I've been fortunate enough to have a friend's Sony A7R3 and 100-400 4.5-5.6 GM OSS for a little while. I've been playing around with the lens, and thought I would share my first impressions of it in comparison to the 100-400 L II, which I own.
DXO gives the Sony a very high score, significantly higher than the Canon. Plus, this is a much more expensive lens (in Canadian dollars, about $800 difference). So I was pretty excited to compare them. Because of the weather (downpour), and the nature of the lens, I haven't had a chance to shoot anything worth sharing, but there are many differences between these two similar lenses.
Spoiler: I like the Canon much better ergonomically.
Make no mistake, the Sony is a finely crafted zoom lens. It has a super-premium feel about it, tough it "feels" more delicate to me than the Canon. The construction is very high-end (it had better be, at it's price), the focus and AF rings have a nice feel to them, and it's almost exactly the same size and uses the same filters (77mm) as the Canon.
There are some things I like better about the Sony:
1. It has a better tripod foot. The foot has 2 threads, which means that if you put an arca plate on it, you don't have to worry about twist. On the other hand the Canon has many third party foots, and you can get a foot with an arca plate right on it. However, this works better for me, because I like to put a 3.75" Fusion plate, since that gives better grip when holding the camera by the foot, and also a flip-down BlackRapid loop. It also angles sharply (like 45 degrees) forward, keeping it out of the way of the grip.
2. The lens hood is really nice. It has a rubbery ring around it, and is just finished better than the Canon.
3. It has no play with the body. My Canon has a very small amount of play; the Sony has none.
4. * Theoretically, it has better resolving power. I haven't seen this yet; I'll report back when I get to shoot with it. Of course, I don't want to minimize this -- it could be a big deal -- but this post is really about ergonomics, not performance. After all, if you're gonna lug it and use it for 5-10 hours, ergonomics matters.
Now, things that I like more about the Canon:
5. HUGE. The Canon is ring USM. The Sony is Focus by Wire. 'nuff said.
6. Canon has IS Mode 3, which is great for BIF -- or just set it and forget it. Sony does not. On that note, maybe I'm smoking something, but I swear the IS on the Canon is better than the Sony, even with IBIS thrown in.
7. On the Canon, Zoom is in on the front, and MF ring is near the body; on the Sony, it's the other way around. I think the Canon way is much, much better. Why? I use zoom a lot more than MF, and the tripod foot is in the way of the zoom, the way Sony does it. Also, if you have it on a gimbal (like a Wimberley), the zoom control is smack in the middle of the balance point, which is a terrible design. Even on a monopod, I can't put my hand under the zoom ring (I have to adjust from the left).
8. The Canon has a zillion-times better zoom lock. When you lock the Canon, it's locked. When you lock the Sony, it's "tight". Which means, unfortunately, that it slowly creeps out if you walk around with it pointed down.
9. The plate on the side where the controls are is plastic on the Sony. Why?
10. The tripod collar is better on the Canon, though not by a lot. The Sony is somewhere between the 100-400L2, which is the nicest tripod collar I've ever owned, and the 70-200IS2, which is decent but not spectacular. Personally, I think the collar is a little too much friction on the Sony, but it is a pretty smooth glide.
11. The zoom ring on the Canon is much more effortless to get it from 100-400. On the Sony, it's more resistance, though of course, since the lock doesn't work for beans, it's going to end up at 400mm anyways. The MF ring is also stiffer, but it's focus by wire and sort of annoying anyways, so who knows how much I'll use it.
Other than that, without shooting any meaningful photos, ergonomically with the A7R3, I think that it actually doesn't feel too bad handheld with the A7R3, because you're mostly supporting the camera on the lens end, and compared to my last adventure with the A7R2, the deeper grip makes a big difference.
One ergonomic design issue -- the A7R3 has an AF illuminator built in. But the problem is, the Sony 100-400 -- and every other pro Sony lens -- has a barrel that's in the way of the illuminator
But that is not a minus to the lens design, and in fairness, I'm not sure there's anywhere on the camera where you could put the AF illuminator and not have it blocked, if you're using a bigger diameter lens.
On a gimbal, it feels ok, if not great. There's not quite enough camera to grab on to. However, I really don't like the feel on a monopod, where I'm not supporting the lens with my left hand. It feels like the body end is just way too small. Perhaps that would be different with a grip on the A7R3, but my friend doesn't have one, and I'm not going to buy one just to find out
One last thing, there are 3 (!!) focus hold buttons on the lens. I set my cameras to back-button AF (with shutter button AF disabled), so hold is just, "don't press the back button". Unless I'm missing something, for back button AF people, these are totally useless. When I was playing with it, sporadically, the buttons would bring up a histogram. But other times, not. No clue
DXO gives the Sony a very high score, significantly higher than the Canon. Plus, this is a much more expensive lens (in Canadian dollars, about $800 difference). So I was pretty excited to compare them. Because of the weather (downpour), and the nature of the lens, I haven't had a chance to shoot anything worth sharing, but there are many differences between these two similar lenses.
Spoiler: I like the Canon much better ergonomically.
Make no mistake, the Sony is a finely crafted zoom lens. It has a super-premium feel about it, tough it "feels" more delicate to me than the Canon. The construction is very high-end (it had better be, at it's price), the focus and AF rings have a nice feel to them, and it's almost exactly the same size and uses the same filters (77mm) as the Canon.
There are some things I like better about the Sony:
1. It has a better tripod foot. The foot has 2 threads, which means that if you put an arca plate on it, you don't have to worry about twist. On the other hand the Canon has many third party foots, and you can get a foot with an arca plate right on it. However, this works better for me, because I like to put a 3.75" Fusion plate, since that gives better grip when holding the camera by the foot, and also a flip-down BlackRapid loop. It also angles sharply (like 45 degrees) forward, keeping it out of the way of the grip.
2. The lens hood is really nice. It has a rubbery ring around it, and is just finished better than the Canon.
3. It has no play with the body. My Canon has a very small amount of play; the Sony has none.
4. * Theoretically, it has better resolving power. I haven't seen this yet; I'll report back when I get to shoot with it. Of course, I don't want to minimize this -- it could be a big deal -- but this post is really about ergonomics, not performance. After all, if you're gonna lug it and use it for 5-10 hours, ergonomics matters.
Now, things that I like more about the Canon:
5. HUGE. The Canon is ring USM. The Sony is Focus by Wire. 'nuff said.
6. Canon has IS Mode 3, which is great for BIF -- or just set it and forget it. Sony does not. On that note, maybe I'm smoking something, but I swear the IS on the Canon is better than the Sony, even with IBIS thrown in.
7. On the Canon, Zoom is in on the front, and MF ring is near the body; on the Sony, it's the other way around. I think the Canon way is much, much better. Why? I use zoom a lot more than MF, and the tripod foot is in the way of the zoom, the way Sony does it. Also, if you have it on a gimbal (like a Wimberley), the zoom control is smack in the middle of the balance point, which is a terrible design. Even on a monopod, I can't put my hand under the zoom ring (I have to adjust from the left).
8. The Canon has a zillion-times better zoom lock. When you lock the Canon, it's locked. When you lock the Sony, it's "tight". Which means, unfortunately, that it slowly creeps out if you walk around with it pointed down.
9. The plate on the side where the controls are is plastic on the Sony. Why?
10. The tripod collar is better on the Canon, though not by a lot. The Sony is somewhere between the 100-400L2, which is the nicest tripod collar I've ever owned, and the 70-200IS2, which is decent but not spectacular. Personally, I think the collar is a little too much friction on the Sony, but it is a pretty smooth glide.
11. The zoom ring on the Canon is much more effortless to get it from 100-400. On the Sony, it's more resistance, though of course, since the lock doesn't work for beans, it's going to end up at 400mm anyways. The MF ring is also stiffer, but it's focus by wire and sort of annoying anyways, so who knows how much I'll use it.
Other than that, without shooting any meaningful photos, ergonomically with the A7R3, I think that it actually doesn't feel too bad handheld with the A7R3, because you're mostly supporting the camera on the lens end, and compared to my last adventure with the A7R2, the deeper grip makes a big difference.
One ergonomic design issue -- the A7R3 has an AF illuminator built in. But the problem is, the Sony 100-400 -- and every other pro Sony lens -- has a barrel that's in the way of the illuminator
But that is not a minus to the lens design, and in fairness, I'm not sure there's anywhere on the camera where you could put the AF illuminator and not have it blocked, if you're using a bigger diameter lens.On a gimbal, it feels ok, if not great. There's not quite enough camera to grab on to. However, I really don't like the feel on a monopod, where I'm not supporting the lens with my left hand. It feels like the body end is just way too small. Perhaps that would be different with a grip on the A7R3, but my friend doesn't have one, and I'm not going to buy one just to find out
One last thing, there are 3 (!!) focus hold buttons on the lens. I set my cameras to back-button AF (with shutter button AF disabled), so hold is just, "don't press the back button". Unless I'm missing something, for back button AF people, these are totally useless. When I was playing with it, sporadically, the buttons would bring up a histogram. But other times, not. No clue
