billsnature wrote:
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.
This will likely be the first thing I compare once I have the 100-400 in hand.
I'd actually expect the 100-400/1.4 to be able to at least match the 300/2x in the AF department. I could certainly see it being better even.
Same thing for IQ, I'd think the 100-400/1.4 be able to match the 300GM/2xTC.
The 300GM bare lens is the fastest AF lens and highest IQ I've experienced after decades of owning big glass from all three brands. But the 2x is a significant hit to the AF and IQ. Because the bare lens is at such a high level, the lens + 2x still shine.
If the 100-400/1.4 can't even match the 300/2x then I'd consider the 100-400 to be a bit of a failure.
I currently use my 300GM at 300 20%, 420, 30% and 600 50%. Try to find some subjects you can use 420 or 300 as the lens is just so magical without the 2x bringing it down.
arbitrage wrote:
This will likely be the first thing I compare once I have the 100-400 in hand.
I'd actually expect the 100-400/1.4 to be able to at least match the 300/2x in the AF department. I could certainly see it being better even.
Same thing for IQ, I'd think the 100-400/1.4 be able to match the 300GM/2xTC.
The 300GM bare lens is the fastest AF lens and highest IQ I've experienced after decades of owning big glass from all three brands. But the 2x is a significant hit to the AF and IQ. Because the bare lens is at such a high level, the lens + 2x still shine.
If the 100-400/1.4 can't even match the 300/2x then I'd consider the 100-400 to be a bit of a failure.
I currently use my 300GM at 300 20%, 420, 30% and 600 50%. Try to find some subjects you can use 420 or 300 as the lens is just so magical without the 2x bringing it down....Show more →
From reviews the 100-400/4.5 with 1.4x TC appears to be a bit worse than the 200-600 without TC at 600mm.
The OP was asking about essentially swapping the 300 (or 300 +2xTC) for the 100-400, where a significant, if not primary, use scenario is wildlife, including birds, in a two camera set-up. If that is the case, I don't see the value in the switch. Especially with birds, there's never enough reach, and I don't think 400 would be adequate. The 100-400 could work on a second body if the first body has 300+2xTC, but the OP's second body is an a7rv which (I know from experience) is not the best birding body, notwithstanding its stellar image quality. If the 300+2xTC provides the maximum reach, then the 100-400 could cover the intermediate range, but I wouldn't be happy with that as my sole wildlife lens.
FWIW, I shoot an a1ii and a9iii, with a 300, (with an w/o a 2xtC), 70-200 (w/ 2xTC), and 400-800, depending on the situation. Shooting the 70-200+2xTC and 400-800 gives me a really wide range but I find that I'm gravitating to the 300 on the a9iii and 400-800 on the a1ii for birding. If I go with just one body, it's the 300+2xTC every time. I don't miss the zoom as much as a thought I would and the light weight and bright EVF make shooting that combo a joy.
I'd be interested to see a comparison b/t the new 100-400 and 70-200 f2.8gmII+2xTC. I find the latter combo really sharp and surprisingly snappy, especially in good light.
Blueridger wrote:
I'd be interested to see a comparison b/t the new 100-400 and 70-200 f2.8gmII+2xTC. I find the latter combo really sharp and surprisingly snappy, especially in good light.
Steve
Steve, IIRC from previous tests shared here, the old 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 GM is slightly sharper at 400mm than the 70-200 with a 2x.
If the new 100-400/4.5GM is sharper than the old 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 GM, then it should also be better than the 70-200/2.8GMii with a 2x.
aCuria wrote:
Steve, IIRC from previous tests shared here, the old 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 GM is slightly sharper at 400mm than the 70-200 with a 2x.
If the new 100-400/4.5GM is sharper than the old 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 GM, then it should also be better than the 70-200/2.8GMii with a 2x.
I'm not so sure about 70-200+2xTC/older 100-400 sharpness comparison (I thought they were pretty much the same) but even if the newer 100-400 is sharper, the weight and versatility advantage of the 70-200+2xTC is noteworthy. My larger point is that a 100-400 is not an optimal birding lens, standing alone at least, because of its (relatively) limited reach.
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
Can you elaborate on why you are so interested?
400/4.5 is heavier and the image quality doesn’t seem to be better than your 300/2.8 + TC
arbitrage wrote:
This will likely be the first thing I compare once I have the 100-400 in hand.
I'd actually expect the 100-400/1.4 to be able to at least match the 300/2x in the AF department. I could certainly see it being better even.
Same thing for IQ, I'd think the 100-400/1.4 be able to match the 300GM/2xTC.
The 300GM bare lens is the fastest AF lens and highest IQ I've experienced after decades of owning big glass from all three brands. But the 2x is a significant hit to the AF and IQ. Because the bare lens is at such a high level, the lens + 2x still shine.
If the 100-400/1.4 can't even match the 300/2x then I'd consider the 100-400 to be a bit of a failure.
I currently use my 300GM at 300 20%, 420, 30% and 600 50%. Try to find some subjects you can use 420 or 300 as the lens is just so magical without the 2x bringing it down....Show more →
I look forward to seeing your comparison between the 300GM and the new 100-400 with 1.4X.
It looks like you find (like I do) that the 300GM used at least 50% of the time (like 90% for me) with the 2X. I know that 2X TC's generally kill IQ, as even the 70-200 GM II and 400 f2.8 don't do that well with a 2X TC, but it seems that everyone is surprised by how good the 300 GM/2x combo. Given the any TC on a zoom seems to limit the IQ at max FL, I remain skeptical that the 100-400 f4.5 will outclass the 300GM in any aspect except mass and size where it will be bigger and heavier. That's why I struggle to see the value of this lens for birds vs the 300 GM or the 400-800. I really wish they would do a 500 f4 or a 600 f5.6 which would pair perfectly with this lens.
Albert Dros' and Dustin Abbott's shots with the 100-400 f/4.5 with the 1.4x looked very good to me. I have an excellent 200-600G and it would not surprise me that the 100-400 + 1.4x is not better IQ wise. However, that's not the main issue, it's how the AF stacks up. If it still faster and more consistent that's more important than small differences in IQ, No one be complaining about the IQ of the 100-400 + 1.4x IMO. I would never use a 2x TC on any zoom so I don't care about that and it would be silly to think the 100-400 could also replace the 400-800.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Albert Dros' and Dustin Abbott's shots with the 100-400 f/4.5 with the 1.4x looked very good to me. I have an excellent 200-600G and it would not surprise me that the 100-400 + 1.4x is not better IQ wise. However, that's not the main issue, it's how the AF stacks up. If it still faster and more consistent that's more important than small differences in IQ, No one be complaining about the IQ of the 100-400 + 1.4x IMO. I would never use a 2x TC on any zoom so I don't care about that and it would be silly to think the 100-400 could also replace the 400-800....Show more →
I think you and I might be agreeing, but in different ways. We completely agree that no one expects the 100-400 to replace the 400 to 800. Maybe it's a good replacement for the 200-600, but many of us ditched to 200-600 already for the 400-800, so that's a non-starter as a use case. To me at least, it would be silly to think I would carry a 100-400 f4.5 and a 400-800. I know there are people that would carry it with a 600 GM, but I am not one of them.
So, if I am committed to carry a 400-800 as minimal comprise and maximum versatility lens, why would I buy the new 100-400 over the old 100-400 (Better size and weight) or the 300GM I already own (smaller lighter sharper)?
The new lens clearly scratches an itch I don't have, but if you are already carrying a 600GM, that's 840mm with a 1.4X, I guess this could scratch an itch for you.
For comparison purposes:
400-800 + old 100-400 = 8.6 lbs of lens
400-800 + 300 = 8.7 lbs of lens
400-800 + new 100-400 = 9.5 lbs of lens
new 100-400 + 600GM = 10.7 lbs of lens
1.4x = 0.37 lbs
2x = 0.46 lbs
Kind of surprised that the weight difference between the new and old 100-400 is only 0.9 lbs. Given the size difference between new and old 100-400mm that is kind of impressive. Overall, I am surprised that the weight differences of all the combinations above are only a range of ~2 lbs. When you add the weight of TC to the 300mmGM, as one would typically carry both from the commentary and my past experience, there is no difference between the 400-800+300+1.4x+2x and 400-800+100-400.
Beyond the weight, the new 100-400 is 4.8 inches longer and an inch larger in diameter. The issue there is the length. My Gura Gear bag could hold both a 400-800 and new 100-400 lenses with camera bodies attached, but not much else. I might be able to squeeze in my 20-70 G but that would be it and it would be difficult.
Same old story, how much weight, how many lenses, and how much money do you want to spend, and once again comparing primes to zooms.
300 f2.8 you are stuck with one focal-length.
100-400 f4.5 you have the choice of many focal-lengths, which is similar to have many lenses.
It all depends on the person's shooting style and needs, not what anyone else deems to be the best of the two lenses. You don't know what is best for me, and I don't know what is best for you.
I’m curious about something. Many comments about a given lens is sharp, not sharp or sharper than. What does this even mean? I assume that you have an end product in mind that isn’t just pixel peeping for the sake of justifying the purchase of a given lens. Once you use these long lenses, where do they get displayed/printed/posted? Who is the audience for you telephoto images? Now, when you discuss weight, or size I have a pretty good handle on that.
Imagemaster wrote:
Well the people that make those comments seem to know what that means, and most others do also.
Thank you, that was quite helpful. I don’t doubt that they know.
It has been years since I’ve owned long telephotos that were used to shoot field sports with the original A9. When someone comments saying the 300mm GM is sharper than a given zoom, or a 2X tele-extender degrades the image, those comments are in reference to some end product, or display of the image. I’m trying to make sense of this when considering the purchase of a lens. For other purposes, or other display purposes that sort of difference isn’t really noticeable. So, this is why ask, because this thread has photographers that have some expertise with regards to these lenses and their use. Regarding autofocus speed lens weight/size and the appropriate camera, reviews seem to sort these considerations without much ambiguity.
The 300mm f2.8 is sharper than most zooms and those that know that can see the results in displayed images. Where is the ambiguity?
A 2x TC degrades images when placed on any lens. No ambiguity.
For other purposes, or other display purposes that sort of difference isn’t really noticeable.
How noticeable the difference is depends on the viewer and how large the image is displayed. Not rocket science. If you know of some secret science that is going to guarantee you will find what lens would be best for you to buy, let the rest of us know.
bwcolor wrote:
Thank you, that was quite helpful. I don’t doubt that they know.
It has been years since I’ve owned long telephotos that were used to shoot field sports with the original A9. When someone comments saying the 300mm GM is sharper than a given zoom, or a 2X tele-extender degrades the image, those comments are in reference to some end product, or display of the image. I’m trying to make sense of this when considering the purchase of a lens. For other purposes, or other display purposes that sort of difference isn’t really noticeable. So, this is why ask, because this thread has photographers that have some expertise with regards to these lenses and their use. Regarding autofocus speed lens weight/size and the appropriate camera, reviews seem to sort these considerations without much ambiguity....Show more →
You ask an objective question to a subjective answer. I usually go by the consensus of answers to gauge whether or not I’ll be happy with a lens. For example I’m toying with buying the Tamron 25-200. It “seems” like it is a decent lens, but there’s no way for me to know if I’ll like the compromises without buying it.
scott f wrote:
You ask an objective question to a subjective answer. I usually go by the consensus of answers to gauge whether or not I’ll be happy with a lens. For example I’m toying with buying the Tamron 25-200. It “seems” like it is a decent lens, but there’s no way for me to know if I’ll like the compromises without buying it.
Unfortunately, that is so true. I was following the A7Rvi and many reviews paired the camera with the new 100-400mm. I mostly shoot rangefinder friendly range of lenses, but I started getting interested in the BIF and related images. Being retired, I never turn down another option when I wake up and currently most of my photography has been travel. I was quite impressed with the Sony 300mm GM and the images were spectacular, so I was wondering what those that shoot birds, squirrels and larger animals do with their images. If it ends with posting online it seems that worrying about getting the most out of the optics seems less important than having the ultimate optics. I suspect that the need to crop is the prime motivator for chasing the last bit of resolution. The A7Rvi is perfect for cropping and APSc mode with the 300mm and occasional teleconverter seems like a great option and this assumes the subject isn’t too fast moving. Most of my images end up in inkjet albums with some printed up to 36”x40”, or so. Anyway, that was my motivation and to the extent my questions seemed foolish to some, I apologize.
bwcolor wrote:
Unfortunately, that is so true. I was following the A7Rvi and many reviews paired the camera with the new 100-400mm. I mostly shoot rangefinder friendly range of lenses, but I started getting interested in the BIF and related images. Being retired, I never turn down another option when I wake up and currently most of my photography has been travel. I was quite impressed with the Sony 300mm GM and the images were spectacular, so I was wondering what those that shoot birds, squirrels and larger animals do with their images. If it ends with posting online it seems that worrying about getting the most out of the optics seems less important than having the ultimate optics. I suspect that the need to crop is the prime motivator for chasing the last bit of resolution. The A7Rvi is perfect for cropping and APSc mode with the 300mm and occasional teleconverter seems like a great option and this assumes the subject isn’t too fast moving. Most of my images end up in inkjet albums with some printed up to 36”x40”, or so. Anyway, that was my motivation and to the extent my questions seemed foolish to some, I apologize....Show more →
Yeah, I do feel that it is the need to crop that causes a lot of bird photographers to chase the sharpest optics. I think that is why I chase sharpness more than anything.
bwcolor wrote:
I’m curious about something. Many comments about a given lens is sharp, not sharp or sharper than. What does this even mean? I assume that you have an end product in mind that isn’t just pixel peeping for the sake of justifying the purchase of a given lens. Once you use these long lenses, where do they get displayed/printed/posted? Who is the audience for you telephoto images? Now, when you discuss weight, or size I have a pretty good handle on that.
For these "big white" lenses the context is often about shooting some small bird, or distant subject, for which you really need 3000mm to fill the frame with (see illustration)
This picture is shot at 600mm, just as an example. I was standing under the tree, so its not possible to physically get closer without using a ladder or something.
aCuria wrote:
For these "big white" lenses the context is often about shooting some small bird, or distant subject, for which you really need 3000mm to fill the frame with (see illustration)
This picture is shot at 600mm, just as an example. I was standing under the tree, so its not possible to physically get closer without using a ladder or something.
Note that angular resolution is hard-limited by physics.
In an ideal lens, a 600mm f/4 will have more angular resolution than a 300mm f/4. Most people seem to understand this.
However what most people don't understand that in an ideal lens, a 300 f/2.8 will have more angular resolution than a 300mm f/5.6.
In fact the ideal 300/2.8 has as much angular resolution as the ideal 600mm f/5.6.
When comparing a 300GM with 2x to the 200-600mm f/6.3, we really are comparing which lens is closer to an ideal lens.
In theory if both are ideal the 300GM will win, but adding more glass (using a TC) does push the optics further away from its ideal state....Show more →
