John Navitsky
Well-known member
i think it’s a great lens, but i’d add lens creep, extension amount and amount of turn to zoom (based on my recollection).
but image quality, focus speed and accuracy and flexibility make those nits
Anyone have the sony 100-400?
- Thread starter sh1209
- Start date
If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).
i think it’s a great lens, but i’d add lens creep, extension amount and amount of turn to zoom (based on my recollection).
but image quality, focus speed and accuracy and flexibility make those nits
I haven’t bought one as I have the 200-600 and 600GM but had kicked it around. However I bought the new 70-200f2.8 OSS II and with the 1.4 and 2x it’s so good I don’t see the point anymore. It’s faster, lighter and internal zoom.
I don’t use it often but have been happy with it when doing so…
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
RikWriter
Well-known member
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
John Navitsky
Well-known member
yah, but if you get it tight enough not to creep it becomes a bit too stiff to my liking. again, minor nits
I originally ordered the wimberly foot but I’ve decided to order the rrs foot. I don’t have much room between the lens and foot and it looks like the rrs foot is spaced more from the lens. I should have it Friday.
I bought a hejnar for my 500pf and sent it back. Wasn’t fond of the design. I have Kirk feet on all my other lenses and really like them but unfortunately can’t find one for this lens. I like the fact that they have the QD socket so I can connect my camera strap to it easily. The RRS foot looks like the Kirk design so I’m hoping I like it better plus it looks like the space is probably double the Wimberley foot I have now. I’ll never for the life of me understand why an expensive lens like that does not come with a Arca Swiss plate foot. I’ve noticed some of the guys like Mark Smith uses plates on the factory foot but I’ve never been a fan of plates that I’ve tried in the past.
As you can see here at the point of the ring it’s 5/8 of an inch then further up toward the base it’s roughly 11/16 of an inch. I would be satisfied if it was a quarter inch wide or gap all the way down and looking at the pictures of the RRS plate it seems to be about that much or more.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
I am stuck in this decision..the 70-200 OSS II plus TC or the 100-400. A nod to the macroesk for the 1-4 but a nod to 70-200 for internal zoom. Ugh. Still thinking. Would love to hear from others. I would also use this lens as a lighter option for BIF to the 2-6.
I would absolutely go with a 100 to 400. With the 1.4 The 100 to 400 is just a more versatile lens and honestly I’m not sure I will keep my Nikon 70 to 200 after getting this Lens. Also you will save more than $1000 by just getting the 100 to 400 as opposed to a lens and two teleconverters.
Keep me informed on how it goes with the TC. I have no interest in any 2.0 but my Z1.4 on the 70-200 is indistinguishable in image quality from the bare lens. I just don’t know how much I will use the 70 to 200 at this point because it’s just as heavy as the 100 to 400 because it’s a F2.8.
Thanks Steven....I forgot to add this would be a landscape lens as well. I agree about the price as well. I am headed to Scotland in July with equal emphasis on birds and landscapes and was thinking of either the 100-400 or 70-200, leave the 2-6 home and take the 600 plus 24-105...and perhaps a 16-35. The 100-400 would also work for a floating blind workshop plus some macro work that is included. Decisions, decisions.....
You do like a challenge! Eager to hear how it goes. Any concerns over copy variance? All the reviews/boards I could find didn't mention this. And that deck of yours that comes with coffee and gimbal mount...jealous!
But you’ll have a lot slower f stop with the 100-400 and if you already have the 200-600 I wouldn’t use the 100-400 with tele. Not a fan of cranking up iso.
Mark Smith has mentioned this in several videos. He has the 100-400, 200-600 and 600GM. He never used the 100-400 anymore. I think I’d be in the same camp and when I do I’ve got the 70-200 which is amazing and is gorgeous with both teles. It’s also a great macro lens and works nicely with an extension tube.
I took these with the 70-200 mkII
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
So far I really like it and look forward to using it for insects and flowers because it’s so light
arbitrage
Well-known member
The internal zoom is certainly a plus. The 100-400 zoom is not a nice mechanism in my opinion. The tight setting isn't tight enough and the loose setting isn't loose enough and the throw to go 100 to 400 is too long.
As far as macroesk, the 70-200 has 0.3x at 40cm at 200mm where as the 100-400 has 0.35x at 98cm. But if you throw a 2xTC on the 70-200 then it will be 0.6x at 40cm so a lot more macro than the 100-400. Of course you can throw TCs on the 100-400 and get up to 0.7x at 98cm at 800mm. Although I never really found the 100-400/2x to pair that well. I think the 70-200II is now just as good as a semi-macro lens as the 100-400. I think the 100-400 benefit is a very nice 560 f/8 lens where as the 70-200 maxes at 400 and I'm really not convinced if the 2xTC is going to produce an image anywhere near the bare 100-400 at 400.
Here is the Digital Picture MM/MFD chart for those two lenses and others in that range:
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Also if you compare the IQ at 400mm of these two lenses the 100-400 is noticeably better than 70-200/2x in the TDP charts: https://www.the-digital-picture.com...eraComp=1106&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0
arbitrage
Well-known member
I owned 2 copies of 100-400 over the years (sold off my first because I bought the RF 100-500 and it was redundant but when I divested from Canon I purchased a new copy of 100-400).
I certainly saw copy variation just with my n=2 sample size. I noticed this compared to my 200-600. 1st copy was only on par with 200-600 @ 400 and at 560 was worse than 200-600. My 2nd copy was better at 400 than my 200-600 and pretty much on par when comparing 560 vs 560/600. My 200-600 is an n=1 sample so who knows where it stands but that did prove to me that not every 100-400 is created equal.
That’s what I have experienced in the past as well was teleconverters. It seems like anything over 1.4 you definitely start to notice the image degradation. I will say the 1.4 Z teleconverter with a 70 to 200 F2.8 is just about absolutely indistinguishable from the bare Lens. I also think the IQ is a tad better on the 100/400 over the 200/600.
arbitrage
Well-known member
If the swallows are close enough for 400mm than it is probably the best lens because it is so agile and has the dual-linear motors giving it an edge over the 200-600. 400GM would be better for AF speed but loose out in agility and arm fatigue.
I tried out the 100-400 last year on swallows (although I primarily suffer through with the 600GM...arms don't thank me after that much handholding).
A few examples. Last one with 1.4TC on the 100-400...
April 11, 2021.jpg by Bird/Wildlife Photos, on Flickr
April 11, 2021.jpg by Bird/Wildlife Photos, on Flickr
April 11, 2021-2.jpg by Bird/Wildlife Photos, on Flickr
April 11, 2021.jpg by Bird/Wildlife Photos, on Flickr
April 11, 2021-2.jpg by Bird/Wildlife Photos, on Flickr
As you can see here the 100/400 is smaller than the 70/200 collapsed which is nice for travel. It also feels lighter. It by no means matches the IQ of the 70/200 but it’s darn close. In my opinion the Nikon 24 to 70 F2. 8 Z in the 70 to 202.8 Z are the sharpest telephoto lenses I’ve ever seen. I can definitely see this 100 to 400 Sony lens being a fantastic travel option that will cover most anything
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Very helpful....thanks!
I was concerned about the throw for BIF as well and the creep. At the end of the day, it is also about sharpness for me. Will look the charts over again and probably decide with this priority.
Nice chart! I picked up the Tamron 70-180 for a second more compact lens and didn’t realize it focuses closer than my MII Sony. I’ll have to give it a try, it’s still in the box
Picture is worth a thousand words. Sharpest grabs my attention each time. Thanks!
I agree with your thinking. I have the Wimberley foot and it's tight for my hand to fit in when carrying. But doable, so I''m keeping it.
It is a well made foot but just needs a tad more space. I’m going to keep it until the other one arrives to make sure it’s better.