Nikon still has the best option at 400mm, with their 400TC. Sony has yet to show they are interested in delivering something like that. I am actually thinking about jumping ship to Nikon just for that one lens. Well, picking up a Z8 and the 400TC. It's not like I can't shoot with both. aside from the $$$ hit...
Jemini wrote:
"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).
me too. But it's 140-560mm with a 1.4 TC, not 180-600, the 200-600 is not quite 600mm at MFD anyway. close enough.
robert614 wrote:
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
I get that. I think part of it is the legacy memory of the days when extending zooms were generally signified cheaper lenses of lower optical quality. But that’s not the case any more and hasn’t been for a while. Many of the extending designers are just as good as the internal zoom lenses.
- - -
MMP wrote:
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.
My first thought (as a person who is moving to Sony very soon) was that a f/4 100-400 lens sounded pretty interesting.
When I heard f/4.5, my next thought was was, “that’s still pretty good!”
Then I thought about my current (Canon) 100-400, which is f4.5-5.6… and it occurred to me that this new lens is the same at the short end and only 2/3 or a stop larger at 400mm… and that it would give up the plus of small packed size if it is an internal zoom… and I’m no longer quite so sure.
- - -
Add a TC 1.4 and you get a 180-600mm f6.3…
Small point perhaps, but that would turn a 100-400 into a 140-560mm lens.
gdanmitchell wrote:
My first thought (as a person who is moving to Sony very soon) was that a f/4 100-400 lens sounded pretty interesting.
When I heard f/4.5, my next thought was was, “that’s still pretty good!”
Then I thought about my current (Canon) 100-400, which is f4/5-5.6… and it occurred to me that this new lens is the same at the short end and only 2/3 or a stop larger at 400mm… and that it would give up the plus of small packed size if it is an internal zoom… and I’m no longer quite so sure.
- - -
I have to assume we're missing some critical detail because I'm not seeing how this lens makes sense. I don't see the one feature/spec that would set it apart from all the other options.
Constant F4, superb optics, and internal zooming would sell. Take away any one of those 3 and it feels largely unremarkable. Maybe they swap one of those with a built-in TC, but I still think that makes it a hard sell when users have the option to add TC's to the other competing lenses.
It seems like a decent compromise on a few fronts. I like the idea of f/4, but that puts the front filter size over 100mm, f/4.5 keeps it at 95mm like the 200-600. I would prefer if it went past 400mm, but again that pushes the front filter size up. f/4.5 is just 1/3 stop slower than f/4, but makes a big difference in lens size.
I assume the optics will be superb given the GM designation.
Internal zoom for rapid zooming during sports.
The high resolution bodies to me beat a built in TC. Just push a button and you get a 1.5TC on all your lenses. So I'm not sure that makes sense expect maybe the super-tele primes.
I think of it like a 70-200GMii with the 2x TC, except it is 2/3 stop faster and 40mm more on the wide end. Or maybe the better comparison is vs the 70-200GMii with 1.4TC, that becomes a 100-280 f/4. Would you trade 1/3 stop of light to cover 280-400? Basically, it slots in as the next pro level zoom past 70-200 with some compromises to keep the size under control. It's not in the same league as the 100-300/2.8 from Canon, but that is an $11k lens.
Then the next question is does it make sense vs a 70-200GMii and 300GM with TCs? To me the 70-200 and 300 with 2 bodies sounds better, but I could see how people who want reach could go for the 100-400 vs the 70-200.
Then what about me, I like shooting primes up to 135 and don't own a 70-200, maybe this is the lens that fills the next range further out, or maybe that is the 300GM. I think size, weight, and price decide that.
Assuming we all aren't getting our collective chain yanked...
I'm interested. I've found the 100-400LII and GM to be very useful lenses. Someone taking that type of lens a little more seriously is welcome. Hopefully the design and constant aperture will help (not resolve) the tele vignetting. Hopefully it will be a stronger overall lens. I'm confident, assuming it's real, it'll have OSS. I also greatly prefer lenses without extenders. I already paid for the extenders and I've worked futzing with them into my timing. And I love my light 300GM. I wouldn't want to add the weight and expense of a built-in 1.4x. Same goes for this lens, assuming the bare lens performance meets expectations. While I prefer the external zooms when packing them, I don't have a problem working with either, so, for the right lens, I wouldn't mind an internal zoom,
Like others, my interest turning into a purchase depends on performance, size, and weight. I already know it's going to expensive. I find the new price of the GM ridiculous, and this will be even more expensive, but that's just the way things are.
Douglas L wrote:
me too. But it's 140-560mm with a 1.4 TC, not 180-600, the 200-600 is not quite 600mm at MFD anyway. close enough.
True. But you know the 180-600 and 200-600 are not really 600mm at long end. At normal working distance I think these lenses are not more than 575mm. So not much different.
SAR's latest tidbit is this lens is really lightweight. Surprisingly so. Also very high optical quality. He also mentioned in his YT video that it is not intended as a 100-400GM Mark II. It is in its own category and not replacing the 100-400GM we have now. That has always made the most sense to me as it won't likely be a close focusing, high magnification lens like the 100-400GM.
arbitrage wrote:
SAR's latest tidbit is this lens is really lightweight. Surprisingly so. Also very high optical quality. He also mentioned in his YT video that it is not intended as a 100-400GM Mark II. It is in its own category and not replacing the 100-400GM we have now. That has always made the most sense to me as it won't likely be a close focusing, high magnification lens like the 100-400GM.
But to most, would that warrant it being $4999? This lens needs to have a killer feature to be worth that price; and it being an internal zoom, be lightweight (the original 100-400 wasn't heavy in the first place) or be of high optical quality might not be enough. A lens can't just be twice as expensive for being f/4.5 vs f/5.6 at 400mm.
arbitrage wrote:
SAR's latest tidbit is this lens is really lightweight. Surprisingly so. Also very high optical quality. He also mentioned in his YT video that it is not intended as a 100-400GM Mark II. It is in its own category and not replacing the 100-400GM we have now. That has always made the most sense to me as it won't likely be a close focusing, high magnification lens like the 100-400GM.
Hmm…If it comes in at under 4 lbs. Not much more than the 300mm f2.8. And if it can take a 1.4x extender well, could be very interesting!
Alan Parker wrote:
But to most, would that warrant it being $4999? This lens needs to have a killer feature to be worth that price; and it being an internal zoom, be lightweight (the original 100-400 wasn't heavy in the first place) or be of high optical quality might not be enough. A lens can't just be twice as expensive for being f/4.5 vs f/5.6 at 400mm.
robert614 wrote:
Is $4999 the latest rumored price? Yikes 😬
I am keeping a close eye on this lens. If the MFD is short and take 1.4XTC and 2X TC extremely well, it may replace my 200-600, 400-800 and even the 300 GM (I put a 2X TC on it 90% of the time anyway).
Alan Parker wrote:
But to most, would that warrant it being $4999? This lens needs to have a killer feature to be worth that price; and it being an internal zoom, be lightweight (the original 100-400 wasn't heavy in the first place) or be of high optical quality might not be enough. A lens can't just be twice as expensive for being f/4.5 vs f/5.6 at 400mm.
I don't know how many would feel the $5K justified.
I see it as a lens that compared to the current 100-400 would have higher quality optics, 2/3 stop brighter, faster AF motors, internal zoom, less degradation with TCs, better weather sealing etc. All that with a weight that may be getting down close to the current 100-400. What it will probably lack (just my guess) is the close focusing and high magnification of the current lens. And it will be larger to pack.
The only other feature they could have added that would have made it even more special would have been an internal TC. Or even brighter at constant f/4.
But we have to remember even a single stop of light can demand more than double the price point. Like a Nikon 300/4 at $2000 vs what was their current 300/2.8 at the time costing $5500. A canon 400DOII at $6900 vs the 400/2.8 IS II at $10,500.
4k would defneitly make the 100-400mm f4.5 more tempting to me then 5k. But it's not completely unexpected when the Canon and Nikon 200-400mm f4 ish lenses are 10k +.
Personally, at 5k it probably just makes more sense to go with the Sigma 300-600mm f4 for wildlife, but maybe Sony will have some tricks up its sleeve, such as very good IQ with TC's.
I for one will happily pay the price for the coming 100-400mm f4.5, provided it works véry well with the 1.4TC
The OM systems 150-400mm f4.5 1.25TC is 7000,- and I don't really find a 1.25TC that usefull, I prefer the 1.4TC to get to 560mm. The only downside is having to put it on and take it off. I already have the 1.4TC, so it does not add to the price in my case, which b.t.w. is thé big advantage of external TC's: you only need one.
What matters is whether the Sony GM dna is truly inside this lens, regarding AF and optical performance, and more recently: very light weight.
If so, this is a dream wildlife lens for travel, very versatile.
I’ll be curious to see if this could replace my 300mm 2.8 GM. That lens is fantastic, but its only issue is that it’s a prime. I use it for wildlife and some landscapes with the 1.4x and 2x teleconverter, but often run into situations where I’m either too zoomed in or too zoomed out. The flexibility of a very high quality zoom for wildlife and landscapes would be amazing.
Swimming_trouble_718 wrote:
I’ll be curious to see if this could replace my 300mm 2.8 GM. That lens is fantastic, but its only issue is that it’s a prime. I use it for wildlife and some landscapes with the 1.4x and 2x teleconverter, but often run into situations where I’m either too zoomed in or too zoomed out. The flexibility of a very high quality zoom for wildlife and landscapes would be amazing.
I think it certainly could replace the 300GM for some people.
Especially if you rarely use the 300GM as a bare lens.
This lens will only be 1/3 stop slower at the roughly equivalent focal lengths and will even have the option to stretch out to 800 f/9 if performance with the 2xTC is any good.
I use my 300GM at 300mm enough that I probably wouldn't replace it with this lens. But I will take a close look at adding this lens alongside my 300GM. I would love to have this lens in the kayak for a bit more quick focal length flexibility when shooting diving osprey.
DWOfPaul wrote:
4k would defneitly make the 100-400mm f4.5 more tempting to me then 5k. But it's not completely unexpected when the Canon and Nikon 200-400mm f4 ish lenses are 10k +.
Personally, at 5k it probably just makes more sense to go with the Sigma 300-600mm f4 for wildlife, but maybe Sony will have some tricks up its sleeve, such as very good IQ with TC's.
Hmm. I am expecting this to be significantly lighter and easier to pack then that beautiful beastie, as well as unlocking focus while zooming and the higher frame rates on the a1s and a9s, so I'm not confident in your "sense" argument. I think the Sigma's amazing, but I've yet to come up with a rationalization that gets over my "I'm not hiking or traveling with anything that big and heavy" feeling.
I agree on the price. $5k would, assuming it's really interesting, have me waiting for some disappointed early adopters to put theirs up for sale and see how far down that price goes. A $3500 MSRP, though, would have me evaluating new.
freaklikeme wrote:
Hmm. I am expecting this to be significantly lighter and easier to pack then that beautiful beastie, as well as unlocking focus while zooming and the higher frame rates on the a1s and a9s, so I'm not confident in your "sense" argument. I think the Sigma's amazing, but I've yet to come up with a rationalization that gets over my "I'm not hiking or traveling with anything that big and heavy" feeling.
I agree on the price. $5k would, assuming it's really interesting, have me waiting for some disappointed early adopters to put theirs up for sale and see how far down that price goes. A $3500 MSRP, though, would have me evaluating new....Show more →
I agree, the Sigma 300-600mm is definitely not a hiking lens. If I get it, I would keep my 200-600mm for when weight and size are an issue.
In theory, the 100-400mm f4.5 sounds like an upgrade to the 200-600mm. With TC's it in theory could cover almost all wildlife zoom needs in a single lens. If it's $3,500, it's extremely likely I will end up getting it. Even at 4k, there is a very good chance I get it. But at the rumored 5k price, I can't help but wonder if it would really be that much better than a 200-600mm for me.
My thinking behind the Sigma 300-600mm comment is that at 6.6k you get a 600mm f4 at less than 1/2 the price of the Sony 600mm f4, the only 500mm f4 option on E mount, and the only f4 telephoto zoom on E mount. Granted, it sounds like you need to treat it more like a prime due to losing focus while zooming, it's heavy, and you are limited to 15FPS. Viltrox got us past the TC 2x limitation, but hopefully, they make a 1.4 TC because a 420-840mm f5.6 would be more useful to me than a 600-1200mm f8. So, for 1,600 more than the rumored 5k for the 100-400mm, it has me wondering which lens would open more opportunities for better wildlife photos for me. Now, if the price difference ends up being 3,100 (3.5k vs 6.6k), I can almost guarantee I would end up with the Sony over the Sigma.
I am looking forward to May 13th and seeing what Sony actually announces
. I'd have jumped the ship (from Nikon). 