Sony 100-400GM vs 400GM

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).

DavidT

DavidT

Well-known member
Supporting Member
Marketplace
Member's gallery
It isn't often you get a direct real world comparison of two lenses like this. I had a tip about an Eastern Screech-Owl and I knew I would be in very early light so I opted to take the 400GM with me and I also had the 100-400GM with me so I put it on another body and ventured out into the woods. Both lenses were attached to a Sony a1 that have identical settings. I left the house at 4:30 am and was in the woods before sunrise at 630 am. I spotted the owl around 650 am and at 1/80 at f2.8 I was at ISO 12,000. To say the least I did snap some shots not knowing if I would get much time with the owl but fortunately the light came up quickly and I was able to get a lower iso and much better shutter speed.

Luckily I found my subject and had an opportunity to photograph the owl in a couple trees as it hopped around. I had my 400GM on a ProMedia Gear tripod using the Wimberley Gimbal head. I shot the 400GM wide open at f2.8 early on however as the light improved I was able to stop down to get more of the feathers in focus and it dawned on me I had the 100-400GM on a sling and it wide open is f5.6 so I snapped a few pics to compare sharpness between the two.

I edited the 400GM first and copied over my adjustments to the 100-400GM file to keep them as close as I could get.

What I found is the sharpness between the two are very close! If I took the meta data out of the files I wonder if anyone could actually tell the difference. What I did find is the 400GM prime had a little more color pop over the zoom and was a little warmer. The color temp is the same for both images. Not much but I could see it but if you didn't have them side by side I wouldn't have thought one was off and I sure wouldn't have been disappointed in either image.

The 100-400 was handheld and at f5.6 and iso 800, the 400GM was at f5 and ISO 500. Both shot at 1/400. So not 100% same but close enough for real world comparisons.

At the end of the day the real advantage the 400GM has is the f2.8 aperture which is worth the price of entry however in quality light the 100-400GM holds it's own and is a lot smaller, lighter and cheaper. The 400GM at f2.8 allowed me to get images much sooner and required al little less post processing work to have the colors I would prefer. As you will see below the 100-400 isn't as warm even though the two pictures are taken at close to the same time and with the same WB settings. I could adjust the 100-400 to match but I thought it is better to show the difference they must have in coatings etc.

What do you think?

20231118-_A1A9467-2.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.


20231118-_A1B8195-2.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
The rending with the 400GM is nicer - the transitions from in to out off focus are smoother. Still, at first glance it's incredibly close. (I have to admit, I kind of lean towards #2 because the trunk behind him isn't touching his ear, but that's not a lens thing).

I just want to know how you get luck enough to find such a good little subject! Great shots and great comparison. :)
 
Member's gallery
Steve said:
The rending with the 400GM is nicer - the transitions from in to out off focus are smoother. Still, at first glance it's incredibly close. (I have to admit, I kind of lean towards #2 because the trunk behind him isn't touching his ear, but that's not a lens thing).

I just want to know how you get luck enough to find such a good little subject! Great shots and great comparison. :)
Click to expand...
Yeah I would agree on the ear, I would take either but I do agree the slight difference leaning around the 400 on a tripod made just enough difference that I should have noticed that when shooting the 400GM. Owl fever is a real thing lol.

I just bought the 100-400 last month with the intention to use it mostly for bugs and flowers and from what use I have had shooting bugs and flowers it will be great! I also thought when just wanting to put a body and lens in my carry on luggage for work travel this would be a handy combo with a TC for after work shooting. After seeing what I saw yesterday I don't think I would be giving up to much not packing a prime for such a trip.

I am lucky to have some friends who are retired that get to shoot a lot more than me and help me out with some spots :). You will have to convince Rose that camo is cool because in this instance I think it helped a lot!
 
Member's gallery
Steve said:
The rending with the 400GM is nicer - the transitions from in to out off focus are smoother. Still, at first glance it's incredibly close. (I have to admit, I kind of lean towards #2 because the trunk behind him isn't touching his ear, but that's not a lens thing).

I just want to know how you get luck enough to find such a good little subject! Great shots and great comparison. :)
Click to expand...
BTW I agree but I would guess for most the $9,000 price difference most would call it good enough.
 
Member's gallery
This owl is absolutely stunning. I've photographed both western and eastern species, but have never had the opportunity to photograph a red-phase screech. I'm engaged in a conversation about Nikon lens comparisons at the moment, and your photos support everything that I've been saying... The modern lenses of today are so good, that deciding which to buy doesn't need to boil down to sharpness... these lenses (for Sony 100-400, 200-600, 400, 600, for Canon's spread, and for Nikon's spread) are all sharp, one's decision should be about the use case. Specifically,
1: how much distance is there between you-the subject-the background?
2: what focal length matches your compositional intent?
3: how much available light do you have?
4: how much are you willing to carry?
5: how much are you willing to spend?

By the way, I like the second shot best because you get a nice look-back with an amazing lean pose of the bird's full body....
edited... not looking back, just greater extension... got to love the illusion of that feather pattern :)
Bravo!!
bruce
 
Member's gallery
BLev65 said:
This owl is absolutely stunning. I've photographed both western and eastern species, but have never had the opportunity to photograph a red-phase screech. I'm engaged in a conversation about Nikon lens comparisons at the moment, and your photos support everything that I've been saying... The modern lenses of today are so good, that deciding which to buy doesn't need to boil down to sharpness... these lenses (for Sony 100-400, 200-600, 400, 600, for Canon's spread, and for Nikon's spread) are all sharp, one's decision should be about the use case. Specifically,
1: how much distance is there between you-the subject-the background?
2: what focal length matches your compositional intent?
3: how much available light do you have?
4: how much are you willing to carry?
5: how much are you willing to spend?

By the way, I like the second shot best because you get a nice look-back with an amazing lean pose of the bird's full body....
edited... not looking back, just greater extension... got to love the illusion of that feather pattern :)
Bravo!!
bruce
Click to expand...
This is some f2.8 love right here!
20231118-_A1B6516-2.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
very nice shots and stunning how close they are from an apperance and quality perspective. For sure there will be scenarios with much less light where the zoom sees no land vs a 2.8 prime. Even if one is ready to spend 10k for a lens it's the question how often you are in the situation where you need that extra f2.8.

I'm a happy Z600mm TC/f4 owner but the 400 f2.8's are really tempting, too :) - as it would extend the time you can shoot by a fair bit dusk/dawn time...and I feel the f2.8 just draw something magical when shot at these very times a day.

I met this young fox when waiting for badgers it was around 21:15 and failry dim already - I had my Z400 f/4.5 with me at 1/100s and the scene asked for ISO14k - still usable with post- denoising but really at the "edge"...that's the moments where a 400mm f2.8 would excel for sure. Am I mad enough to have a 600mm f4 AND get a 400mm 2.8?? mmmmh -maybe :)

Z09_8583-Verbessert-RR.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
12markus12 said:
very nice shots and stunning how close they are from an apperance and quality perspective. For sure there will be scenarios with much less light where the zoom sees no land vs a 2.8 prime. Even if one is ready to spend 10k for a lens it's the question how often you are in the situation where you need that extra f2.8.

I'm a happy Z600mm TC/f4 owner but the 400 f2.8's are really tempting, too :) - as it would extend the time you can shoot by a fair bit dusk/dawn time...and I feel the f2.8 just draw something magical when shot at these very times a day.

I met this young fox when waiting for badgers it was around 21:15 and failry dim already - I had my Z400 f/4.5 with me at 1/100s and the scene asked for ISO14k - still usable with post- denoising but really at the "edge"...that's the moments where a 400mm f2.8 would excel for sure. Am I mad enough to have a 600mm f4 AND get a 400mm 2.8?? mmmmh -maybe :)

View attachment 74687
Click to expand...
Stunning shot! I’d love to have it in my portfolio!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top