Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 GM OSS Review
Review Rating:
Reader Interactions
Reader Comments
Comment Policy: Although our team at Photography Life encourages all readers to actively participate in discussions, we reserve the right to delete / modify any content that does not comply with our Code of Conduct, or do not meet the high editorial standards of the published material.
So another Sony problematic product with weather sealing? What is going on with Sony? I am scared to take my A7RIII out even under light rain, now even a super expensive “pro” lens has sealing issues…
Ertan, your A7R III will be fine until the bottom is soaked, so it should be OK in the rain unless you put it in a pool of water. Still, I am surprised that Sony still can’t get it right with weather sealing and it is already the third iteration of the camera. Two features that Sony desperately needs to implement on the fourth generation: weather sealing and losslessly compressed RAW files.
Yes, it was a bit disconcerting to see humidity build up internally on the lens. Especially since otherwise the Sony 100-400mm GM lens is nearly a perfect lens. I hope that I just got a copy that had some issues but you would expect better weather resistance on a lens such as this, especially since Sony has touted it’s weather sealing. If Sony would figure out how to emulate Canon’s weather sealing it would be really nice.
Dvir, I forgot to thank for the excellent review by the way :)
I agree with condensation problem, it happened to me couple of weeks ago and could not figure it out why the image was hazy. After further checking, I see the condensation was between lend and 1.4 TC, ones it was cleaned, everything was back to normal. I love the lens and A9 for it’s amazing performance but was taken back with this incident, will be more careful next time. Also, I used 1.4 TC with my Nikon 600mm and 300mm and never experience this issue so Sony needs to address this weather sealing problem. Congratulation on well descriptive article with beautiful images. thanks,
My camera platform was the Konica Minolta back when Sony acquired the brand. I waited for 6 months with no movement for Sony and so I sold that equipment and purchased a Nikon D200 with the 18-70 kit lens and the 100-400 zoom. How many years has it been, and Sony has just come out with a 400 f2.8 and a 100-400. They have virtually ignored the telephoto market.
Superb review Dvir Barkay and excellent images. I’ve owned this lens since it launched and also written my own review on my site alphashooters.com. I’ve used the lens in both light and heavy showers with my a6500, a7R III and a9 and so far have not suffered any water/moisture ingress issues. However, I’ve yet to test it in a high humidity environment so this could well be a different story. I’ll be taking this lens to Borneo with me next month so I won’t have long to wait to find out. Needless to say, if the lens does suffer the same fate as yours, I will be a little peeved off!
Thank you for the kind words Tim. I hope that the lens holds up for you in Borneo. It should offer a good challenge given the high humidity there though I believe that this behavior is at it’s worst when you subject the lens to drastic changes in temperature and humidity which of course creates this strong condensation. Do write back to us with your results once you test the lens in Borneo as I am sure other readers would benefit from another user experience. Overall, the Sony is a beautiful lens and I really liked it’s functionality, image quality and superb focusing and was unhappy to have this one issue come up as otherwise I felt it an almost perfect lens given the price point.
Any lens that changes volume when focused or zoomed, and this one appears to grow in length when zoomed, is by definition not sealed. Ambient air MUST move into and out of the lens every time it’s zoomed. Seals can be effective at keeping water out, but not air or the dust and moisture it inevitably contains. Drop the temperature of the lens too quickly and the moisture present in the air already inside the lens might condense. If the lens body is substantially constructed of magnesium then I might expect it to transfer heat faster and exacerbate this problem. I have never touched either lens but my understanding is that the Canon 200-400 does not expand when zoomed and therefore is not an air pump like this Sony. But then the Canon is a true pro lens and much more expensive. I’m not defending the Sony but it’s a simple fact the seals are only effective against water droplets and not air. If it was really sealed it would try to compress the air inside when collapsed and thus it needs to be designed to facilitate the free flow of air.
The points you bring up are very valid. Indeed the best weather sealed lenses are those without any changes in size as you zoom them in or out as it is much easier to seal such a lens. As you state, both the Canon 200-400 and 70-200 don’t expand when zoomed and this enhances their ability to withstand difficult weather and high moisture. On this trip I also had a Tokina 12-24 lens with me for some snapshot photography and that lens is a zoom that does not expand when zoomed in or out but Tokina does not list it as weather sealed and indeed it isn’t. The lens suffered a similar problem as the Sony and my intention with this review was not to single Sony out for the quality or lack thereof of their weather sealing as much as it was intended to highlight a potential problem with using the lens in high humidity situations. While it is not full proof comparison, I can say that I have used Canon’s 100-400mm lens in similar situations in the past and didn’t experience the same problems but I cannot make a like for like comparison as I did not have the Canon lens with me on this trip. I hope to test Canon’s 100-400 soon and could possibly do this in Mexico and we can see how well it behaves in this regard.
Dvir-Thanks for the review, overall how did you feel the Sony compared against the Canon 100-400?
James, I would say that they are quite comparable, which I believe says a lot about both lenses. It isn’t an easy comparison to make given that the camera body you use them with makes a big difference. They are both very sharp throughout the entirety of their focal length range. I do believe that the Sony takes teleconverters better than the Canon lens. As an overall package, the Sony system is much lighter and I feel it is more suited for birds-in-flight photography due to this and the Sony A9’s lock on focus whereas I would probably trust the Canon combo in inclement weather much more so than the Sony. I would like to shot them side-by-side one day and I hope to review the Canon 100-400 for photographylife in the near future so keep an eye for that.
Great thanks for the info.
Minor point. The Canon 100-400 lens hood also has a small sliding window for access to the polarizing filter.
Having owned both the Canon and the Sony 100-400 lenses the things that I like most about the Sony it is that it is significantly lighter than the Canon and, in combo with the smaller and lighter a9 body, is much more hand holdable for a full day of shooting than the Canon combo (I was using a 5DM4 body without a battery grip). I am also struck by the sharpness of the Sony images. I thought the Canon was exceptionally sharp, but, subjectively, the Sony seems to take it even further. Very impressive performance.
My only concern about the Sony is that it doesn’t seem as quite as robust as the Canon (true for the camera body as well.) Since I am an enthusiast photographer and not a pro this isn’t a huge concern for me (I virtually never have to challenge the weather sealing on my equipment), but I think that Sony would do well to beef up the robustness of its bodies and lenses if they want to make a big impact in the pro market. Unfortunately, this would probably come at the cost of lightness/handholdability, which is one of the nicest features of the Sony rig. I guess there is no free lunch.
Excellent review with excellent images, thank you!
Just returned from Pantanal where I used this lens with the A9 exclusively because the 100-400 range turned to be outstanding for photographing jaguars. I had rain and drizzles and experienced not condensation problems.
I purchase a Arca-Swiss type foot from a RRS and solve that shortfall. I experienced repeated problems with the AF system freezing and having to turn camera on/off to getting it working again but this may be a camera issue and not the lens. The AF system also repeatedly failed to autofocus when photographing fish hawks while striking the water to catch prey. Use several AF modes with no improvements. My Canon gear has delivered better AF performance but this may be due to the 2.8 aperture versus the Sony 5.6. Maybe the new Sony 400 will have better AF performance than the 100-400 mm.
I also had my 400 Canon 400 2.8 MKII with the IDxii which I did not to take them out of the bag. The 100-400 and A9 combination & lightness of weight permitted me to use them without need for a monopod or tripod. That is a great advantage. But the bottom line is image quality and those I obtained without focusing issues were outstanding.
Dvir, Thanks for the review. I am considering getting this lens with the A7iii. Perhaps I missed it but I did not see any comments in your post about the autofocus performance of the lens when using the teleconverters. Could you discuss your findings on that? Thanks
Hello Ramon,
The performance with the Sony FE Teleconverters is under the “Sharpness and Features” section. Here is an excerpt from that section regarding performance with Teleconverters;
“) With the SEL1.4TC (1.4x) tele-converter
The lens performs exceptionally well when it is coupled with the SEL14TC 1.4x tele-converter, losing very little sharpness and contrast. I did not notice any differences in autofocus performance either, so if you need to get closer to your subject, you can use this combination with full confidence. Keep in mind that you lose a stop of light, so the lens becomes an f/8 lens on the long end. If you have sufficient light, then it is not a problem and you can keep the teleconverter mounted to the lens at all times. However, if you shoot in low-light conditions, then the lens by itself is going to give you the best autofocus accuracy.
6) With the SEL20TC (2.0x) tele-converter
Initially, I was somewhat skeptical of how well the SEL20TC teleconverter would work with the Sony 100-400 GM. On paper, adding the teleconverter creates an impressive 200-800mm stabilized lens, but the 2-stop loss of max aperture means you are working with an f/9-11 max aperture range. Such narrow apertures greatly limit the camera’s focusing system, and most cameras won’t even properly autofocus with a lens that has a narrower aperture than f/8. Surprisingly, the Sony Alpha 9 can focus with the Sony 100-400 GM with the added teleconverter and even does so surprisingly well when used in good light. You lose most of the A9’s ability to track small and/or erratic subjects, but you can still follow larger birds moving in a constant direction with ease and even speedier subjects such as flying Frigate Birds can be tracked adequately in good light. If you are photographing a still subject, the focusing capabilities of the 100-400GM/SEL20TC combo are quite reliable (especially when you utilize the Focus Limiter) and I was able to use with combination with good success. Overall, the focusing capabilities of the lens and camera take quite a hit with the Sony FE 2x Teleconverter in place, but the combination remains highly usable under the right conditions.”
I believe that this lens will make a wonderful combination with the Sony A7III and it is highly recommended.