Sony 100-400mm f/4.5 - 5.6 GM OSS knocks it out of the park

[Aglet]

Looks like a pretty good performing lens that outdoes pretty much everything else in this range for sharpness.

https://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Sony-FE-100-400mm-F4.5-5.6-GM-OSS-lens-review-Compact-and-optically-excellent-tele-zoom

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

The problem is that DXO does not test lenses, they put them on a camera and test the combination. Most knowledgeable testers warn you not to compare across brands, since you have no way to tell if a camera or a lens is helping or hindering. Lenses sometimes work better with one camera over another, its hard to predict.

So, you must purchase the exact cameras/ lens combinations they list to get their results. I think at least some of the lenses if not all could be adapted to a A7RII and tested. That might not be ideal either, but could give more comparable results, or it just might point up the issues with different results for different cameras.

I would agree that the center sharpness of the 100-400L MK II is not earth shaking, it is better toward the edges than the lens it replaced, and excellent at 400mm, and autofocus is very fast. It also likes Canon TC's and does reasonably well with them. I suspect it costs a lot less as well.

Does DXO really rate the zoom at 100mm? I use mine at 300- 400mm most of the time, virtually never at 100mm. But, the Sony is best at 100mm, so it gets a high score? They justify this by saying most do not buy a lens like this to use at mid ranges like 300mm. Do they think we buy it to use at 100mm?

 

[AlanF]

It's true that you can't make many conclusions across systems because of too many variables, and of course it's only one lens they have tested. We will have to wait for lensrentals to examine on an optical bench. Under measurements and profiles in the detailed DxO report, the Sony in the centre at 400mm f/5.6 on the A7r II is sharper than the Canon 400mm f/2.8 II at f/2.8 and at 300mm sharper than the 300mm f/2.8 II, which is somewhat surprising.

It does seem a pretty spectacular lens according to https://www.cameralabs.com/sony-fe-100-400mm-f4-5-5-6-gm-oss-review/ It has incredibly fast and accurate focussing, utilising two focussing groups with two motors.

 

[AlanF]

It's just been reviewed in http://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/sony/fe-100-400mm-f4.5-5.6-gm-oss-sel100400gm/review/#fieldtest

It's clearly a very good lens, and weighs nearly 0.5 lb less than the Canon.

 

[Khalai]

It's just been reviewed in http://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/sony/fe-100-400mm-f4.5-5.6-gm-oss-sel100400gm/review/#fieldtest

It's clearly a very good lens, and weighs nearly 0.5 lb less than the Canon.

But costs 500 USD more. I'll take half a pound of more weight anyday, if it saves me 20% of the lens price in this category

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

It is good to see Sony turning out a excellent lens, there seems to be little doubt about that.

My comment was really aimed at the DXO comparison which is less than convincing in its logic of comparing different brands, talking about 100mm sharpness, and saying no one would use the lens at mid ranges like 300mm?

I wonder if the lens has some of the construction issues found in the other Sony lens that Lens Rentals dismantled, and if it also takes a huge amount of effort (cost) to replace a cheap part due to the way its constructed. I suspect that Canon spends a lot of design effort making sure its reasonably easy to dismantle and repair a lens, perhaps even eliminating some optical solutions that would make it a monster to repair. They seem to balance all of the design issues rather well.

The lens rental tests determine some of the key optical performance parameters of a lens but not all. Even then, comparing across brands is somewhat of a compromise, since lenses can perform differently on different cameras, primarily toward the edges and corners. There is no perfect answer, but at least, comparing different brands is not as objectionable with the lens rentals testing.

 

[Dylan777]

As an owner of GM lenses, I have to say Sony did great job. Yes, price tag is high.

 

[9VIII]

It's just been reviewed in http://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/sony/fe-100-400mm-f4.5-5.6-gm-oss-sel100400gm/review/#fieldtest

It's clearly a very good lens, and weighs nearly 0.5 lb less than the Canon.

But costs 500 USD more. I'll take half a pound of more weight anyday, if it saves me 20% of the lens price in this category

Lets not forget that when Roger dismantled the Canon 100-400II it he said it has the best build quality of just about any lens he's ever seen.
Maybe we'll be treated to a Similar pictoral on Sony's lens.

 

[AlanF]

It's just been reviewed in http://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/sony/fe-100-400mm-f4.5-5.6-gm-oss-sel100400gm/review/#fieldtest

It's clearly a very good lens, and weighs nearly 0.5 lb less than the Canon.

But costs 500 USD more. I'll take half a pound of more weight anyday, if it saves me 20% of the lens price in this category

The Sigma 100-400mm is clearly the lens for you as you will save 68% of the Sony lens price. And, unlike the Sony, it fits Canon. Let's wait for lensrentals' review of optical and mechanical quality.

 

[slclick]

It's just been reviewed in http://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/sony/fe-100-400mm-f4.5-5.6-gm-oss-sel100400gm/review/#fieldtest

It's clearly a very good lens, and weighs nearly 0.5 lb less than the Canon.

But costs 500 USD more. I'll take half a pound of more weight anyday, if it saves me 20% of the lens price in this category

The Sigma 100-400mm is clearly the lens for you as you will save 68% of the Sony lens price. And, unlike the Sony, it fits Canon. Let's wait for lensrentals' review of optical and mechanical quality.

I love my Siggy and I've owned the C Mk2. Differences are negligible.

 

[AlanF]

ePhotozine has just reviewed it. It does look like a stunning lens. The MTFs are stellar: At 400mm in the centre, 4100 lw/ph on the A7R II out of a maximum possible of 5304 for the sensor.
https://www.ephotozine.com/article/sony-fe-100-400mm-f-4-5-5-6-g-master-oss-review-31417

The Sigma 100-400mm on the 5DSR gave 3800/5792

OK, the lens is expensive, but some of us will pay for our passion.

 

[mb66energy]

Looks like a pretty good performing lens that outdoes pretty much everything else in this range for sharpness.

https://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Sony-FE-100-400mm-F4.5-5.6-GM-OSS-lens-review-Compact-and-optically-excellent-tele-zoom

For sharpness alone: Maybe.

But a comparison @ the digital picture shows very similar sharpness / detail for both combos, 5DsR + EF 100-400 and your Sony combo.

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=1147&CameraComp=1106&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=1

But in my eyes the Canon results look much more like photos of a real object while the Sony images might apear a little bit sharper but they show vast color patterns induced by the edges of the black and whites in the test chart.
Maybe technical sharpness of the Sony is better but the Sony does harm the fidelity of textures and that is the least I want in a lens-camera combo.

 

[AlanF]

Looks like a pretty good performing lens that outdoes pretty much everything else in this range for sharpness.

https://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Sony-FE-100-400mm-F4.5-5.6-GM-OSS-lens-review-Compact-and-optically-excellent-tele-zoom

For sharpness alone: Maybe.

But a comparison @ the digital picture shows very similar sharpness / detail for both combos, 5DsR + EF 100-400 and your Sony combo.

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=1147&CameraComp=1106&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=1

But in my eyes the Canon results look much more like photos of a real object while the Sony images might apear a little bit sharper but they show vast color patterns induced by the edges of the black and whites in the test chart.
Maybe technical sharpness of the Sony is better but the Sony does harm the fidelity of textures and that is the least I want in a lens-camera combo.

a, I use the 5DSR and 100-400mm II very frequently as it is a favourite of mine.
b, I don't take TDPs IQ charts very seriously as they are done on one copy of a lens only and sometimes under different distances and conditions.
c, It's not good to compare different cameras to compare lenses as different sensors are used.

Having wrote all that, even with my old eyes the Sony is clearly seen to have better acutance in your link.

 

[mb66energy]

Looks like a pretty good performing lens that outdoes pretty much everything else in this range for sharpness.

https://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Sony-FE-100-400mm-F4.5-5.6-GM-OSS-lens-review-Compact-and-optically-excellent-tele-zoom

For sharpness alone: Maybe.

But a comparison @ the digital picture shows very similar sharpness / detail for both combos, 5DsR + EF 100-400 and your Sony combo.

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=1147&CameraComp=1106&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=1

But in my eyes the Canon results look much more like photos of a real object while the Sony images might apear a little bit sharper but they show vast color patterns induced by the edges of the black and whites in the test chart.
Maybe technical sharpness of the Sony is better but the Sony does harm the fidelity of textures and that is the least I want in a lens-camera combo.

a, I use the 5DSR and 100-400mm II very frequently as it is a favourite of mine.
b, I don't take TDPs IQ charts very seriously as they are done on one copy of a lens only and sometimes under different distances and conditions.
c, It's not good to compare different cameras to compare lenses as different sensors are used.

Having wrote all that, even with my old eyes the Sony is clearly seen to have better acutance in your link.

b: o.k., but current QC seems to have low straying ...
c: shure but my remarks are about comparing SYSTEMS not lenses.
The Sony COMBO makes the color blotches and for shure it is NOT the LENS which makes it.

I see better acutance of the Sony COMBO too but where does it come from when black is more like dark color blotches?
Looks to synthetic in my eyes.

OLAF tests by LensRentals of the Sony would shurely shed more light at the lens quality and give a better chance to
compare the LENS ONLY quality in some disciplines. The EF 100-400 ii was tested.

 

[AlanF]

The Sony COMBO makes the color blotches and for shure it is NOT the LENS which makes it.

I see better acutance of the Sony COMBO too but where does it come from when black is more like dark color blotches?
Looks to synthetic in my eyes.

Do we know how the RAW data from both combos are processed and what effects that choice of processing has?

 

[mb66energy]

The Sony COMBO makes the color blotches and for shure it is NOT the LENS which makes it.

I see better acutance of the Sony COMBO too but where does it come from when black is more like dark color blotches?
Looks to synthetic in my eyes.

Do we know how the RAW data from both combos are processed and what effects that choice of processing has?

No, but I do not think that Brian uses best processing for Canon and worst for Sony.
Plus: Processing that introduces blotches ? - Strange. Processing that removes blotches: Massive alteration of primary
information.

My first though was: No AA filter in Sony but 5Ds _R_ has none too (according to official information).

 

[Neutral]

For those who are interested here is example of shot done using Sony 100-400mm f/4.5 - 5.6 GM OSS on a7r2 body, export from LR with 70% quality, 72ppi.
Due to compression I see some artefacts on the edges which I do not see in original file in LR.
Tried to export in higher quality but then file size exceeds CR file size limit and not possible to upload.
I have both Canon and Sony 100-400 and both performs very well.
Using native glass on both brands.
Also have a9 and this is very good camera with amazing AF, equal in capabilities to 1Dxm2 , exceeding in some areas especially with amazing Eye AF and ability to focus and track objects across almost whole frame, but Canon 1Dxm2 is still more reliable with fast tracking AF when using single point AF selection which in many situations is more preferable option for me. So far with all Sony bodies I used using small AF area selection was not 100% reliable in dim conditions.

 

[Neutral]

And here one more , moon , crop of shot done by Sony a7r2 with Sony 100-400mm f/4.5 - 5.6 GM OSS at 400mm, handheld.

 

[AlanF]

For those who are interested here is example of shot done using Sony 100-400mm f/4.5 - 5.6 GM OSS on a7r2 body, export from LR with 70% quality, 72ppi.
Due to compression I see some artefacts on the edges which I do not see in original file in LR.
Tried to export in higher quality but then file size exceeds CR file size limit and not possible to upload.
I have both Canon and Sony 100-400 and both performs very well.
Using native glass on both brands.
Also have a9 and this is very good camera with amazing AF, equal in capabilities to 1Dxm2 , exceeding in some areas especially with amazing Eye AF and ability to focus and track objects across almost whole frame, but Canon 1Dxm2 is still more reliable with fast tracking AF when using single point AF selection which in many situations is more preferable option for me. So far with all Sony bodies I used using small AF area selection was not 100% reliable in dim conditions.

Thanks for your insights from direct experience. It would would be nice to see a comparison of both 100-400mms on the Sony body (the Canon with an adapter) with a challenging target. You would be in an ideal position to do this.

 

[raptor3x]

a, I use the 5DSR and 100-400mm II very frequently as it is a favourite of mine.
b, I don't take TDPs IQ charts very seriously as they are done on one copy of a lens only and sometimes under different distances and conditions.
c, It's not good to compare different cameras to compare lenses as different sensors are used.

On b., the copy variation is a valid concern but it's certainly not unique to TDP. DxO, Lenstip, Photozone, ePhotozine, and IR generally all test based on a single copy. LenRentals is the only one out there that consistently tests with multiple copies and then shares the averaged results. TDP also does multiple copies but it's not consistent.

I'm not sure what you mean by different distances and conditions though. The distance he uses is a function of the focal length but the conditions are fairly well controlled.