p.1 #1 · 100-400mm f4.5 owners: what’s the verdict?
Hey guys,
I’ve been considering picking one up. Mainly as an airshow lens. I’ve been using the 400-800mm recently, but 400mm at the wide end is often too long for many venues. Necessitating a second body with my Original 100-400mm GM
I was considering either the new 100-400 f4.5 + 1.4x as a single lens solution. Or a 300mm GM (which I already have) and a 600mm f6.3 GM on a second body as a lightweight 2 body option. I have owned the 200-600 in the past. While that is always an option, it’s more of a been there, done that at this point
Now that you’ve had some time with the 100-400 f4.5, and the new lens glow has worn off a little. What are your thoughts on it?
Did it exceed your expectations? Is it not as exciting as you hoped? Do you find yourself reaching for it first. Or reaching for something else?
How is image quality and AF with the 1.4x? How does it compare to the 300GM + 2x?
p.1 #2 · 100-400mm f4.5 owners: what’s the verdict?
I am very happy with my 100-400 and have used it with the 1.4. Great combination and I don't hesitate to put the 1.4x on if I think I will need it. Bare it is an outstanding lens. With the 1.4x it is still outstanding.
As to expectations, I had very high expectations of this lens and it has met them. I can't compare to the 300mm as I sold mine prior to getting the 100-400 f4.5. There is an image thread for this lens and it does have images with converters on it.
p.1 #3 · 100-400mm f4.5 owners: what’s the verdict?
Hi Robert, as you may remember, I bought the new 100-400 f4.5 about 3 months ago. Haven't used it for any airshows other than the July 4th flyover and show in DC. For the airshow in Belgium 3 weeks ago, I brought the 300 GM+2X TC. The 100-400 is too big to pack for travel. The 300GM+2X TC was ideal for the show, a bit short even.
I was too lazy to do a comparison between the 100-400 f4.5 to my very sharp copy of the 200-600, which I gave to my daughter two weeks ago. In terms of sharpness, I don't feel the 100-400 f4.5 is blowing the 200-600 out of water, not even close! The 100-400 makes beautiful bokeh though, not that it matters for airshows. The 100-400 is longer than the 200-600 before you even put a TC on it.. When you put 1 1.4 TC on the 100-400, it's all f6.3, not brighter than the 200-600. If you use a TC on the 100-400 f4.5 often, may as well use the 200-600. I really don't feel you gain much in sharpness, if at all. Unless you have a poor copy of the 200-600. The 100-400 may AF faster but the 200-600's AF is more than fast enough for airplanes.
I am having a tough time trying to figure out what I would use the 100-400 f4.5 for. It's an awfully big lens. The 400-800 will remain my main day time airshow lens, I need the 800mm end a lot. Agree that 400mm is too long sometimes. Putting the big 100-400 on another body just in case you want to go wider than 400mm works but for me, it's just too big a lens to serve that purpose. I bought back a 100-400 GM f4.5-5.6. So, for day time airshows, the 400-800 will be THE lens, if I think I will need something wider occasionally, I will bring the 100-400 f4.5-5.6 on another body, not the 100-400 f4.5, just too big to serve that purpose.
Often, I bought stuff based on reviews, without thinking hard what I would use it for. This is one of these cases.. I don't think I answer your questions.
p.1 #4 · 100-400mm f4.5 owners: what’s the verdict?
CPWarner wrote:
I am very happy with my 100-400 and have used it with the 1.4. Great combination and I don't hesitate to put the 1.4x on if I think I will need it. Bare it is an outstanding lens. With the 1.4x it is still outstanding.
As to expectations, I had very high expectations of this lens and it has met them. I can't compare to the 300mm as I sold mine prior to getting the 100-400 f4.5. There is an image thread for this lens and it does have images with converters on it.
Thanks for your thoughts on the lens!
I did check out the image thread (Great Elk shots btw!) before, but last time I went searching for it it was on page 3 of the forum. Which is why I was wondering if the lens didn’t meet people expectations. Glad to hear it lived up to yours!
p.1 #5 · 100-400mm f4.5 owners: what’s the verdict?
Douglas L wrote:
Hi Robert, as you may remember, I bought the new 100-400 f4.5 about 3 months ago. Haven't used it for any airshows other than the July 4th flyover and show in DC. For the airshow in Belgium 3 weeks ago, I brought the 300 GM+2X TC. The 100-400 is too big to pack for travel. The 300GM+2X TC was ideal for the show, a bit short even.
I was too lazy to do a comparison between the 100-400 f4.5 to my very sharp copy of the 200-600, which I gave to my daughter two weeks ago. In terms of sharpness, I don't feel the 100-400 f4.5 is blowing the 200-600 out of water, not even close! The 100-400 makes beautiful bokeh though, not that it matters for airshows. The 100-400 is longer than the 200-600 before you even put a TC on it.. When you put 1 1.4 TC on the 100-400, it's all f6.3, not brighter than the 200-600. If you use a TC on the 100-400 f4.5 often, may as well use the 200-600. I really don't feel you gain much in sharpness, if at all. Unless you have a poor copy of the 200-600. The 100-400 may AF faster but the 200-600's AF is more than fast enough for airplanes.
I am having a tough time trying to figure out what I would use the 100-400 f4.5 for. It's an awfully big lens. The 400-800 will remain my main day time airshow lens, I need the 800mm end a lot. Agree that 400mm is too long sometimes. Putting the big 100-400 on another body just in case you want to go wider than 400mm works but for me, it's just too big a lens to serve that purpose. I bought back a 100-400 GM f4.5-5.6. So, for day time airshows, the 400-800 will be THE lens, if I think I will need something wider occasionally, I will bring the 100-400 f4.5-5.6 on another body, not the 100-400 f4.5, just too big to serve that purpose.
Often, I bought stuff based on reviews, without thinking hard what I would use it for. This is one of these cases.. I don't think I answer your questions....Show more →
Thanks Douglas! I was looking to hearing your thoughts in particular, since you shoot a lot of airshows too.
What you say makes a lot of sense. The lens costs a pretty penny. Especially since I would most likely be using it with a 1.4x most of the time. It may not be worth the small improvement over the bare 200-600 G
I really wish Sony would make a higher end 200-600mm GM with a constant f5.6. I would definitely be willing to put up with the extra size, weight, and cost for a lens like that
What do you think about the new 600mm f6.3 GM on one body? And a 300mm GM (maybe the 100-400mm 4.5-5.6 GM) on the other. I think 300mm is wide enough for most formation passes
p.1 #6 · 100-400mm f4.5 owners: what’s the verdict?
Interesting discussion. I think one's opinion on the 200-600 depends on the 200-600 they got. At 600mm mine was not good as what I got out of the 400-800 at 600mm. As I don't have it any more I can't compare the 100-400 f4.5 to the 200-600. I feel like the 100-400 meets or exceeds my expectations of a GM lens, while the 200-600 did not meet my expectations of a G lens. Of course, YMMV based on the the copy you get. My 200-600 disappointed.
I am also a bit surprised at all the comments on size and weight and then be ok with the 200-600. The 100-400mm is 4 lbs, the 200-600mm is 4.7 lbs.
The point about bokeh is kind of important. For wildlife, the bokeh of my 200-600 and 400-800 were/are more busy than that from the 100-400 f4.5. So the 100-400 f/4.5 does have one important advantage in that area.
Anyway, those looking for small lenses now have the 400mm f4.5 and 600mm f6.3. That throws two more options into the mix in similar focal length ranges.
p.1 #7 · 100-400mm f4.5 owners: what’s the verdict?
CPWarner wrote:
Interesting discussion. I think one's opinion on the 200-600 depends on the 200-600 they got. At 600mm mine was not good as what I got out of the 400-800 at 600mm. As I don't have it any more I can't compare the 100-400 f4.5 to the 200-600. I feel like the 100-400 meets or exceeds my expectations of a GM lens, while the 200-600 did not meet my expectations of a G lens. Of course, YMMV based on the the copy you get. My 200-600 disappointed.
I am also a bit surprised at all the comments on size and weight and then be ok with the 200-600. The 100-400mm is 4 lbs, the 200-600mm is 4.7 lbs.
The point about bokeh is kind of important. For wildlife, the bokeh of my 200-600 and 400-800 were/are more busy than that from the 100-400 f4.5. So the 100-400 f/4.5 does have one important advantage in that area.
Anyway, those looking for small lenses now have the 400mm f4.5 and 600mm f6.3. That throws two more options into the mix in similar focal length ranges. ...Show more →
The concern about size and weight are specific to Douglas and my use case. Which is airshows mainly. We both have a 400-800mm which is excellent for reach, but 400mm at its widest is often not wide enough for some airshows. Which means a second body and lens
Using both lenses at the same time might get cumbersome. Not just during the show, but transportsing them to and from. The lens by itself isn’t a concern for me. I also have the Sigma 300-600mm. Now that’s a heavy lens 😄
As far as Bokeh goes. I have no doubt that’s a lot better on the 100-400 f4.5. But for airshows, not a high priority as the background is usually sky
I only had one copy of the 200-600mm. so I don’t no how mine stacked up to other copies. But I did shoot it wide open at 600mm, and was fairly happy. But I feel like if I buy a new lens, I want the latest tech
IDK I think I just have some major GAS and thinking for a way to justify buying a new toy 😂
p.1 #8 · 100-400mm f4.5 owners: what’s the verdict?
robert614 wrote:
Thanks Douglas! I was looking to hearing your thoughts in particular, since you shoot a lot of airshows too.
What you say makes a lot of sense. The lens costs a pretty penny. Especially since I would most likely be using it with a 1.4x most of the time. It may not be worth the small improvement over the bare 200-600 G
I really wish Sony would make a higher end 200-600mm GM with a constant f5.6. I would definitely be willing to put up with the extra size, weight, and cost for a lens like that
What do you think about the new 600mm f6.3 GM on one body? And a 300mm GM (maybe the 100-400mm 4.5-5.6 GM) on the other. I think 300mm is wide enough for most formation passes ...Show more →
If you are OK with just primes, I think the 600mm f6.3 and 300mm GM would make a lot of sense, super light combos. But 600mm can be too short at times, of course, you can stack a 1.4TC on the 600 f6.3. In real shoot though, it will be unpractical to put the TC on and off. A zoom lens is still the way to go when formations are present, IMHO.
I remember the days when I used the 600 f4 GM+1.4TC on one body to reach 800mm+ , and had the 200-600 on another body. The 400-800 is a godsend for airshows for me. It's heavy for sure. When I can get my lazy ass to test the 100-400 F4.5+2X TC against the 400-800, if it shows the 100-400+2X TC is 95% as sharp as the 400-800, it could be a game changer for me, I would have a 200-800 f9 lens that's a lot lighter than the 400-800.
CPWarner wrote:
Interesting discussion. I think one's opinion on the 200-600 depends on the 200-600 they got. At 600mm mine was not good as what I got out of the 400-800 at 600mm. As I don't have it any more I can't compare the 100-400 f4.5 to the 200-600. I feel like the 100-400 meets or exceeds my expectations of a GM lens, while the 200-600 did not meet my expectations of a G lens. Of course, YMMV based on the the copy you get. My 200-600 disappointed.
I am also a bit surprised at all the comments on size and weight and then be ok with the 200-600. The 100-400mm is 4 lbs, the 200-600mm is 4.7 lbs.
The point about bokeh is kind of important. For wildlife, the bokeh of my 200-600 and 400-800 were/are more busy than that from the 100-400 f4.5. So the 100-400 f/4.5 does have one important advantage in that area.
Anyway, those looking for small lenses now have the 400mm f4.5 and 600mm f6.3. That throws two more options into the mix in similar focal length ranges. ...Show more →
I think the 100-400 f4.5 can be a great lens for some sports and mammals. Your got some amazing elk shots with the 100-400. When I said the 100-400 F4.5 is a big lens, I should have been clearer. I really meant the size/volume of the lens, not its weight. Sure it's lighter than the 200-600, and the weight distribution makes it feel even lighter. In the context of Robert's original question on using it as a second lens to go wider than 400mm for airshow, I feel it's too big for that purpose if he is using the 400-800 80% of the time and a 100-400 f4.5 on another body for 20% of the time. The airshow venues vary a lot, so it also depends on how far the planes perform from the spectators.
IMHO, if one shoots between 100-400 a lot, the 100-400 f4.5 is a great choice. But I would not buy it to stick a 1.4 TC on it most of the time. For the $$$ and size, I would just use the 200-600.
p.1 #9 · 100-400mm f4.5 owners: what’s the verdict?
I started off my Sony lenses with the 100-400mm f4.5 and the 300mm f2.8 GM (and both teleconverters). Both are fantastic lenses but I found myself not really using the zoom capability much so I recently sold it and have the 600mm f6.3 on order. Assuming it has comparable sharpness and focusing speed as the 300mm + 2X TC, I plan to use the 300mm bare and with 1.4X and the 600mm bare and occasionally with the 1.4x. This will give me a good range, high quality, and more importantly low weight! When I was using Nikon Z, the 600mm PF was one of my favorite lenses.
p.1 #10 · 100-400mm f4.5 owners: what’s the verdict?
Douglas L wrote:
If you are OK with just primes, I think the 600mm f6.3 and 300mm GM would make a lot of sense, super light combos. But 600mm can be too short at times, of course, you can stack a 1.4TC on the 600 f6.3. In real shoot though, it will be unpractical to put the TC on and off. A zoom lens is still the way to go when formations are present, IMHO.
I remember the days when I used the 600 f4 GM+1.4TC on one body to reach 800mm+ , and had the 200-600 on another body. The 400-800 is a godsend for airshows for me. It's heavy for sure. When I can get my lazy ass to test the 100-400 F4.5+2X TC against the 400-800, if it shows the 100-400+2X TC is 95% as sharp as the 400-800, it could be a game changer for me, I would have a 200-800 f9 lens that's a lot lighter than the 400-800.
I think the 100-400 f4.5 can be a great lens for some sports and mammals. Your got some amazing elk shots with the 100-400. When I said the 100-400 F4.5 is a big lens, I should have been clearer. I really meant the size/volume of the lens, not its weight. Sure it's lighter than the 200-600, and the weight distribution makes it feel even lighter. In the context of Robert's original question on using it as a second lens to go wider than 400mm for airshow, I feel it's too big for that purpose if he is using the 400-800 80% of the time and a 100-400 f4.5 on another body for 20% of the time. The airshow venues vary a lot, so it also depends on how far the planes perform from the spectators.
IMHO, if one shoots between 100-400 a lot, the 100-400 f4.5 is a great choice. But I would not buy it to stick a 1.4 TC on it most of the time. For the $$$ and size, I would just use the 200-600....Show more →
I agree with what you’re saying about a zoom over a prime. But a super lightweight 300mm and 600mm is tempting me. Especially after watching Jan Wegener’s video on the 600
I’m definitely interested in hearing your thoughts on the 100-400 f4.5 + 2x. If that truly is a viable combo, it could make a great one lens daytime airshow lens!
p.1 #11 · 100-400mm f4.5 owners: what’s the verdict?
bcaslis wrote:
I started off my Sony lenses with the 100-400mm f4.5 and the 300mm f2.8 GM (and both teleconverters). Both are fantastic lenses but I found myself not really using the zoom capability much so I recently sold it and have the 600mm f6.3 on order. Assuming it has comparable sharpness and focusing speed as the 300mm + 2X TC, I plan to use the 300mm bare and with 1.4X and the 600mm bare and occasionally with the 1.4x. This will give me a good range, high quality, and more importantly low weight! When I was using Nikon Z, the 600mm PF was one of my favorite lenses.
This was my thinking as well. During an airshow, I’m not moving around like someone shooting wildlife. So two bodies isn’t an issue
Since I don’t think I can get in on the first batch, I think I’m going to hold off for now and see what people think as they take delivery of the 600mm and start using it out in the field
I would very interesting in hearing your thoughts when you get yours
p.1 #12 · 100-400mm f4.5 owners: what’s the verdict?
For my local air show, it's pretty much always been a two camera, two lens show. Needing to get to about 800mm on the long end and getting to about 70mm on the wide end. Actually, for some formations / line ups / smoke trails, I could even use a bit wider. I usually keep my large lens on a tripod and keep my smaller lens on my bag so I can quickly pick it up and hand hold it.
In the DSLR days it was often my Nikon 300mm f2.8 + TC 2x on a D500, and a 70-200mm f2.8 on a d800e. Sometimes I would swap the cameras or TC's around depending on the performers. In the mirrorless days it's often been my Sony 200-600mm f6.3 + TC 1.4 on one camera, and my tamron 70-300mm f6.3 on another camera. Not having a gap in the zoom range definitely helps, as I can just switch setups instead of messing with TC's.
I was thinking of upgrading my setup this year to the Sony 400-800mm f8 and Tamron 50-400mm f6.3. I ended up holding off after the release of the 100-400mm f4.5 to see how it performs with TC's. Overall, having the range of 100-400mm at f4.5 could be helpful to me in my kit, and the idea of a 200-800mm f9 with the TC 2x sounded great for air shows. Performance with the TC 2x seems to get mixed reviews, though. An upgrade is definitely still on my radar for next year, though, so I plan to dig back into reviews in the winter.
p.1 #14 · 100-400mm f4.5 owners: what’s the verdict?
Interesting talk about airshow line up.
This year I used my Sony 200-600G on the A1 and my Tamron 50-400 f/4.5-6.3 on the Z9 and that worked pretty well as being to do 50mm helped with planes on the Tarmac and very close fly-bys where 200mm was often too much.
Now I have the 100-400 f/4.5 and the 200-600 was sold. Next year I could try the 100-400 on the A1 and my 800 f/6.3 on the Z9 and I can use the 1.4x on the zoom as well. 140-560 f/6.3 is still bit more flexible than the 200-600G which was really only about 560mm anyway, and you get an extra 60mm on the wide end.
Alternatively by then I'll have added the 600 f/6.3 GM and could run the A1 with that and stick to the 50-400 on the Z9. Generally 600mm is enough if you wait for them to close in, but there are times the 800mm would be better. Light is generally good at the airshow, so using the 60-0 + 1.4x viable and IQ is still excellent.
I know plenty of guys at this years show seemed to have the Nikon 600 PF as one lens.
I'm thinking 100-400 f/4.5 and 800 f/6.3 as my preferred option, but that 600 is so damn light as is the 50-400.
p.1 #15 · 100-400mm f4.5 owners: what’s the verdict?
robert614 wrote:
I’m definitely interested in hearing your thoughts on the 100-400 f4.5 + 2x. If that truly is a viable combo, it could make a great one lens daytime airshow lens!
I have done some testing with the limitations of it being indoors and the distance limitations that leads to. And, I am not a pro lens tester and don't claim to perform the perfect test. With all of that said, my take on the 100-400 f4.5 + 2x based on 200% viewing is as follows:
If you need focal lengths in 400-800mm range, my 400-800mm was slightly better at 600 and 800mm than the 100-400 was with the 2X. The 400-800mm was also slightly better than the 100-400mm with 1.4x at 560mm and cropped to match 600mm on the 400-800mm. At 400mm the 100-400mm f4.5 was very very good and slightly better than my 400-800mm. That said, my 400-800mm was pretty good as well, just lacked a minor amount of contrast in comparison the the 100-400mm.
My conclusion is: if I was looking to cover 400-800mm, I would take my 400-800mm. If I needed from 100-800mm, for example a longer trip to Alaska covering multiple animals and locations, I would take both lenses with me and use the setup appropriate for the location. For wildlife, that is my two lens kit in a Gura Gear backpack with two bodies. I am not saying I would hike 10+ miles with that, but for shorter hikes and out of a car, it works for me.
Well, that is how I see it at this point when I have not had the chance to test the 600mm f6.3 GM and throw a monkey wrench into things . That could be a vastly lighter option to the 400-800mm to pair with the 100-400 f4.5.
I should add: If I know I needed between 100-400mm for a specific situation and might want slightly longer, I would not hesitate to take the 100-400 f/4.5 and the 1.4x. I shot with that recently and it performed very well photographing elk (shots posted on the 100-400 f4.5 photo thread).
. I don't think I answer your questions.