My current lens lineup, from most to least used, is:
- Sony 24-70 GM II
- Sony 300mm 2.8
- Sony 70-200 GM II
- Viltrox 14mm
- Sony 35 GM 1.4
- Sigma 85 1.4
I have an A1 II and an a7rv.
The 300mm is incredible, but I prefer zooms. I love the looks of primes, but zooms offer more flexibility. I rarely use my 35 1.4 and 85 1.4 even though they’re amazing. I tried the 200-600 and 400-800 but they didn’t give me the quality that my 2.8 GM zooms could so I went with the 300 GM and teleconverters. I’m thinking the 100-400 might be a viable replacement though. Hell they designed it to look just like their supertelephoto primes
I use the 300mm for all kinds of wildlife (various mammals and birds) and some landscapes. However I often run into situations where I’m either too zoomed in or out. Switching teleconverters is tedious, and not always realistic for fleeting wildlife moments.
I also do a lot of landscapes but the 300 with teleconverters is usually too long for most landscapes. I’ll take a photo of an animal and then have to switch to the 24-70 or 70-200 to get the shot of the beautiful landscape the animal is in. It’s a great problem to have, but still a little tedious. I end up switching between the 24-70, 70-200, and 300 (with various teleconverters) often.
The 100-400 is longer, heavier, and less bright, however it’s really tempting to simplify my setup with a 24-70 GM II on one body and the 100-400 4.5 on another for landscapes and wildlife.
I could afford both the 300 GM and the 100-400, but I dislike having expensive lenses I don’t use and I’m worried one would just sit in my closet. My 35/85 1.4 sit in my closet most of the time and it bothers me, so I can’t imagine how I’d feel with a $4300 or $6000 lens that isn’t used. On the other hand, I’m fine collecting expensive guitars, even if some aren’t used much so maybe life is short and I just have to change my perspective on collecting lenses…
I’m curious about others’ thoughts. What makes the 300mm 2.8 “better” than the 100-400 (other than 2.8 at 300mm and image quality)? It’s 1 and 1/3 stops brighter at 2.8, but most people use the 300 with teleconverters and at that point the prime is only about 1/3 of a stop faster than the zoom. How often do you use the bare 300mm and what do you shoot with that? The 100-400 is slightly bigger, longer, and less bright, but more versatile, convenient, and has great rendering from what I’ve seen. I can see how a 1.4 prime offers huge benefits over a 2.8 zoom, but with this it’s not as clear to me. I can see how a 600 f/4 can’t be replaced by this, but I can’t see why the 300mm can’t be. It’s $2500 less and I’ve seen multiple people say that it can’t replace their 300mm so I must be missing something.
Alternatively, for landscapes/wildlife I’ve considered getting the Tamron 25-200 for one body, the 300 GM on another and only using my f2.8 zooms for portraits and events, but that seems like a big step back. Although the Tamron 25-200’s rendering has impressed me, and if it’s good enough for Mads Peter Iverson….
I can’t be the only one thinking this so would love others thoughts! I’ve probably just developed an emotional attachment to my 300mm GM and don’t want to sell it even if it makes sense for me to do so…
I progressed from the old GM 100-400mm, to the 200-600mm and GM 300mm f2.8 with converters. I also have Tamron 50-400mm for light travel. For a short time, I shot the Sigma 500mm f5.6.
Once I started using the 300mm with converters, I sold my 200-600mm as I was no longer completely happy with the sharpness. I also really like the light weight of the 300mm.
After viewing Dustin Abbott's and Chelsea Northrup's review of the new 100-400mm f4.5 (with and without x1.4 converter), I am now salivating over the idea of acquiring this super-sharp zoom. After a great deal of pondering on the subject, I decided that the 300mm lens is just too good to give-up. In addition to great IQ, the size and weight are desirable attributes. I'll probably acquire the new 100-400mm at some point in time when discounts are available, but will likely not do so at the expense of giving-up my 300mm.
I have 18 premium lenses in my lens cabinet. They mostly divide into types of use such as sports, nature, studio, general portrait, maco, landscape, travel, etc. Hence, some of the lenses are rarely used, but when I need them, I'm glad they are there.
The 300 ƒ2.8 is a spectacular lens and I would not give it up, as least not for a while until you get comfortable with the new 100-400 ƒ4.5. Agreed it can simply a 2 body setup. Don't forget if it's on the A1 II you can punch into aps-c mode if necessary. Suspect you'll know in short order after acquiring the ƒ4.5 if you'll be needing the 300 going forward. If not, it should be very easy to sell.
I just sold my original 100-400 to make room for a pre-ordered 100-400 ƒ4.5. I'm still hanging on to the 200-600 for now but suspect it will go up for sale once I've had some time with the new lens. My 70-200 GM II isn't going anywhere.
schlotz wrote:
My 70-200 GM II isn't going anywhere.
Correct me if i'm wrong but i think you also have the 50-150 F2? I've thought about changing my 70-200 for that but just don't feel the need given how good the 70-200 is.
The more I read up on this the more I consider parting with the 300mm f2.8 for this lens. Currently shooting almost everything with the 600mm f4 or the 300mm f2.8 but with TC's attached 90% of the time. Resale on the 300mm f2.8 looks decent and not giving up the 600mm for anything because there is nothing out there like it. I'll probably make a decision in the next few months
I have the 16-35 f2.8, 28-70 f2, 50-150 f2 and 400-800. I also would like to add a lens to bridge the gap between the 50-150 and the 400-800.
I don’t think I could give up the 400-800 since 800mm is really good for birding and other than the 400 f2.8 and 600 f4 there’s nothing faster in Sony’s lineup at that focal length.
I was really hoping the 100-400 f4.5 would be lighter than it turned out to be since at its actual size and weight it really is more or less the same size and weight as the 200-600 and only a little bit smaller than the 400-800.
The way I see it is I would likely only use the 100-400 with the 2x converter so it really doesn’t make sense for me.
I really wish the 50-150 could take TCs cause it would end up as a 100-300 f4 with the 2x tc which would be perfect.
Right now I’m seriously considering adding the 300 f2.8 since it’s so small and light.
I also went from the previous GM 100-400mm to the 200-600mm and then the 300mm f2.8 with both teleconverters. The new 100-400 would be an instant buy if I didn't have the 300mm. This prime is just optically perfect and a joy to use thanks to the reduced weight. One potential issue some have reported with the new 100-400 is the zoom creep. Multiple times I thought I was at 600mm with the 200-600, only to realize I had accidentally moved it while handling the lens.
So I'm trying to resist for now, but I may eventually order it with a discount later.
I like the idea of the 100-400 4.5, but the reviews didn't give me the impression that it was anything spectacular or a truly special lens like the 50-150 or 300. Do I need to view more reviews?
As I tested 100-400mm F/4.5 GM in person, the sharpness was bad which is only as good as old 100-400GM and 200-600. It could be a pre-prodcution's issue but no clues as many copies had same issues.
One thing I really hate was the zoom ring cause it moves by itself whenver I hold it high and low. It is very annoying.
I'm eyeing on 300GM but if 100-400mm F/4.5 doesn't perform well in terms of sharpness, I dont think it worth $4300.
149113 wrote:
The more I read up on this the more I consider parting with the 300mm f2.8 for this lens. Currently shooting almost everything with the 600mm f4 or the 300mm f2.8 but with TC's attached 90% of the time. Resale on the 300mm f2.8 looks decent and not giving up the 600mm for anything because there is nothing out there like it. I'll probably make a decision in the next few months
When I switched to Sony a couple of years ago, I bought the 70-200 and 200-600 for my zooms. I knew eventually I'd replace the 200-600, but at the time I was hesitant to spend that money and be stuck at 300mm. I considered the 400 2.8, but again, $10k+ to now be stuck at 400mm. I understand the value of that lens, but if you're looking for any amount of versatility, it doesn't make sense. Then I started considering the Sigma 300-600, but its a massive 9lb lens with the inability to AF while zooming and a 15fps limit. Doesn't make sense.
The bottom line is I want stellar optics/IQ, a wide aperture, and versatility. I don't know what other lens fits that bill any better than the 100-400 f/4.5. It's a highly useful focal range (especially when you have a 70-200 or 50-150 to overlap the wide end). A constant aperture adds to that versatility.
Seems like most people are taking issue with the f/4.5 aperture, but if this was a 100-400 f/4 GM, it would probably be considered the holy grail of super telephoto zooms. I dont think people realize how small of a difference 4.5 vs f/4 truly is in the real world. That difference will never make or break your image. You're never going to look at your image and say "damn, now if only I had 1/3stop brighter aperture...". With that in mind, assume this is a constant f/4 lens and see if your decision becomes easier.
New video by Jan.
Just like Steve Perry's video, the real standout of this lens seems to be the rendering into the OOF areas and bokeh.
Once you add TCs to try and match other leases like 200-600 and 400-800 then the IQ is just on par if not slightly behind.
Jan briefly touches on this lens vs the 300GM near the end.
His thoughts mirror mine, the 300GM's biggest plus is the size and weight and how well it takes TCs.
It seems the 300GM/2xTC competes well with the 100-400/1.4TC. Showing how well the 300GM can take a 2xTC.
I'll probably be adding the 100-400GM to my kit alongside the 300GM. It won't be a replacement as I value the small size and weight of the 300GM and still use it at 300mm for ~20-25% of my shots with it.
I think the biggest selling point to me is the fact that both Jan and Steve are going to buy the thing when they both came in thinking this wouldn't be the lens they were really looking for in the first place. Both seem to be sold on the rendering more than anything. Jan is still mostly a Canon shooter and says this will be the first Sony lens he has added to his kit in a good while.
pulper11 wrote:
Correct me if i'm wrong but i think you also have the 50-150 F2? I've thought about changing my 70-200 for that but just don't feel the need given how good the 70-200 is.
Yes, I do have the 50-150 and it's great but it does have it's limitations, at least for my intended uses. I can easily punch in to aps-c mode using my A1 II's and get excellent results as long as what I'm capturing basically fills the frame. Minor cropping is fine but as you approach 50% or more the cropping tends to start eating away at the IQ. Ergo, I'm keeping the 70-200.
With Sony Pro Support I can try it for free. I'll have to wait until the initial orders are filled and these become available to members which is probably 2-3 months off
arbitrage wrote:
New video by Jan.
Just like Steve Perry's video, the real standout of this lens seems to be the rendering into the OOF areas and bokeh.
Once you add TCs to try and match other leases like 200-600 and 400-800 then the IQ is just on par if not slightly behind.
Jan briefly touches on this lens vs the 300GM near the end.
His thoughts mirror mine, the 300GM's biggest plus is the size and weight and how well it takes TCs.
It seems the 300GM/2xTC competes well with the 100-400/1.4TC. Showing how well the 300GM can take a 2xTC.
I'll probably be adding the 100-400GM to my kit alongside the 300GM. It won't be a replacement as I value the small size and weight of the 300GM and still use it at 300mm for ~20-25% of my shots with it.
I think the biggest selling point to me is the fact that both Jan and Steve are going to buy the thing when they both came in thinking this wouldn't be the lens they were really looking for in the first place. Both seem to be sold on the rendering more than anything. Jan is still mostly a Canon shooter and says this will be the first Sony lens he has added to his kit in a good while....Show more →
A very good review that explains where this lens might fit and not fit depending upon what venue one would be shooting.
Thanks for posting it Geoff
Since money isn't the primary driver, I think the easiest answer for you is to buy the 100-400 and keep the 300 for the moment. I would keep both lenses for whatever period of time that you need to make your decision, is it a week, month, year? At the end when you are confident of not needing/using one, sell the one that you aren't using. You won't lose any more money than if you sell the 300 now...it is just slightly deferred.
Lenses are very personal in the end. What works for one person isn't right for another.
BrianP wrote:
I think the easiest answer for you is to buy the 100-400 and keep the 300 for the moment. I would keep both lenses for whatever period of time that you need to make your decision, is it a week, month, year?
I use 200-600 and 300GM + 2x (and sometimes 1.4x). I sold 100-400 mk1 as I did not like the handling and the quality of zoom action.
Despite my initial assumption that I'd sell 200-600, I still have it and find uses for it. Sometimes we need zoom for flexibility, sometimes fixed FL and light weight are preferable. To my eyes, the IQ at 600mm is nearly identical. Perhaps I have a great copy of the 200-600.
Like you, I thought that the new 100-400 F4.5 with and without 1.4 TC could replace both of my lenses above, but based on initial reviews it does not seem to be the case.
I haven't seen anyone comparing the new 100-400 with 1.4X vs the 300 GM with a 2X. I highly doubt that the zoom with 1.4X will beat the prime with a the 2X and the zoom is slower at f6.3 and 40mm shorter FL. My 300 GM is basically a 600 f5.6 as I never use it without the 2X TC. That's why I keep hoping for a 500 f4 which would be a 700 f5.6 with a 1.4X.
