The 100-400/4 would be something in the price range of a 300GM on the low end to a EF200-400TC or Nikon 180-400TC on the high end. But I'd guess somewhere around the RF 100-300/2.8 price ($10,600).
The 100-400/4 would be something in the price range of a 300GM on the low end to a EF200-400TC or Nikon 180-400TC on the high end. But I'd guess somewhere around the RF 100-300/2.8 price ($10,600).
I am guessing the G lens is considered one class above that Canon lens. As a G lens, it will be priced around US$2000:
It will probably weigh about 800gr-1000gr. I am hoping it would be closer to 800gr. It will probably be a white lens too.
The fixed aperture GM lens will be priced considerably higher than the old GM lens. It will be in the same weight/size range as the old one but will be optically superior to the old GM lens and as a fixed aperture lens, its much higher price tag is to be expected.
This could explain why Sony is releasing the two new lenses at the same time. They want to prevent 'consumer shock' and potential backlash. The old GM lens was a variable aperture lens. Sony wants to think it wasn't a true GM lens even though at the time of its release they classified it so.
Both new lenses are in some way a successor to old lens. The G lens substitute it as a variable aperture lens and optical quality will be similar to the old GM lens, priced around US$2000. The new GM lens is fixed aperture and will be optically superior to the old GM lens, hence the high price tag will be justified.
The 100-400/4 would be something in the price range of a 300GM on the low end to a EF200-400TC or Nikon 180-400TC on the high end. But I'd guess somewhere around the RF 100-300/2.8 price ($10,600).
Well, I do like a few things about your Canon comparison... the .41x magnification, the price, the size... but the F8 is kinda hard to swallow if you plan on ever trying to use even 1.4x TC on it. F5.6 on the short end to F6.3 on the long end would be pretty doable, give you a little over F8, almost F9 @560mm with the 1.4x. I think most people have written off the 2x TC anyway for most everything except exceptionally sharp lenses like the 300mm 2.8 GM, where the IQ loss is tolerable.
I shoot my 200-600 G @ F8 most of the time anyway because that is the IQ sweet spot. If this 100-400 G were sharp enough wide open, well, I could see that being a pretty sweet combo if they keep the weight down and do their magic with the IQ and get some decent close focus and magnification like the Canon. I'd be looking at it for sure.
Thinking more about this, as a prospective Sony user in the future and as a person who relies a great deal on a 100-400mm f/4.5-f/5.6 lens today…
If there is a pure f/4 version of a 100-400 coming in the future, there would ahve to be an alternative. While this lens would be great for things that otherwise might call for a large aperture telephoto prime, it would obviously be both very large and very expensive.
There’s reasons that the variable aperture 100-400mm (and similar) lenses are so popular.They are smaller, lighter, and less expensive, yet suitable for many uses and often optically very good. Since they can be manufactured with f/5.6 apertures at the long end, it would be a backwards step to decrease that maximum aperture in the manistream model of such a lens.
I'm hoping Sony wakes up a tad and gives us a 100-500 instead of another 100-400. But a 100-400 f4 GM? I'm retired. I'm on a limited income. And not interested in selling the house to fund a new what could be a $7K+ lens.
Maybe Tamron will do a 120-500 variable aperture lens since they can't copy anything Sony has.
gdanmitchell wrote:
Thinking more about this, as a prospective Sony user in the future and as a person who relies a great deal on a 100-400mm f/4.5-f/5.6 lens today…
If there is a pure f/4 version of a 100-400 coming in the future, there would ahve to be an alternative. While this lens would be great for things that otherwise might call for a large aperture telephoto prime, it would obviously be both very large and very expensive.
There’s reasons that the variable aperture 100-400mm (and similar) lenses are so popular.They are smaller, lighter, and less expensive, yet suitable for many uses and often optically very good. Since they can be manufactured with f/5.6 apertures at the long end, it would be a backwards step to decrease that maximum aperture in the manistream model of such a lens....Show more →
Well, Canon did replace their EF 100-400/4.5-5.6 IS II with the RF 100-500/4.5-7.1, though the actual difference in working aperture is only about 1/3 stop at 400mm. Panasonic now has a similar 100-500/5-7.1 L mount lens so it may be a trend.
The 100-500 replaced my use of a 1.4x TC on the 100-400.
I can see a market for all three of those lenses, 100-400/4, 100-500/7.1 and 100-400/8.
The value proposition of xxx-400mm f/4 zooms has always been a tough sell. Canon and Nikon both tried it for SLR. Neither was ever very popular. The trouble is you're paying for the moderately fast aperture at 400mm but "only" getting f/4 at 100, 200 and 300mm where f/2.8 lenses are readily available. Or you can have a 400mm f/2.8 for about the same money as the f/4 zoom.
You're paying a hefty convenience tax for the all-in-one zoom when compared to faster individual lenses.
This is the most spot on post I have read regarding a potential Sony 100-400 f4. The pricing is where Sigma did well with their 300-600 f4, but they are a 3rd party. They can't make enough to keep up with demand, meaning they priced it too low. I would buy a new 100-400 f4 at $8000 (it would pain me, like the 50-150 did, but you know, it's a nice lens to shoot with), although that feels too low for Sony. I could see it coming in at $10,000 or more, which makes sucking it up and reaching for the 400GM more compelling. I think Sony in part solves this mental hurdle by releasing an updated 400 with a built in TC at $16,000, which makes the zoom f4 more mentally compelling all of a sudden. Companies know what they are doing with psychological pricing and price anchoring...
I would be in for a 100-400mm G F/4.5-6.3 in a compact light weight package and below EUR 2000 price tag. It would compete with Tamron 50-400mm F/4.5-6.3. By starting at 100mm Sony should be able to keep weight down and IQ superior.
I do find the current 100-400 a bit too large/heavy and am seriously considering the Tamron if Sony doesn't announce an interesting alternative soon.
RoamingScott wrote:
Remember the meme pic of that one Sigma lens that had the handle on top?
Yeah, prepare for that.
IF they managed to make it roughly the same weight and dimensions of the original, that will be QUITE the Mk II achievement. It's a lens that has needed a refresh for a while. Hopefully bokeh, particularly foreground, is significantly improved.
It certainly wouldn't be as big as the Sigma 200-500/2.8. More likely, it'd be about as big as the Nikon 200-400VR and weigh less.
I think it all comes down to how good is the G lens. If the new G lens is a 100-400 x-f5.6 and is a bit better than the current 100-400 f4.5-5.6 GM then I can see most users being happy, and a 100-400mm f4 can be priced for the high end / pro users. If the new G lens is f6.3 or slower on the long end I and the new GM is 6K + then we are really not getting a replacement for the current 100-400 f4.5-5.6 GM.
Like many Sony users who go for the A7c line due to its size/weight saving, many also prefer a more compact and lighter 100-400mm lens even if it means f6.3. I would rather have an 800gr 100-400mm f5.6-f6.3 over a 1300gr f4.5-5.6. I am glad Sony is releasing a fixed aperture lens for those who are less concerned over size/weight. Anyway, there is little point to argue over speculative specs. We don't still know what Sony team had in their mind and what they are going to release in terms of spec. I am hopeful I will get what I want but I know that may not be the case so I don't take my wishes too seriously.
For pro sports shooters a fixed ƒ4 lens over the range can be an enticing option in a number of shooting scenarios. I for one am anxiously awaiting the Sony published specs to appear.
Michel85 wrote:
I would be in for a 100-400mm G F/4.5-6.3 in a compact light weight package and below EUR 2000 price tag. It would compete with Tamron 50-400mm F/4.5-6.3. By starting at 100mm Sony should be able to keep weight down and IQ superior.
I do find the current 100-400 a bit too large/heavy and am seriously considering the Tamron if Sony doesn't announce an interesting alternative soon.
I have a pro friend on Facebook that shoots the Nikon Z8 and uses the Tamron 50-400. His photos are phenomenal to say the least.
Maybe Tamron will come out with an alternative to the Sony 100-400 in the 120-400-500 range.
AZHeaven wrote:
I have a pro friend on Facebook that shoots the Nikon Z8 and uses the Tamron 50-400. His photos are phenomenal to say the least.
Maybe Tamron will come out with an alternative to the Sony 100-400 in the 120-400-500 range.
I believe Ross Martin shoots with a Tamron 50-400 for landscape too. His pictures are phenomenal! Honestly, IMHO, shooting at the same aperture, it's hard to tell a big difference between a $12000 lens and a $2000 lens these days, if just posting on web.
EB-1 wrote:
Well, Canon did replace their EF 100-400/4.5-5.6 IS II with the RF 100-500/4.5-7.1, though the actual difference in working aperture is only about 1/3 stop at 400mm. Panasonic now has a similar 100-500/5-7.1 L mount lens so it may be a trend.
The 100-500 replaced my use of a 1.4x TC on the 100-400.
I can see a market for all three of those lenses, 100-400/4, 100-500/7.1 and 100-400/8.
EBH
Regarding the middle of those three, the trade-off with the RF is that it has an extra 100mm in its 100-500 form, and that sort of justifies the smaller maximum aperture at the long end. For example, putting a 1.4x TC on the f/5.6 max EF 100-400 gets you f/8 at 560. In that light, the f/7.1 at 500 seems like a decent trade-off.
I think you are right that a company with a big market like Sony probably could support three zooms in this range with different features and prices.
As a counter to that, while snipping off 1/3 of a stop here and there really is trivial in and off itself, as a trend that eventually might multiply that decrease in maximum aperture it might not be so swell.
When I move to Sony (quite likely bordering on a near certainty when we find out what the A7rvi looks like) I'll certainly want a lens with this kind of range. I've be happy with a high quality 100-400, ideally no smaller than f/5.6 at the long end, or with a 100-500 like the R. (While a 100-400mm f/4 sounds like a very interesting and even fantastic lens, it wouldn't be the one I would want for my particular use.)
Douglas L wrote:
I believe Ross Martin shoots with a Tamron 50-400 for landscape too. His pictures are phenomenal! Honestly, IMHO, shooting at the same aperture, it's hard to tell a big difference between a $12000 lens and a $2000 lens these days, if just posting on web.
Thank you very much, Douglas! The Tamron 50-400mm has been my main landscape lens in 2025 and I’m extremely pleased with it. Optically it rivals the Nikon Z 100-400 I used to shoot and my copy is centered and sharp across the frame throughout the range. My Sony 70-200/2.8 GMII is sadly gathering dust now - there just isn’t enough meaningful difference between the two at landscape apertures, and the range of the Tamron has increased my productivity and enjoyment in the field. I usually pair it with a Sony 16-35PZ, each lens mounted to its own A7RV to minimize lens changes and to provide a backup, and lately I’m also carrying an excellent copy of the Sony 24-105.
A light weight 500mm f4 (not zoom) that works well with 2X TC would be my dream lens.
I might consider a 100-400mm f4 but only if it worked really well with the 2X TC so it was demonstrably better than the 400-800 at 800 F8. Otherwise, what's the point?
Wouldn't expect a 100-400 to be much lighter than the 400-800, but might be shorter. Still going to have a 105mm diameter or more.
