep 22, 2026 at 10:39 AM
p.1 #3Sony 400/4.5 GM vs 400/2.8GM and 600/6.3 vs 600/4.0 comparison
The 400/4.5 seems better than 400/2.8 in your samples
I wonder of the order of the images is as your text ''400/4.5 1.4tc vs 400/2.8 1.4 tc" is the 400/4.5 first?
The 600/6.3 seems worse than 600/4 or have you changed the order
Edited on Sep 22, 2026 at 10:45 AM · View previous versions
I wonder of the order of the images is as your text ''400/4.5 1.4tc vs 400/2.8 1.4 tc" is the 400/4.5 first?
The 600/6.3 seems worse than 600/4 or have you changed the order
Edited on Sep 22, 2026 at 10:45 AM · View previous versions
Sep 22, 2026 at 10:42 AM
p.1 #4Sony 400/4.5 GM vs 400/2.8GM and 600/6.3 vs 600/4.0 comparison
The steady shot should be turned off if mounted on a tripod. It probably doesn't make much difference, but it can skew the results.
Sep 22, 2026 at 10:44 AM
p.1 #5Sony 400/4.5 GM vs 400/2.8GM and 600/6.3 vs 600/4.0 comparison
New lesnes at the top, older faster ones at the bottom. Unless there is a single lens with TCs added.
I am aware that OSS could be t urned off (that's why I have stated it was on). However, I took long bursts and picked the sharpest ones, so AF and OSS influence should be lowered.
Keep in mind that these are either 200% or larger magnifivcations. Comapring them is a bit of nitpicking.
P.S. I added 400/1.4tc vs 600- no tc and 400/2.0tc vs 600/1.4tc.
Edited on Sep 22, 2026 at 11:11 AM · View previous versions
I am aware that OSS could be t urned off (that's why I have stated it was on). However, I took long bursts and picked the sharpest ones, so AF and OSS influence should be lowered.
Keep in mind that these are either 200% or larger magnifivcations. Comapring them is a bit of nitpicking.
P.S. I added 400/1.4tc vs 600- no tc and 400/2.0tc vs 600/1.4tc.
Edited on Sep 22, 2026 at 11:11 AM · View previous versions
Sep 22, 2026 at 10:51 AM
p.1 #6Sony 400/4.5 GM vs 400/2.8GM and 600/6.3 vs 600/4.0 comparison
Jack Flesher wrote:
Just so I’m clear in what I am looking at, in the 400 images the f4.5 lens is on top and the 2.8 bottom; and you reversed them for the 600, so the f4 lens is on top and the f6.3 lens is bottom?
Only comment is it might not hurt to add a half or even full stop of exposure to the raws for better definition.
Oh sorry, my bad, I am correcting the order. New lenses at the top, always.
Just so I’m clear in what I am looking at, in the 400 images the f4.5 lens is on top and the 2.8 bottom; and you reversed them for the 600, so the f4 lens is on top and the f6.3 lens is bottom?
Only comment is it might not hurt to add a half or even full stop of exposure to the raws for better definition.
Oh sorry, my bad, I am correcting the order. New lenses at the top, always.
Sep 22, 2026 at 10:52 AM
p.1 #7Sony 400/4.5 GM vs 400/2.8GM and 600/6.3 vs 600/4.0 comparison
Thank you!
Sep 22, 2026 at 11:18 AM
p.1 #8Sony 400/4.5 GM vs 400/2.8GM and 600/6.3 vs 600/4.0 comparison
And what do you think about the AF for the 400/4.5 +2.0tc versus 600/6.3 +1.4tc ?
Sep 22, 2026 at 11:25 AM
p.1 #9Sony 400/4.5 GM vs 400/2.8GM and 600/6.3 vs 600/4.0 comparison
michal.narozny wrote:
Hey everyone, this took a bit longer than expected!
I’ve also put together a Reel with the results. If you have a second, a thumbs up or a repost would mean the world—it really makes a huge difference for smaller creators.
Watch the full comparison Reel on Instagram
The Test Bench Setup:
- Lighting: Rather dim, using two small continuous LED lights.
- Distance: 6.75 m to the target.
- Gear: Sony A1 mounted securely on a tripod, triggered via a cable release. Optical SteadyShot (OSS) set to Mode 1.
- Camera Settings: ISO 100, shot wide open with variable shutter speeds, firing at 30 fps in...Show more →
Very interesting! Thanks for sharing your test results!
Sep 22, 2026 at 11:26 AM
p.1 #10Sony 400/4.5 GM vs 400/2.8GM and 600/6.3 vs 600/4.0 comparison
Thanks for your test shots, my eyes hurt after trying to discern any meaningful differences.
Sep 22, 2026 at 11:37 AM
|
p.1 #11Sony 400/4.5 GM vs 400/2.8GM and 600/6.3 vs 600/4.0 comparison
Wow, thanks for doing all of that. Rather impressive results. These new lenses are very good.
Sep 22, 2026 at 12:05 PM
p.1 #12Sony 400/4.5 GM vs 400/2.8GM and 600/6.3 vs 600/4.0 comparison
rd4tile wrote:
Thanks for your test shots, my eyes hurt after trying to discern any meaningful differences.
Haha mine too! Imagine I had to sort through few hundred shots of the same Pope's face at 200-400% magnification ....
Thanks for your test shots, my eyes hurt after trying to discern any meaningful differences.
Haha mine too! Imagine I had to sort through few hundred shots of the same Pope's face at 200-400% magnification ....
Sep 22, 2026 at 12:12 PM
p.1 #13Sony 400/4.5 GM vs 400/2.8GM and 600/6.3 vs 600/4.0 comparison
400/4.5/2.0tc vs 600/6.3/1.4tc
The 400/4.5 with 2.0xTC seems to be better
The 400/4.5 with 2.0xTC seems to be better
Sep 22, 2026 at 01:02 PM
p.1 #14Sony 400/4.5 GM vs 400/2.8GM and 600/6.3 vs 600/4.0 comparison
I don’t see any major differences, other than some differences in color.
It would be interesting to know which image-processing software was used to generate the images, whether lens profiles were enabled, and whether any default sharpening was applied by the software (such as the default sharpening in Lightroom), or whether it was set to zero.
If DxO or other software was used, what settings were applied there?
Another thing I noticed is that the framing is slightly different between the images. If the difference in position caused any focus shift at that distance, that would also need to be taken into account when evaluating the results.
It would be interesting to know which image-processing software was used to generate the images, whether lens profiles were enabled, and whether any default sharpening was applied by the software (such as the default sharpening in Lightroom), or whether it was set to zero.
If DxO or other software was used, what settings were applied there?
Another thing I noticed is that the framing is slightly different between the images. If the difference in position caused any focus shift at that distance, that would also need to be taken into account when evaluating the results.
Sep 22, 2026 at 03:20 PM
p.1 #15Sony 400/4.5 GM vs 400/2.8GM and 600/6.3 vs 600/4.0 comparison
Lens correction was turned off in LR. Their default value of sharpening was not adjusted. Zero other adjustments. Files were put into frames in PS. Each frame was either 1920/3 or 1920/2 pixels tall and 1080p wide. Within the frame files were enlarged to 200% and moved so they were more or less aligned. Finally 1920*1080 frames were exported. Anyway every file was treated in a same way.
Dof at such distance 1-2cm at least. Thats why i framed the shots as much to the center as i could and I avoided comparing edges.
Tilt head was used - sunaway photo - so i had to tilt the lens and rotate it around collar to maintain horizon and adjust height so the bill was around center of the frame.
Distance was measured to the sensor - with I would guess 5cm accuracy. I did not bother to set laser spirit level to reproduce sensor position even more precise.
I do not have dxo.
Btw this is not a lab test 😉 I just wanted to show that all these lenses are quite close shot wide open. Thus new lenses are really sharp despite their weight. Some speculated that would need to be some compromises in terms of optical quality.
Dof at such distance 1-2cm at least. Thats why i framed the shots as much to the center as i could and I avoided comparing edges.
Tilt head was used - sunaway photo - so i had to tilt the lens and rotate it around collar to maintain horizon and adjust height so the bill was around center of the frame.
Distance was measured to the sensor - with I would guess 5cm accuracy. I did not bother to set laser spirit level to reproduce sensor position even more precise.
I do not have dxo.
Btw this is not a lab test 😉 I just wanted to show that all these lenses are quite close shot wide open. Thus new lenses are really sharp despite their weight. Some speculated that would need to be some compromises in terms of optical quality.
Sep 22, 2026 at 03:49 PM
p.1 #16Sony 400/4.5 GM vs 400/2.8GM and 600/6.3 vs 600/4.0 comparison
My eyes are starting go wonky from staring at these too long 😵💫😂
Not much between them to be honest. Both of the new GM’s looks excellent. Still on the fence, but I think I can take questions about optical quality off the table
Not much between them to be honest. Both of the new GM’s looks excellent. Still on the fence, but I think I can take questions about optical quality off the table
Sep 22, 2026 at 04:13 PM
p.1 #17Sony 400/4.5 GM vs 400/2.8GM and 600/6.3 vs 600/4.0 comparison
I still don't have a 600 6.3 vs 300 + 2xtc comparison. Haha.
Sep 22, 2026 at 04:35 PM
p.1 #18Sony 400/4.5 GM vs 400/2.8GM and 600/6.3 vs 600/4.0 comparison
I'm patiently waiting to see 840/f9 actual photos of wildlife not test charts.... 🦁🦜🐻
Sep 22, 2026 at 06:27 PM
p.1 #19Sony 400/4.5 GM vs 400/2.8GM and 600/6.3 vs 600/4.0 comparison
Amazing work... thanks for doing it.
You have a lot patience
You have a lot patience
Sep 22, 2026 at 06:52 PM
p.1 #20Sony 400/4.5 GM vs 400/2.8GM and 600/6.3 vs 600/4.0 comparison
Thank you very much for all of your effort.
I am impressed with the new lens image quality, amazing considering weight and price.
I am impressed with the new lens image quality, amazing considering weight and price.
Sep 22, 2026 at 07:07 PM