Douglas L
Offline
Upload & Sell: On
|
 Re: 100-400mm f4.5 owners: what’s the verdict? | |
robert614 wrote:
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.
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
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 God sent 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.
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.
|
