fe 100-400 and teleconverter would you buy

[spudhead]

So ok I have been thinking about buying the fe 100-400 for a while but I have been hanging on thinking sony may update it like the fe 70-200, any way please let me know if you would buy the current version and if you are happy with it and does it work well with 1.4 teleconverter . thanks all

 

[Clix Pix]

I have the 100-400mm and it is my second-favorite lens, which I use quite a bit. I have the 1.4x TC on it, too, and leave it on the lens most of the time. I am not sure when the 100-400mm first came out but I think it was much more recently than the original 70-200mm that has now been replaced by the 70-200mm II. If you want the 100-400mm, buy it and enjoy it now, and if at some point further down the road Sony does release an updated version, sell the original and buy the new one.

 

[Jeff A]

I have the FE 100-400 as well. I had a Sigma 100-400 and it cost a lot less but I could not use a TC with it so I sold it and bought the Sony. I have not spent the money for the TC as yet (It would be a 1.4) but I'll wait until the point that cropping doesn't do the job for me. Very happy with the Sony. I now have an all Sony Kit.

 

[spudhead]

I have the FE 100-400 as well. I had a Sigma 100-400 and it cost a lot less but I could not use a TC with it so I sold i8t and bought the Sony. I have not spent the money for the TC as yet (It would be a 1.4) but I'll wait until the point that cropping doesn't do the job for me. Very happy with the Sony. I now have an all Sony Kit.

I have the 1.4 and the 200-600 but think the 100-400 fe would give me at least one stop on the long end over the 200-600 without the teleconverter, I have the a-mount 70-400 but never used much on a-mount , tested it on lea5 and its ok, so its may be time to let go of most of the a-mount lenses apart from the primes

 

[AlphaWorld]

I have the 1.4 and the 200-600 but think the 100-400 fe would give me at least one stop on the long end over the 200-600 without the teleconverter, I have the a-mount 70-400 but never used much on a-mount , tested it on lea5 and its ok, so its may be time to let go of most of the a-mount lenses apart from the primes

How do you work that out? The 100-400 is f/5.6 at 400mm. Add the 1.4x and it is 560mm f/8, whereas the 200-600mm without tc is 600mm f/6.3, which is larger than f/8 by 2/3 stop.

 

[Jeff A]

How do you work that out? The 100-400 is f/5.6 at 400mm. Add the 1.4x and it is 560mm f/8, whereas the 200-600mm without tc is 600mm f/6.3, which is larger than f/8 by 2/3 stop.

Well I haven't worked anything out as yet but I know that I'm never going to carry a 200-600 around. It's just too big for me to tote or pack. Other than that, the 200-600 is easily a great way to go and a Hellava lot less money.

 

[Clix Pix]

The reason I bought the 100-400mm, actually, was because I eventually realized that there was no way I was going to be carrying around the wonderful, but heavy and awkward 200-600,m on my walks around my neighborhood or anywhere else. At the time I bought that longer and wonderful lens it was wintertime and I was perfectly happy using it to shoot off my deck (living on a small lake I have geese, ducks and the occasional GBH right out there in front of me). Handled it at the store, brought it home, used it out on the deck and was a happy camper. However, when Spring came and I was ready to start once again walking around the boardwalk and our neighborhood again with camera in hand, I quickly realized that I needed something other than my lovely, but admittedly large and heavy 200-600mm. Ehhhhh...... Did the research, determined that the 100-400mm GM would take care of my needs, went to the store, handled one and immediately realized that, yep, this was the lens.

I so, so love the thing and she is the lens which accompanies me now on all my walks around the neighborhood, with or without the 1.4x TC. She also performs really nicely when going out somewhere else away from home, such as a local botanical gardens. I can handhold her fairly easily and comfortably and so no tripod needed although of course there are certain situations in which a tripod really would be desirable, and like the 200-600mm she has been fitted with the appropriate Arca-Swiss foot that replaces the original Sony foot.

If someone were to come to my home and threaten to take away all of my lenses but two of them, the two for which I would fight to keep would be that 100-400mm and also my beloved 90mm macro......

 

[pointreyes]

I've had the 100-400 GM for two years now. More compact size for transport, smaller filters, and it is a GM. A bonus point for me is that it is a very good lens for infrared photography - 77mm filters are more affordable than 95mm. I have the 1.4x TC and it is used quite a bit on the zoom except during this time of the year - the air is too heavy with moisture that I cannot get a sharp image with a telephoto (classically known as the Pacific Northwest haze). Thankfully, IR cuts through haze better than visible light so I have other ways to use the zoom.

The advantage of the 200-600 is the internal zoom but again since bad weather for me means the zoom range is greatly affected, I'm better off using the 70-200 with the 1.4x TC.

 

[spudhead]

How do you work that out? The 100-400 is f/5.6 at 400mm. Add the 1.4x and it is 560mm f/8, whereas the 200-600mm without tc is 600mm f/6.3, which is larger than f/8 by 2/3 stop.

I did not expand enough I was not comparing 200-600 against 100-400 at the same reach ie near the long end 560 and 600 , I was thinking since I only have the 200-600 which is great ,there could be a use for the shorter 100-400 with or without the converter and the question more what is the 100-400 like with converter? so yes I was wrong in the way I worded things, I was thinking of the 100-400 as a gap filler between my a-mount 300 2.8 and the 200-600, so sorry for confusion

 

[Uncle Kevriano]

I've considered it, but only because it has such a close focus distance, which for butterflies and dragonflies would be great, but it's very expensive, and as I have the 90mm Macro and the 200 600 I thought better of it in the end, as I don't really think it would add anything to my armoury. It is a very sharp lens by the way.

 

[spudhead]

I've considered it, but only because it has such a close focus distance, which for butterflies and dragonflies would be great, but it's very expensive, and as I have the 90mm Macro and the 200 600 I thought better of it in the end, as I don't really think it would add anything to my armoury. It is a very sharp lens by the way.

I really do not like extending dust collecting lenses, although I am sure the fe 100-400 is fine on that front, the cannon 100-400 is really bad for collecting dust when zooming. I sure if they did an internal focus I would be all over it

 

[Jeff A]

I did not expand enough I was not comparing 200-600 against 100-400 at the same reach ie near the long end 560 and 600 , I was thinking since I only have the 200-600 which is great ,there could be a use for the shorter 100-400 with or without the converter and the question more what is the 100-400 like with converter? so yes I was wrong in the way I worded things, I was thinking of the 100-400 as a gap filler between my a-mount 300 2.8 and the 200-600, so sorry for confusion

No problem.

 

[Uncle Kevriano]

I really do not like extending dust collecting lenses, although I am sure the fe 100-400 is fine on that front, the cannon 100-400 is really bad for collecting dust when zooming. I sure if they did an internal focus I would be all over it

Yep. I would have bought on too, I'm also not a fan of extending zooms, probably because the 200 600 has ruined them for anyone who has one

 

[AlphaWorld]

Yep. I would have bought on too, I'm also not a fan of extending zooms, probably because the 200 600 has ruined them for anyone who has one

Add the new 70-200 GM II to the list of zooms that do not change length for zooming or focussing...

 

[Uncle Kevriano]

Add the new 70-200 GM II to the list of zooms that do not change length for zooming or focussing...

Well neither did the old one, nor the f4 version, but the long zoom internal is something that I'm amazed hasn't been copied by others.

 

[spudhead]

Add the new 70-200 GM II to the list of zooms that do not change length for zooming or focussing

Well neither did the old one, nor the f4 version, but the long zoom internal is something that I'm amazed hasn't been copied by others.

I have the f4 and the a-mount 70-200 and love the internal focus

 

[Brownie]

I really do not like extending dust collecting lenses, although I am sure the fe 100-400 is fine on that front, the cannon 100-400 is really bad for collecting dust when zooming. I sure if they did an internal focus I would be all over it

It depends on the lens. I have several that have been used at the drag strip and air shows for years, some of the dustiest environments you could shoot at. Think about the smoke and garbage getting tossed into the air every time a car does a burn. I have had no problems with my Leica glass.

There are ratings out there for dust and weatherproofing. Olympus is the top dog when it comes to sealing their gear, others are rated lower. Sony has never been known for top-drawer weather sealing, although their more recent efforts have gotten much better.

Yep. I would have bought on too, I'm also not a fan of extending zooms, probably because the 200 600 has ruined them for anyone who has one

Not true. Yes, it's a nice smooth zoom, but think about this: Almost everyone posting in this thread complains about the size of it for walking around, or packing, or whatever. Hasn't anyone sussed out the fact that this is the trade-off for a non-extending zoom? You can have small and compact or non extending, but not both. That lens movement has to happen somewhere, it's either internal or external.

Thinking of a lens like the 200-600 for walking around doesn't click with me. It's an 'event' lens. A lens to use when I'm fairly stationary and shooting intermittent.

Having purchased the 200-600 I still want a mid zoom. My favorite range at the track is 100-400. The Sigma has outstanding IQ, is a bit smaller and lighter. The aperture is a smaller, but it's a mere 2/3 stop at the short end. For the intended use it will have zero affect.

Here's some food for thought:

The Sony 100-400 + 1.4 TC costs $3,046.00 US, while the Sony 200-600 + Sigma 100-400 costs $2,947.00.

For my money, best of both worlds.

 

[Uncle Kevriano]

It depends on the lens. I have several that have been used at the drag strip and air shows for years, some of the dustiest environments you could shoot at. Think about the smoke and garbage getting tossed into the air every time a car does a burn. I have had no problems with my Leica glass.

There are ratings out there for dust and weatherproofing. Olympus is the top dog when it comes to sealing their gear, others are rated lower. Sony has never been known for top-drawer weather sealing, although their more recent efforts have gotten much better.

Not true. Yes, it's a nice smooth zoom, but think about this: Almost everyone posting in this thread complains about the size of it for walking around, or packing, or whatever. Hasn't anyone sussed out the fact that this is the trade-off for a non-extending zoom? You can have small and compact or non extending, but not both. That lens movement has to happen somewhere, it's either internal or external.

Thinking of a lens like the 200-600 for walking around doesn't click with me. It's an 'event' lens. A lens to use when I'm fairly stationary and shooting intermittent.

Having purchased the 200-600 I still want a mid zoom. My favorite range at the track is 100-400. The Sigma has outstanding IQ, is a bit smaller and lighter. The aperture is a smaller, but it's a mere 2/3 stop at the short end. For the intended use it will have zero affect.

Here's some food for thought:

The Sony 100-400 + 1.4 TC costs $3,046.00 US, while the Sony 200-600 + Sigma 100-400 costs $2,947.00.

For my money, best of both worlds.

I see your point, BUT, an 150 600 extending zoom, for example, weighs the same and is only about 1 inch smaller, I know as I compared it to the 150 600 Tamron that I had before. The 200 600 also weighs 20 grams less. I really don't know why people say they struggle to carry it all day. It's all down to how you carry it, surely. I can happily carry it on a Black Rapid strap all day, absolutely no issue with that at all, and I handhold everything too, so I find it quite easy to move around for birds in flight etc. it's just not heavy! As for transporting it, there are so many good bags that it fits in easily. I've honestly used it non stop since buying it 2 years ago. Love it.

 

[Brownie]

I see your point, BUT, an 150 600 extending zoom, for example, weighs the same and is only about 1 inch smaller, I know as I compared it to the 150 600 Tamron that I had before. The 200 600 also weighs 20 grams less. I really don't know why people say they struggle to carry it all day. It's all down to how you carry it, surely. I can happily carry it on a Black Rapid strap all day, absolutely no issue with that at all, and I handhold everything too, so I find it quite easy to move around for birds in flight etc. it's just not heavy! As for transporting it, there are so many good bags that it fits in easily. I've honestly used it non stop since buying it 2 years ago. Love it.

The Sigma 150-600 is 2" shorter when collapsed. I had them both in-hand when I was trying to sort out which backpack and lens I wanted. 2" doesn't sound like a lot until you start stuffing it in a compartment. You'd be surprised at the number of bags the Sigma would fit in that the Sony didn't. When thinking about weight, the Sony and Sigma are virtually identical, but there is less out front when the Sigma is collapsed.

Don't get me wrong, I ended up buying the Sony. The size and weight bothered me when I first started looking at them but once I had accepted that it is what it is, I'm over it. I guess my point is you cannot just discount a lens that trombones simply because it does. They aren't all dust pumps, they aren't all stiff to operate, etc. It's like anything else, there are good and bad.

 

[Jeff A]

It depends on the lens. I have several that have been used at the drag strip and air shows for years, some of the dustiest environments you could shoot at. Think about the smoke and garbage getting tossed into the air every time a car does a burn. I have had no problems with my Leica glass.

There are ratings out there for dust and weatherproofing. Olympus is the top dog when it comes to sealing their gear, others are rated lower. Sony has never been known for top-drawer weather sealing, although their more recent efforts have gotten much better.

Not true. Yes, it's a nice smooth zoom, but think about this: Almost everyone posting in this thread complains about the size of it for walking around, or packing, or whatever. Hasn't anyone sussed out the fact that this is the trade-off for a non-extending zoom? You can have small and compact or non extending, but not both. That lens movement has to happen somewhere, it's either internal or external.

Thinking of a lens like the 200-600 for walking around doesn't click with me. It's an 'event' lens. A lens to use when I'm fairly stationary and shooting intermittent.

Having purchased the 200-600 I still want a mid zoom. My favorite range at the track is 100-400. The Sigma has outstanding IQ, is a bit smaller and lighter. The aperture is a smaller, but it's a mere 2/3 stop at the short end. For the intended use it will have zero affect.

Here's some food for thought:

The Sony 100-400 + 1.4 TC costs $3,046.00 US, while the Sony 200-600 + Sigma 100-400 costs $2,947.00.

For my money, best of both worlds.

I owned the Sigma 100-400 and was happy with the lens. Purportedly, the Sigma suffers a bit in the AutoFocus speed compared to the Sony 100-400. Now I actually never pushed this lens, I only had it for a short time before upgrading to the Sony but for Air Shows and Drag Racing, it could be a factor. Renting one for a trial might be a valuable exercise.

 

[Brownie]

I owned the Sigma 100-400 and was happy with the lens. Purportedly, the Sigma suffers a bit in the AutoFocus speed compared to the Sony 100-400. Now I actually never pushed this lens, I only had it for a short time before upgrading to the Sony but for Air Shows and Drag Racing, it could be a factor. Renting one for a trial might be a valuable exercise.

Yeah, that's the reason I went with the 200-600. I didn't see much point in spending money on a camera with world-class focusing only to hamstring it with the Sigma 150-600, which by most accounts is noticeably slower. I haven't seen anything to suggest that's case with the 100-400, at least not to the extent as the 150-600, but I am probably going to "try before I buy", as you suggest.

But I also have to point out that even though I had already made the decision to go with the Sony, the local camera shop ran a super-duper sale around Christmas on the 200-600 which was purchased new for $1,615. That made the difference between the Sigma and Sony very small. The 100-400 though is another story entirely. Unless I fall into a deal on one, there's a $1500 difference between the contenders. In that case the Sony would have to outperform the Sigma by 2 x to be worth it. I don't mind spending a few hundred more, but $1500 is a ton of coin for what could be very little return. Since I don't need use of a TC with this lens, I am hoping the Sigma performs well.

 

[Jeff A]

Yeah, that's the reason I went with the 200-600. I didn't see much point in spending money on a camera with world-class focusing only to hamstring it with the Sigma 150-600, which by most accounts is noticeably slower. I haven't seen anything to suggest that's case with the 100-400, at least not to the extent as the 150-600, but I am probably going to "try before I buy", as you suggest.

But I also have to point out that even though I had already made the decision to go with the Sony, the local camera shop ran a super-duper sale around Christmas on the 200-600 which was purchased new for $1,615. That made the difference between the Sigma and Sony very small. The 100-400 though is another story entirely. Unless I fall into a deal on one, there's a $1500 difference between the contenders. In that case the Sony would have to outperform the Sigma by 2 x to be worth it. I don't mind spending a few hundred more, but $1500 is a ton of coin for what could be very little return. Since I don't need use of a TC with this lens, I am hoping the Sigma performs well.

I'm sure it will.

 

[AlphaWorld]

It depends on the lens. I have several that have been used at the drag strip and air shows for years, some of the dustiest environments you could shoot at. Think about the smoke and garbage getting tossed into the air every time a car does a burn. I have had no problems with my Leica glass.

There are ratings out there for dust and weatherproofing. Olympus is the top dog when it comes to sealing their gear, others are rated lower. Sony has never been known for top-drawer weather sealing, although their more recent efforts have gotten much better.

Not true. Yes, it's a nice smooth zoom, but think about this: Almost everyone posting in this thread complains about the size of it for walking around, or packing, or whatever. Hasn't anyone sussed out the fact that this is the trade-off for a non-extending zoom? You can have small and compact or non extending, but not both. That lens movement has to happen somewhere, it's either internal or external.

Thinking of a lens like the 200-600 for walking around doesn't click with me. It's an 'event' lens. A lens to use when I'm fairly stationary and shooting intermittent.

Having purchased the 200-600 I still want a mid zoom. My favorite range at the track is 100-400. The Sigma has outstanding IQ, is a bit smaller and lighter. The aperture is a smaller, but it's a mere 2/3 stop at the short end. For the intended use it will have zero affect.

Here's some food for thought:

The Sony 100-400 + 1.4 TC costs $3,046.00 US, while the Sony 200-600 + Sigma 100-400 costs $2,947.00.

For my money, best of both worlds.

You made me think of the new Canon RF 70-200 which definitely collapses to a lot smaller than other 70-200 lenses. Amusingly the fixed length Sony GM II is lighter.

 

[Brownie]

You made me think of the new Canon RF 70-200 which definitely collapses to a lot smaller than other 70-200 lenses. Amusingly the fixed length Sony GM II is lighter.

The GMII is the lightest lens I've ever held of that size. It is truly remarkable. Not sure it's worth spending that kind of $ on that focal length, but I guess some may prefer it.

 

[AlphaWorld]

The GMII is the lightest lens I've ever held of that size. It is truly remarkable. Not sure it's worth spending that kind of $ on that focal length, but I guess some may prefer it.

I've no regrets buying the GM II. It's excellent. But yes, it's not cheap.

 

[Brownie]

I've no regrets buying the GM II. It's excellent. But yes, it's not cheap.

If the 70-200 FL held any interest for me it'd be on my short list. I need the 100-400 though, so something to get me from the 17-28 to the 100-400 is more important for what I shoot, most likely the 24-105. At that point my 24-240 will be relegated to bouncing around the back seat of my truck connected to the A6000, inexpensive enough kit to not worry about.

 

[AlphaWorld]

If the 70-200 FL held any interest for me it'd be on my short list. I need the 100-400 though, so something to get me from the 17-28 to the 100-400 is more important for what I shoot, most likely the 24-105. At that point my 24-240 will be relegated to bouncing around the back seat of my truck connected to the A6000, inexpensive enough kit to not worry about.

I think one of the reasons we're glad to be shooting Sony is the range of choices available to us. Sure, Canon and Nikon should start offer more choice as their mounts get mature, but their locked down mount will make that happen more slowly.

 

[Brownie]

I think one of the reasons we're glad to be shooting Sony is the range of choices available to us. Sure, Canon and Nikon should start offer more choice as their mounts get mature, but their locked down mount will make that happen more slowly.

Agreed. The number of available lenses was one of the more important factors in my choosing the brand. I am spoiled by the huge selection offered in the M-4/3 mount and aren't willing to go backwards. It eliminated Nikon from contention right off the bat.

Nikon seems to be shooting itself in the foot. Canon has a lot of great legacy glass, but I don't think either are licensing third party manufacturers. Nikon is already sucking hind tit when it comes to market share, with Canon leading and Sony in second. Panasonic continues to wallop them all in video, and in some markets Fuji and Olympus are beating Nikon.

Watch the Olympics. Like last year, you're going to see an awful lot of Canon and Sony. I think Sony had the second largest presence at the recent summer games, which was the first time they outpaced Nikon. I expect the same this time.

 

[Clix Pix]

When I was making my decision about going all-out with mirrorless I waited patiently for Nikon to make its big announcement about their new Z series, and once I saw that they were not offering what I needed and wanted, plus would be negating some of the usable value of my lenses that I had at that time by rendering them no longer AF when used with their FTZ adapter, or worse, not usable at all, this led me to push the door shut on Nikon and focus more on Sony. I already had experience with some Sony cameras so knew that they offered quality products, and a look at the lenses available for purchase immediately, right off the shelf, including the exact ones that I wanted, was the determining point that sealed the demise of my years'-long relationship with Nikon and was the beginning of a new relationship with Sony. Nikon didn't have what I wanted and Sony did. It was that simple. So, just as I'd finally made up my mind to go with a Sony A7 R III, darned if Sony didn't announce the A7R IV and I decided to sit back and wait a little longer, see what advantages that camera would have over its predecessor. I'm glad I did. I bought the A7R IV and it's been a wonderful relationship ever since.