Sony FE 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 GM sample gallery

https://alphauniverse.com/stories/sony-a9-goes-to-the-races/

Seems like it does very well with a 2x TC at f:11 from this real world photography test:

3 months ago*permalink

angus rocks

i think the a9 has some beautiful noise/grain.

3 months agopermalink

AngularJS

Very nice images. Just one question to the DPR staff - why did you guys use the A9 for the static shots, but the A7r2 for the action shots? :)

3 months agopermalink

PieterB

That is actually a good question.

3 months agopermalink

osv

my guess is that the higher resolution of the a7rii is a more demanding test of the lens.

3 months agopermalink

Carey Rose

Great question. I had the a9 with a wideangle on a trigger system that had some malfunctions for many of the horse-jumping action shots, so I was left with the a7R II for this lens.

3 months agopermalink

LevinK

It maybe just me but I see dramatic difference with sharpness wide open and stepped down. Just compare #2 and #4, almost the same settings (other than aperture), static subject both cases but the difference is between boring and a WOW. Thought it might be out of focus but other photos wide open also don't impress that much.
Is this normal with such lenses? I'm a newbie and just curious what others have to say.
For the record, not nitpicking I do think it's an impressive lens.

3 months agopermalink

muvovum

the difference are distance to subject and from subject to background.

3 months agopermalink

guyfawkes

Look at #4 @ 100% or in lupe mode. An incredible performance for a zoom at 400mm.

3 months agopermalink

beavertown

How does it compare to the Canon and Sigma counterparts those new era of industry standard?

3 months agopermalink

petr19710

Lovely bokeh for a zoom lens. Similar to Minolta's 400 4.5

3 months agopermalink

Maybe even a tad softer! Love the 400 mm Minolta, but I also appreciate the flexibility of such a long telezoom lens.

3 months ago*permalink

Dan Vincent

Certainly better than the 70-400's bokeh, which was no slouch. Better bokeh or a wider zoom end... tough call.

3 months agopermalink

petr19710

sold the 70-400 because bokeh was not up to my taste. my 400 copy is much sharper with better acceptable bokeh to compare. But the new 100-400 surprise me with a result.

3 months agopermalink

Thanks for the gallery. The lens looks pretty good. Is it my imagination, or have Sony worked very hard to make it work better at the long end (a bit like the old Olympus 18-180 and unlike most zooms)?

These samples also show how much cleaner the A9 is than the A7r2. Interesting.

I do wish you people would learn to use the aperture control on your cameras...

3 months agopermalink

osv

there isn't any technical explanation for how an a9 could be "cleaner" than a higher rez a7rii... the a9 certainly doesn't have better d.r.

what you said there doesn't make sense.

3 months ago*permalink

(Stifles a yawn): I looked at the pictures. You could too.

3 months agopermalink

Anadrol

If you would mix A9 pictures and A7R2 pictures downsized to 24 MP,
without EXIF you wouldn't be able to tell which is which...

3 months agopermalink

Funny you say that. I tried just that (before I even posted my comment), with the particular images which had caught my eye (from this gallery) and it turns out that you are wrong! You would have to go to the trouble of processing the RAW files with that intent to get that effect. However, none of that changes my observation, does it? That much noise at 200"ISO" is surprising.

3 months agopermalink

Am comparing this to Nikon 80-400mm and Canon 100-400mm IS2. The Canikon ones seem better, and of course the Canon IS2 is the best of the x-400mm f/5.6 bunch. Having said that, one should done better justice to this lens, especially at 400mm. Most of the photos seem like snapshots.

3 months ago*permalink

Did you use identical lighting and distance setups for each lens? Oh wait... you compared these lenses in your MIND. I see. And the Sony wasn't as good? What's the main issue - chromatic aberrations? Internal reflections? Veiling glare? Light scatter?

3 months ago*permalink

nilanjanray:
Where are the link to your test photos taken with these lenses, so that we can compare ourselves?

Also, I would be pleased to see the pictures from your test, since they are more than just snapshots. :-D

3 months agopermalink

Sorry, I don't waste time testing different brands just for the sake of testing. I like taking certain types of photos not shooting test charts and obsessing about minor stuff that are not so relevant in the field. And yes, I compared them in my mind, after having used the Canikon ones - the Nikon a lot, the Canon a little. The only photos that I liked were the horse riding ones, the others are just random snapshots.

But I can understand how these photos could appeal to some people, going by their remarks :-)

Edit: photo #22 is a perfect example of what I am saying.

3 months ago*permalink

Frenske

So you like horses and you don't like Sony. That probably sums it up.

3 months agopermalink

Alpha Jack

"Sorry, I don't waste time testing different brands just for the sake of testing..." but you take time to write an opinion comparing lenses in your mind's eye.

3 months agopermalink

To nilanjanray: Often polple see what we want to see ... enough said.

3 months agopermalink

1. @Frenske: No, I like some action, so liked the horse shots. Rest were shot in horrible light. And while I joke about being a Nikon fanguy, I am actually gear agnostic, whatever helps in getting a decent shot. It is my money, right?
:-) I am actually considering Sony for my non-wildlife stuff.

2. @Alpha Jack: Yes, since I saw the article on DPReview homepage, I shared my opinion.

3. @Magnar W: whatever. I do wish the reviewers would take the effort to take a few interesting shots, worthy of a new lens or camera.

3 months ago*permalink

chshooter

Not bad for a zoom lens but also nothing to write home about. Definitely no alternative for a 400mm prime. I don't see any use for it except casual wildlife photography in good conditions

3 months agopermalink

It IS an alternative to a prime - that's what all zoom lenses are. It's not a substitute for a prime - which is probably what you meant.

I don't need a lens like this but since most manufacturers have one there must be a need.

3 months agopermalink

chshooter

Sorry for the confusion, I'm not a native English speaker. Isometimes forget that this is an American forum only

3 months agopermalink

Everythingis1

This lens has substantially more use cases than a 400mm prime lens, not just "casual wildlife photography in good conditions"

3 months ago*permalink

RubberDials: Actually the Sony A mount 70-400 mm zoom lens is very close to the Minolta APO 400 mm f:4.5 prime lens wide open. The apo lens has a bit smoother bokeh (quality of unsharp areas, compared at f:5.6). I would not be surprised if this new zoom exceeds the apo prime wide open both for sharpness and bokeh at f:5.6.

If a brigher lens is needed, then primes will do the trick.

3 months agopermalink

Nick Brundle - Photography

There have been some brilliant wildlife photos taken by pros using xx-400 mm f/4.5 -f/5.6 zooms. More to photos than brightness and absolute sharpness. The greatest things about such zooms are the flexibility and (light) weight.

3 months agopermalink

Would like to see a comparison/test against the Nikon 80-400mm f4.5-5.6d Af vr and Canon 100-400mm Ef f4.5-5.6l is usm mkii.
That could be interesting.

3 months agopermalink

jwang88

The lens looks sharp but I am a little surprised to see some noise in the shady area even at very low ISO.

3 months agopermalink

Alex Permit

I wonder if DPR generated the Jpeg from raws using ACR. ACR messed up their presets for cameras released after 2014. When using lightroom I find I need to decrease shadows by 10 and increase color by 15 for such cameras, to get back to what ACR used to do. Without doing this, I get noise in the shadows, even at base ISO.

3 months ago*permalink

I took some pictures that were printed as spreads a high quality book because of the content, and they printed very well.

Then I posted the same photos on a web forum for photography, and most people just noticed the noise.

What is wrong with photographers?

3 months agopermalink

Mike99999

The bokeh on this lens is outstanding. I'll be trading in my 70-400 G2 for this one.

3 months agopermalink

I hope someone finds time to compare the two lenses. I tried that 70-400 a while ago and it really surprised me.

3 months agopermalink

Vit Adamek

Nice shoots, very good IQ.

3 months agopermalink

rfsIII

This is like going to the optometrist except we're comparing the lenses to their Nikon/Canon equivalents. So is it it better? Worse? Or about the same.

3 months agopermalink

Performance is academic unless you're switching systems because neither a Canon or Nikon user can use it, although the Sony user can choose between all three.

3 months agopermalink

expressivecanvas

I've been very happy with the image quality of my Canon 400mm f5.6L on my a7 and a6000, but I might need to consider this lens too. Image quality of the Sony 100-400 is probably not as good as the 400L but versatility and speed would improve with the Sony 100-400. I have to say that this new Sony 100-400 lens is what I wanted more than two years ago! I'll wait another season and see whether or not I really need it. The weight is about the same... the Sony is a bit more compact though... I'm sure the image quality is better on the Canon prime... speed and versatility would be nice for some situations though. Is that worth another $2500 though?...

3 months agopermalink

FuhTeng

Remember your 400 f/5.6 is OLD. Per LR testing, the 100-400 is better at 400 mm, which is a terrific feat - https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/08/the-sort-of-great-400mm-shootout/

If the new Sony is as good as the Canon 100-400 II L, then it's better than your 400 prime (nevermind the advantages of no adapter required). However, if it's as... unimpressive as the Nikon 80-400, welp, I'd save myself the money.

3 months agopermalink

mart1234

My copy of the 100-400-2 was not as sharp as my 400 5,6. The edges of the prime were better. Didn't matter much though.

3 months agopermalink

I've seen the 100-400L II used for landscapes with 5Ds cameras- if the new Sony can meet or beat that level of performance, they definitely have a winner!

3 months agopermalink

Boeing skipper

I used to have the 400mm f5.6 L and the 100-400 version 1, my 400 prime was significantly sharper. I don't know about the 100-400 II, but the 400/5.6 was and still is a fine lens. I sold it because of versatility and IS needs ...
The Sony FE looks quite decent too, it's hard to tell but it still doesn't look sharper than the Canon 400/5.6 L.

3 months agopermalink

expressivecanvas

Looking at the sample photos and testing them in ACR and C1, the sharpness looks pretty good on this new Sony lens. What is a bit bothersome for me, however, is the bokeh appears a bit nervous at 400mm especially when compared to my images from the Canon 400mm f5.6L. This affects overall perception of the quality of the image. The versatility, speed and smaller size of this lens (when compared to the 400L with Metabones adapter) may weigh more heavily than some of the nitpicking on image quality though... that being said, I'm not compelled to hit the "Add to Cart" button just yet.

3 months agopermalink

DoubleDash

And no one thinks this lens performs well?

I think the first pictures look really good and sharp

3 months agopermalink

NicoPPC

Which one ?

I could not see a sharp picture.

3 months agopermalink

Dear Nico: you should see an eye doctor... for instance check #4, the wrinkles under her eyes are actually too sharp...

3 months agopermalink

IdM photography

I agree, very sharp...

3 months agopermalink

Who is 'no one'?

Even as I regularly criticize Sony's cameras (or, those who promote them without recognizing their limitations), Sony has stepped up their glass game in a hurry.

They've now released just about every lens that one would need in native form, consider T/S lenses and other specialties adaptable if needed, short of native super-telephoto lenses that they do not really have a market for yet.

[and if they'd been willing to engineer a proper adapter solution to provide native performance as Canon and Nikon have for their mirrorless systems, they'd at least have a 300/2.8 and 500/4 ready to use!]

3 months agopermalink

Gerard Hoffnung

@biza43 Yes, that caught my eye too (groan) Never mention the word wrinkle to a lady though, those are "character lines" :)

3 months agopermalink

NicoPPC

@biza43: #4. is "ok" sharp, the technical quality of this picture is "meh" / low. Especially at f8, ISO 320, 4 500$ + 2500 $ equipement.

To me, it's quiet disappointing.

3 months ago*permalink

IdM photography

Yes Gerard, absolutely true :)

3 months agopermalink

@John C Tharp
John, Sony already has that adaptor - LA-EA3.

3 months agopermalink

@NicoPPC
What is the low 'technical quality' you're referring to in picture #4?

Have you ever shot a 400mm lens? Image contrast is vastly reduced at this focal length. This is an outstanding result. The subject is backlit and has reflective jewellery yet there is no visible fringing.

If you think this is 'meh' I would question your experience of using long telephoto lenses.

3 months agopermalink

NicoPPC

It's very granny, not really sharp and look no so good. At least not for the price to my opinion.

Yes. With the old 100-400 from canon.

3 months agopermalink

Sony has an 'adapter', and it is at best halfarsed because lenses adapted via Sony's adapters are not native!

When you adapt Canon EF to Canon EF-M, for example, you get full native functionality; on Sony, you don't. You lose EyeAF, lose AF coverage, and you lose speed- and if you use a screw-driven lens, you lose AF altogether!

Of course, you can use the screw-driven adapter, the LA-EA4, but then you have to use its ancient A77 I-based AF module with all of its limitations!

In other words, you get more functionality with Sigma EF-mount lenses and their EF->E-mount adapter on Sony cameras than you get using Sony's own adapters; so, if you wanted to say get the full potential out of your 1.8/135 ZA, you'd have to ditch your mirrorless camera, and pick up an A99 II; *or*, you could just pick of a Sigma lens and adapter for less :D.

3 months agopermalink

PWPhotography

I have seen some samples in Flickr from this lens, amazingly sharp. It appears as sharp as Canon 100-400L/4.5-5.6 IS II.

3 months agopermalink

At just $1,800, PanLeica's 100-400 is starting to look like a bargain. It's slower at the long end, but brighter at the wide end.

3 months ago*permalink

brendon1000

Not to knock on the Panasonic lens but its designed to cover a 4 times smaller sensor. Hence it requires less glass.

3 months agopermalink

That's incorrect. The PanLeica is slightly smaller because its max aperture at the long end is f6.3, not f5.6. Regardless of format, a 300mm f4 is roughly the same size. I had one for 35mm SLR and one for 67 - same size. I just checked online, and Pentax' 300/4 for medium format is smaller and lighter than Canon's for 35mm. Check it out.

3 months ago*permalink

mferencz

Slightly smaller? The 300mm f4 is a good deal larger than the PanLeica

3 months agopermalink

The Lotus Eater

It also has an equivalent aperture of f/8-12.6. It should be a bargain.

3 months agopermalink

mferencz, you've misread my post. The PanLeica 100-400 is slightly smaller than the Sony 100-400, thanks to it's smaller max aperture, not because of the size of the sensor it covers. A Pentax 300/4 for 645 format is smaller and lighter than a Canon 300/4 for 35mm format, which shows that covering more sensor/film area doesn't require more glass. Generally speaking, a lens of a given max aperture and focal length will be roughly the same size, regardless of the format it's designed for, especially at normal-to-tele focal lengths.

3 months ago*permalink

aephe

@Lotus I didn't think having that much DoF at those focal lengths was an issue...on the contrary, I think that's a plus!

3 months agopermalink

brendon1000

The Panaleica is 985 gms. The Sony and Canon versions are much heavier approx 1400 gms.

Regardless both are incomparable lenses. One is designed for a quarter frame m43 sensor format and the other is designed for a 35mm format.

3 months agopermalink

Alex Permit

Jacques, yes by definition. The maximum aperature is the ratio of the focal length to the diameter of the entrance pupil. In these lenses, the diameter of the lens is equal to the diamter of the entrance pupil.

3 months agopermalink

rfsIII

I completely disagree with the "equivalent" balderdash, but it's true that if you want to match lenses across formats—equivalent aperture for equivalent aperture, freedom from lens aberration, and identical field of view— the lenses will be the same size.
A good example is the Olympus 14-35 f/2 which is about the same size as the Canon and Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 lenses.

3 months ago*permalink

When the Panaleica covers a FF sensor let me know, ok?

3 months agopermalink

mferencz

It doesn't have to cover a FF sensor Biza43. When you understand that let me know.

3 months agopermalink

Dear mferencz: ok then, how can I use the wonderful panaleica lens on my Sony FF camera?

3 months agopermalink

The PanaLeica 100-400 shouldn't even enter into the conversation outside of running an extreme crop on the Sony/Canon/etc. lenses.

If there was a 200-800 lens available for full-frame, we could talk about it, but these are really two different classes of lenses for two different systems.

[you wouldn't compare a 24mm M4/3 lens to a 24mm full-frame lens, would you?]

3 months agopermalink

Dear John: I agree, I only mentioned it because the OP above said that it was a great option at 1800 USD. A great option for m43 systems, sure.

3 months agopermalink

Keyboq

Bargain? I would go for Nikon p900, 4.3 to 357 mm f2.8 to 6.5 at only $500, and a free body too!

3 months agopermalink

Mike99999

That PanaLeica lens is extremely soft. You get what you pay for.

3 months agopermalink

Mike99999 -
Says who?

3 months agopermalink

Terkwoiz

$1800 for the panleica... So very much not a bargain.

3 months agopermalink

HowaboutRAW

Did you shoot any uncompressed raws worth sharing?

Nice to see the A9 out in the field.

3 months agopermalink

fjbyrne

Looks great. Now how am I going to convince the wife I need another lens? Hmmm...

3 months agopermalink

Lord Lucan

Convince her for free?

3 months agopermalink

Nick8

@fjbyrne
Very simple. Just buy for her something you know she really wants, but she doesn't really need.
It should be more expensive than your lens :)

3 months agopermalink

Lord Lucan

@Nick8, What if she said :Yes! Any more ideas? Not costing anything?

3 months agopermalink

Nick8

Bribe works.

3 months agopermalink

Lord Lucan

@Nick8, I will try that,but must not cost anything! Most I could do is to offer a cup of tea when I am having one.

3 months agopermalink

Paul B Jones

Tell her you are thinking of getting a skull tattoo on your face, or a naval piercing with a discount used belly button ring, or a pet giant tree rat OR a new lens. New lens starts to sound pretty good.

3 months agopermalink

AstroStan

why would she even know?
Unless she pays the credit card bills.

3 months agopermalink

Edmond Leung

Simple, buy her a flawless graded diamond and use the lens to shot her with it. But this may not please her if she cannot see any fire on the picture.

3 months agopermalink