How about a 150-400 f4 lens?

[garykohs]

As a high school baseball shooter, which I am this time of year, that's the lens I really want. I don't need in body stabilization. I want it to be as light as possible.

This would seem to me to be an excellent opportunity for Tamron.

I currently use the Sigma 120-300/2.8 in Canon EF mount with the Sigma MC-11 adaptor to shoot baseball under the lights. If they made that in E mount, I'd be a buyer. But I'd rather trade the extra speed for the extra reach and potentially lighter weight of the f4.

Anyone else want such a lens?

 

[nzmacro]

Would you be willing to pay $7500 US for it like the Olympus 150-400mm F/4.5 lens. I know some would and a lot have.

Danny.

 

[SafariBob]

As a high school baseball shooter, which I am this time of year, that's the lens I really want. I don't need in body stabilization. I want it to be as light as possible.

This would seem to me to be an excellent opportunity for Tamron.

I currently use the Sigma 120-300/2.8 in Canon EF mount with the Sigma MC-11 adaptor to shoot baseball under the lights. If they made that in E mount, I'd be a buyer. But I'd rather trade the extra speed for the extra reach and potentially lighter weight of the f4.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1383763-REG/nikon_180_400mm_f_4e_tc_1_4.html

Anyone else want such a lens?

--

no thanks, The 200-600 does The job better and cheaper

Gary
http://www.kleinoak.org/a700/mustang_a700.jpg

 

[dth29]

I'd rather prefer a lightweight Sony 100-300/4 (with imternal zoom) that is compatible to the 1,4x tc - more or less a half 200-600, but faster.

 

[Barugon]

As a high school baseball shooter, which I am this time of year, that's the lens I really want. I don't need in body stabilization. I want it to be as light as possible.

This would seem to me to be an excellent opportunity for Tamron.

I currently use the Sigma 120-300/2.8 in Canon EF mount with the Sigma MC-11 adaptor to shoot baseball under the lights. If they made that in E mount, I'd be a buyer. But I'd rather trade the extra speed for the extra reach and potentially lighter weight of the f4.

Anyone else want such a lens?

I don't think a lens like that would be significantly lighter (if any lighter) than your 120-300/2.8 as it would have about the same size front element.

 

[Tim S]

I would like a Sony fit 120-300mm f/2.8, don't understand what's taking Sigma so long.

The 150-400mm is a dream wildlife photographers lens on the 2x crop of olympus 300-800mm, not sure as to its usefulness on a full frame body. But it has to be said there's a constantly mentioned void in Sony's fast long glass line up. The F/6.3 200-600mm is no use in dark places.

 

[alphaZ]

As a high school baseball shooter, which I am this time of year, that's the lens I really want. I don't need in body stabilization. I want it to be as light as possible.

This would seem to me to be an excellent opportunity for Tamron.

I currently use the Sigma 120-300/2.8 in Canon EF mount with the Sigma MC-11 adaptor to shoot baseball under the lights. If they made that in E mount, I'd be a buyer. But I'd rather trade the extra speed for the extra reach and potentially lighter weight of the f4.

You have something close on Sony already!

Fit the 1.4*tc to the first or second generation 70-200 2.8 and You have essentially a 100-300 f4! I dont know how many pixels you shoot with on Canon but many Sony cameras are high Mega pixel with excellent aps mode/ resolution, if you shoot in aps mode you then have 150-400 f4

 

[jhunna]

I'd rather prefer a lightweight Sony 100-300/4 (with imternal zoom) that is compatible to the 1,4x tc - more or less a half 200-600, but faster.

YES! This right here... Give it a 72mm filter thread if possible, and it fits in well with the 16-35/f4 PZ and the 50GM.... With this kit I would not need anything else. Especially with the internal zoom and TC compatibility!

 

[jhunna]

As a high school baseball shooter, which I am this time of year, that's the lens I really want. I don't need in body stabilization. I want it to be as light as possible.

This would seem to me to be an excellent opportunity for Tamron.

I currently use the Sigma 120-300/2.8 in Canon EF mount with the Sigma MC-11 adaptor to shoot baseball under the lights. If they made that in E mount, I'd be a buyer. But I'd rather trade the extra speed for the extra reach and potentially lighter weight of the f4.

You have something close on Sony already!

Fit the 1.4*tc to the first or second generation 70-200 2.8 and You have essentially a 100-300 f4! I dont know how many pixels you shoot with on Canon but many Sony cameras are high Mega pixel with excellent aps mode/ resolution, if you shoot in aps mode you then have 150-400 f4

I have this set up on my radar... but if they come out with a 100-300/4 internal zoom all bets are off...

 

[garykohs]

I no longer shoot Canon. I have an A9 and an A1.

I know I could shoot my 70-200GM in APS-C mode on the A1, giving me 280mm reach at f2.8, but that's just not enough reach for baseball. And it's less reach than the Sigma 120-300.

 

[garykohs]

No, I wouldn't pay that. I think a Tamron or Sigma lens would be considerably cheaper than that.

 

[garykohs]

That wouldn't tempt me at all. I wouldn't trade a 120-300/2.8 for a 100-300/4.

 

[UncleVanya]

I no longer shoot Canon. I have an A9 and an A1.

I know I could shoot my 70-200GM in APS-C mode on the A1, giving me 280mm reach at f2.8, but that's just not enough reach for baseball. And it's less reach than the Sigma 120-300.

The new 70-200 GM II fitted with the 1.4x or 2x gets you mostly there. The GM II performance with the teleconverters is stunning based on what I’ve seen in a few tests I’ve read online where they shot wildlife with that combo this contrasts with the less impressive performance of the older 70-200/2.8 GM which wasn’t bad but didn’t offer the same level of sharpness and focusing speed when fitted with either teleconverter.

GM II plus 1.4x is 98-280/4 and with the 2x it is 140-400/5.6 - the existing 100-400/4.5-5.6 is also rather close but the GM II gives you a package that is internally zooming if that matters. Your literally only one stop off your “ideal” and adding more speed would make the lens heavier.

 

[garykohs]

Shooting at f5.6 means my ISO 12,800 shots become ISO 51,200 shots. I've tried that with the 100-400GM. The outfield shots are about the same (due to less cropping) but at a considerable quality cost to the infield shots.

 

[Phil Shaw]

How about a 300/2.8 with a built-in 1.4x (as Nikon has done with their latest 400/2.8). It's going to be expensive (but all 300/2.8 lenses are expensive), but that would sure get my interest. Formerly shooting Canon gear, I always had a 300/2.8. Shooting with Nikon gear I had the the 200-400 f4 mk1 and latterly, the 180-400 f4 with the built-in 1.4x (I really loved that lens and was sorry to let it go). Sony currently do not really have any fast 300mm lenses - surely a hole in their line-up.

This was supposed to be a "reply to thread" post, rather than a reply to a specific post.

 

[UncleVanya]

Shooting at f5.6 means my ISO 12,800 shots become ISO 51,200 shots. I've tried that with the 100-400GM. The outfield shots are about the same (due to less cropping) but at a considerable quality cost to the infield shots.

That is a bit confusing as you are mixing your f2.8 results with the proposed f4. So f5.6 isn’t a penalty of 12800 to 51200. It’s a penalty of 25600 to 51200. Honestly I don’t think there is anything to suggest other than a 400mm GM f2.8 at this point.

 

[jbuzzinco]

I like the idea of 200-400mm f4. But in reality I've found them to be too cumbersome and waaaay too expensive. The price of the Oly 150-400 f4.5 is just silly. Canon prices the 200-400 f4 nearly the same as the 400 f2.8. I vastly prefer the Canon 400mm f4 DO at 2/3 the weight and 2/3 the price. I'd be first in line for an E-mount 400 f4 or 300 f2.8.

It baffles me that Fuji is the only mirrorless platform to provide a 300 f2.8 equivalent. Too bad they dropped the ball and haven't offered any other sports appropriate lenses.

For now, I think the new Sony 70-200 f2.8 + 1.4x TC is probably the best you can do.

 

[LenRivers]

It’s a good idea. the f4 version but not sure since Sony has a 100-400 mm. If they did it with just a G not GM I bet the lens would be at least $500 less

maybe there is a reason a fixed F4 does not make sense in this telephoto type range Maybe the 70-200 f4 is supposed to be …….
If sensor size does not matter maybe micro 4/3’s or Fuji X as an idea.

 

[garykohs]

I don't know why it's confusing. I'm willing to live with 25,600 but not 51,200.

 

[SafariBob]

I don't know why it's confusing. I'm willing to live with 25,600 but not 51,200.

--
Gary
http://www.kleinoak.org/a700/mustang_a700.jpg