DWOfPaul wrote: Douglas L wrote: DWOfPaul wrote:
I am waiting to see more reviews with TCs, especially how it compares with the 2x TC to the 400-800mm f8. If the 100-400mm is as good at 800mm f9 as 400-800mm is at f8, I would be willing to trade 1/3 of a stop of light for a lighter lens and 200-800mm of range vs 400-800mm. On paper, it sounds like it could be a great single lens telephoto solution. You could basically have a 100-400mm with better low light ability, a 200-600mm (140-560mm f6.3) and 400-800mm (200-800mm f9) all in one.
I have yet to get the 400-800mm because I can't help but feel like I would need to pair it with something wider and faster to truly replace my 200-600mm, which adds even more overall weight. So the 100-400mm f4.5 could be the answer, but it comes down to IQ with the TC 2x.
I am seeing conflicting reports on the new 100-400 with TV. In Steve Perry's video, the 200-600 easily beats the 100-400 with 1.4X TC, Heck, I think Steve even said at 200mm, the 200-600 is sharper than the 100-400 at 200 without TC. I found that shocking. Maybe Steve has a super sharp copy of the 200-600 or his 100-400 is below average. Dustin Abbott's review shows the 100-400 with 1.4TC is sharper than the 200-600, so does Chelsy Northrup's review. Yes, I did watch Chelsy's review, which I haven't done for many years.
I am waiting for more reviews and tests by our in-house FMers. If the 100-400+1.4 TC is indeed sharper than the 200-600, there is a 50% chance I will get one; if the 100-400 +2X TC is as good or almost as good as the 400-800, then I will definitely get one. My 300GM isn't going anywhere.
It will be amazing if the 100-400 +2X TC is as good as the 400-800. Last Sunday I mainly used the 400-800 for an airshow. 400mm was too long sometimes but I also used the 800mm end a lot. So a 200-800 lens would be perfect.
I have used the 200-600mm + TC 1.4 (280-840mm) at air shows a few times, and it's a great range to have in one lens. Being able to go out to 200mm without taking off the TC or swapping cameras would be very convenient. Ended up pairing the 200-600mm with a second body with the Tamron 70-300mm, which worked well for getting those occasionally large groups or large smoke designs. Probably now I would go with the Tamron 50-400 to get even wider, and it's a better overall lens.
I found Steve's review a bit inconclusive. I got the impression that the 200-600mm was sharper, but the 100-400 + TC 1.4 has better colors, contrast, and rendering. That may explain some of the mixed reviews online so far. There may be a bit of a difference between lab test and eye test.
Another thing I like about the 100-400 is the filter situation. The drop in filter will definitely be nicer for a polorizer then the 200-600mm or 400-800mm and Sony was nice enough to keep the 95mm filter threads on the long end if we want to stack on another filter like an ND.
Until the Sony 400-800 was launched, my main airshow lens was the 200-600, I also have the 600 F4 GM+1.4TC on another camera if longer reach was desired. Since I bought the 400-800, it has been my main airshow lens. I sold the 600 GM. the 400mm on the 400-800 can be too long at time when the planes get close or for large formations. If I know I will need something wider than 400mm, I will bring another shorter lens on another camera.
I saw that you are considering a Tamron 50-400. I just listed a like new Tamron 50-400 on the Buy & Sale board, check it out if you are interested. Sorry for the shameless plug...
.