Looks closer in styling to the 300/400/600? Folks on the comments on SAR also quickly pointed out there's no OSS on the silver label; like the 300 does have. There's also no red text signifying the 'Made in Japan' status.
I think the confusion about the new 100-400's size compared to the 200-600 was a misunderstanding of the wording in an earlier rumour. The similarity of these 2 zooms is not in their lengths, but that both have internal zooms
shac wrote:
I think the confusion about the new 100-400's size compared to the 200-600 was a misunderstanding of the wording in an earlier rumour. The similarity of these 2 zooms is not in their lengths, but that both have internal zooms
I hope so... if it is as big as the 200-600... not interested.
100-400 internal zoom, similar size would be awesome.
shac wrote:
I think the confusion about the new 100-400's size compared to the 200-600 was a misunderstanding of the wording in an earlier rumour. The similarity of these 2 zooms is not in their lengths, but that both have internal zooms
I think the overall length of the new 100-400 will about the same as the original 100-400 fully extended. Which is just under 12 inches. Which puts it in the same ballpark as the 200-600. Which is about 12 and half
robert614 wrote:
I think the overall length of the new 100-400 will about the same as the original 100-400 fully extended. Which is just under 12 inches. Which puts it in the same ballpark as the 200-600. Which is about 12 and half
I like internal zoom lenses, but this is one of their downsides, especially if you travel with or carry the gear a lot. These lenses are always long enough to accommodate the longest focal length, while “telescoping” zoom lenses will pack more compactly.
I'd expect this to be a bit shorter than the 200-600.
The Olympus 150-400 f/4.5 is only 4mm shorter than the Sony 200-600 but the Olympus does have the built-in TC that may be adding to the length it could have been without it.
It is strange the label doesn't have OSS on it. Don't know if this is just a change Sony is making to keep labels simpler or it doesn't have OSS (highly doubtful) or this is a bad photoshop and not the real lens??
gdanmitchell wrote:
I like internal zoom lenses, but this is one of their downsides, especially if you travel with or carry the gear a lot. These lenses are always long enough to accommodate the longest focal length, while “telescoping” zoom lenses will pack more compactly.
Very true. I still think I prefer an internal zoom though
As far as this one goes. Still waiting on a few more details like weight, MFD, and price before making a final decision
arbitrage wrote:
I'd expect this to be a bit shorter than the 200-600.
The Olympus 150-400 f/4.5 is only 4mm shorter than the Sony 200-600 but the Olympus does have the built-in TC that may be adding to the length it could have been without it.
It is strange the label doesn't have OSS on it. Don't know if this is just a change Sony is making to keep labels simpler or it doesn't have OSS (highly doubtful) or this is a bad photoshop and not the real lens??
Why would the Sony not have an internal TC? That would be super-lame since the Canon 200-400/4 had a 1.4x in 2013 and Nikon 180-400/4 had the 1.4x in 2018. Is the Sony not expected to be good enough for a TC or just a cheaply lens although large? Having a 1.25x TC would be rather smart for an f/4.5 since it optically easier/better and get the lens to f/5.6 rather than f/6.3. I don't know if Sony is clever like that or more conservative.
I am sure that this lens will be great. My only wish is that it's not too big (like 200-600). I want it to be similar size as 100-400 GM so that I can carry it around on my trips.
speedmaster20d wrote:
Hum…. f/4.5 does not sound appetizing to me especially that it is likely to be priced like an f/4
100% agreed. I can see how it may be popular with those who don't already own a telephoto zoom, but assuming price will be high, I don't see what would entice people to add the lens if they have a 70-200 (which tolerates TCs quite well), a 200-600, any prime in that range, or even the Sigma 300-600.
The f/4.5 and apparent lack of OSS puts this lens in a strange category unless the lens is somehow extremely affordable with near flawless optics.
I’m calling BS on this leak. As others have mentioned, lifting the shadows reveals a lack of a dot in between “4” and “5”, as well as a most bizarre looking “E.”
There is also the fact that unlike every other GM lens, the start of the focal range (the 100) is not placed on the center axis, in-line with the dots and the center of the branding.
It would be bizarre for Sony to place the start of the focal range just a bit left of the center axis.
gdanmitchell wrote:
I like internal zoom lenses, but this is one of their downsides, especially if you travel with or carry the gear a lot. These lenses are always long enough to accommodate the longest focal length, while “telescoping” zoom lenses will pack more compactly.
Internal zoom is nice when photographing but the comprise is larger size in bag and (very probably) longer min focusing distance (especially @400mm).
The new 100-400GM reflects changes in Sony tele lens line-up. 400-800mm is now the long go-to tele zoom. In the shorter end we have the very close focusing new version 70-200G. Thanks to constant aperture new 100-400 will sure work well with 1.4x TC.
Personally I will happily continue using 200-600G (complimented with new version 70-200G). Also the old 100-400GM is still perfectly good lens for those appreciate short focusing distance or use smaller bags. So many good choices
jayviary wrote:
I’m calling BS on this leak. As others have mentioned, lifting the shadows reveals a lack of a dot in between “4” and “5”, as well as a most bizarre looking “E.”
Thing is though, the leaks for the Thypoch Voyager AF 24–50mm f/2.8 also looked like AI generated nonsense and still ended up being true.
So I don't know if SAR is using Windows 98 and he's creating artefacts along the way or people are just purposely creating hacked together images.
jayviary wrote:
I’m calling BS on this leak. As others have mentioned, lifting the shadows reveals a lack of a dot in between “4” and “5”, as well as a most bizarre looking “E.”
There is also the fact that unlike every other GM lens, the start of the focal range (the 100) is not placed on the center axis, in-line with the dots and the center of the branding.
It would be bizarre for Sony to place the start of the focal range just a bit left of the center axis.
The lens foot is rotated 90deg in this photo. The only marking that lines up with the centre axis will be the dash that marks which focal length you are at. In this photo the focal length is rotated to be just short of 400mm.
Someone on SAR posted a more zoomed out version of this photo from Chinese site. Doesn't really add much but you can at least see how it is mounted on the camera. Also easier to get a feel of how big it is when you can see the camera we are all used to using.
Of course none of that proves this photo is actually real. We shall see....
DWOfPaul wrote:
I think this is more of a replacement for the 200-600mm. Add a TC 1.4 and you get a 180-600mm f6.3 that would probably be just as good, if not better than the 200-600mm f6.3. Take the TC off, and you have a very good 100-400mm lens. If you happen to use both the 200-600mm and 100-400mm lenses, your overall bag can end up even lighter. Add a TC 2x, and you will probably get a good 200-800mm f9 lens. This could be one lens that covers most wildlife needs.
Weight aside, I could also see people pairing this with the 400-800mm. 100-400mm f4.5 for low light and close subjects, and 400-800mm f8 for max reach.
Overall, I think Sony is going more after Nikon's 200-400mm f4 ish lenses. Those lenses are about 8lbs, longer than the 200-600mm, and 10k+. If a 1/3 less of a stop gets us 100mm more on the wide end, a shorter lens, decent weight savings, and less than 1/2 the cost, this lens should be a real winner. ...Show more →
"Add a TC 1.4 and you get a 180-600mm f6.3 that would probably be just as good, if not better than the 200-600mm f6.3."
Imagine the TC is built-in . I'd have jumped the ship (from Nikon).
