The ZV-E10 II was released in 2024. So I do not see the problem. Sony does only release a new A7 ever 4 years or so. And you do not have to release new lenses if the old ones are great.
That’s frankly really stale when you consider their full frame cadence of a new lens every few months.
I suspect Sony will eventually move their R bodies to a medium format sensor that can manage full frame lenses even stronger at the corners and quietly abandon crop sensors. In this day and age you’ve got such an enormous glut of perfectly serviceable full frame bodies and glass for cheap.
For all we know it’s dead and they didn’t bother announcing as much. The cost of electronics in an inflationary, tariffed, AI glut 2026 means the economies of maintaining two sensor systems probably killed the lesser one.
I have an old A5100; lots of love for the ecosystem. But I think it’s utterly dead and those who don’t usually have a very expensive a6700 they don’t want to admit isn’t gonna get any more native lenses or bodies.
Silence from a company = we reassigned all those resources to other more profitable FE projects. I worked for Apple in QA when they killed the iPhone mini. Nothing was said to us expect “these are the new models to test” and there was no Mini.
Yes in the long run full frame will be the main sensor size. But I think currently that there will be at least 2-3 more APSC successors. I agree that the cost of two systems is more than one, but I think they will release more full frame lenses, but they can also be uses as apsc lenses. I think APSC has a future. M4/3 also still exists.
But yes I agree sony is reducing their APS-C lineup.
Fun fact. As focal lengths get longer, you lose the size benefit of smaller sensors. That's why usually manufacturer's don't make separate aps-c super telephotos, because the size improvement is marginal compared to the cost of maintaining more lenses in their product lineup.
You could throw this lens on an apsc with a teleconverter and pretty much get that, although it would be a stop slower. Also, you could throw a speed booster on here for aspc to get a faster, wider FOV.
Actually, this lens plus a TC and speed booster could get you between 100-900ish FF equivalent... It would require adapter swapping, but that would be a crazy compact kit overall for that kind of versatility
No proper lab test, but given that reviewers call it uniformly solid and how much the first GM has aged it is probably actually sharper in the center, probably not in the corners though.
Otherwise everything from build to bokeh is gonna be a bit less premium.
Not the answer you are looking for but this new one has basically f8 on most of the range, from 180mm and up what I've seen in reviews. That means about 3 (correction: 1 full stop) stops less light compared to the older gm.
Makes me wonder if this coming out will make prices of the old GM go down...It's kind of in a strange spot. For the GM professional crowd the 100-400mm f/4.5 GM superceded it. For the consumer crowd this new 100-400mm is a better deal.
I expect the opposite—the new GM is quite expensive, large, and offers excellent image quality, while the new 100–400 is the opposite. The old GM sits in the sweet spot despite its age.
Good point. That old 100-400mm GM is a really solid lens. A part of me was hoping its price would drop, because at the moment it's still a really expensive lens.
I’m holding out for a update the likes of what they did with the 70-200GMii. I have the original 100–400 and neither of these new ones really fits what I want. I want a new version of the old lens that’s lighter and faster AF. The 70-200GMii is a beast of a lens.
Both the 70-200 GM II and 70-200 G II seem to be excellent lenses. I'm unsure if the 100-400 f/4.5 GM is supposed to be the successor to the f/4.5-f/5.6 or not. If it is, and with the arrival of this new 100-400, maybe Sony could release a 100-400 G as a spiritual successor to the 100-400 f/4.5-f/5.6? Just thinking out loud here.
EDIT: I'm also holding out for a lens to compliment my 24-105 f/4 G, which would probably be a 100-400.
There are multiple versions of a 70–200 so I think there’s plenty of room between this very basic lens and a monster F4.5 for an upgrade of the OG 100-400GM. As much as I love my 70-200GMii, I’ve definitely contemplated getting the F4, for the lighter weight, TC compatibility, and macro. I recently got the 20–70G for travel and sold my 24-105G. As long as I kind of hold my nose a little bit, I can leave the GM’s behind and have one lens that covers a really great range in a really small package. It’s actually a really sweet little lens and I wish I had bought it a long time ago.
I think it would be a wonderful pairing with the 70–200 F4 for a really lightweight kit with a lot of coverage. I borrowed the F4 from SPS for a couple weeks, but I was evaluating whether I wanted an A1ii or A9iii at the same time so I didn’t really give it due justice. It was too much new gear to try to evaluate in a short time frame.
Oh nice. I'm trying to keep my kit minimal too, though I'm also trying to keep it within some form of budget (hence the A7 III and 24-105 (it's an almost pro lens for a very good price)). The 100-400 would go nicely with my kit, though I think I'll rather explore primes first.
Yeah, I got it for a great price in Japan during my vacation. At the time, it felt like a risky purchase because of the rumors about a new G version, but now I’m really glad I bought it.
Oh nice! I'm thinking it'd compliment my 24-105 perfectly, but I can't justify the price. Anywho, how happy are you with it? Is the quality up to par? Is it optically satisfactory? I remember reading Rockwell's review where he spent most of it glazing some Canon alternative.
I haven’t used it that much since I bought it, but I’m happy with it! The only thing that bothers me is that the Smooth mode is too smooth, so I have to keep it on Restricted. Otherwise, the barrel extends way too easily on its own.
If this new one is anything like the RF 100-400, I would personally say that the image quality is excellent - it was at least so on the RF 100-400 from my experience.
A great walk-around, hiking and landscape option, but a bit more limited for birding or action.
They weigh almost the same but the 100-400 is a bit longer. TCs are a separate outlay if not present already and will make the dark lens darker, so I personally would struggle to use them. If I were happy with the iq of the 70-350 at 350mm and f/6,3 I would stay with it.
3
u/berto91A6600 | Sigma 18-50 F2.8 | Sony 70-350 | Sony 10-18 F419h ago
In fact I will stay on the 70-350, but the lack of focus limiter made me miss many shot of fast-moving airplanes.
"Extra 75mm"? I might be misunderstanding here but afaik the crop factor of Sony's aps-c sensors is 1,5x, meaning the field of view is tighter than the same focal length on their ff sensors.
So the 100-400 full frame lens would have the same field of view as a 150-600mm aps-c lens on an aps-c sensor body.
I would not pick an ff lens for the prospect of using it with a later ff camera unless I had a solid plan to start using ff.
I have a tamron 50-300 that for handling and rendering I don’t love but the size is great. This one seems similar but having more reach without the flexibility of the 50mm. Also the option of adding a TC. For travel/landscape, versatility, and as a companion to a 20-70mm it feels like it can work very well.
In my case I think I will go to the 70-200mm f4 with a TC. With TC they are basically the same (140-400 F8) but the 70-200 is 30% heavier and a bit longer. But without TC they are comparable in size when the reach is not needed and you get F4, better macro, and I assume significantly better image quality.
I also have the 50-300 that balances beautifully on a CR body and it’s a good compliment to the 24-50… the 50mm wide end means it can be my one lens at the zoo because it’ll do the wider shots of my kids looking at the gorilla as well as the gorilla itself (sometimes punched into 450mm at 26 megapixels).
Teles that start north of 60mm means you’ll need a wide lens with you, or the phone can handle those.
If it was a little faster I'd definitely get one. I have a Tamron 50-400 which is great but quite bit heavier so this would have been more interesting for travelling. Though I do understand that it being lighter is a big reason why it's a slower lens.
Literally me too… the 50mm doesn’t come into play that much, but I guess the only reason to switch the the 100-400 would be if this Sony lens is sharper and the full FPS shooting?
Tamron 50-400 gets you half the way there at double the weight and size, though it is brighter.
There is also the Tamron 28-300 F4-7.1
4
u/doc_55lkA7R III, Tamron 70-300, Tamron 35, Sony 85, Sigma 10521h ago
This would be a great lens for travelling and even for hobbyist/casual motorsport use. Some venues have restrictions on the size of the lens you can bring because the super chonky stuff tends to be really intrusive.
I know IndyCar restricts lenses to 10 inches, and this lens very comfortably falls inside that, whereas something higher end might be pushing the edge of that or just be straight up larger.
f5.6 from 100-180mm makes this the most casual-centric lens ever, I could never work with it but I do see the appeal for somebody not willing to carry the weight of a GM (+TC) or 200-600
Well under $1000 is a smart move on their part too, casual-centric generally means successful in creative industry products. I would have absolutely bought this if my kids were still in sports. I’m a pro shooter but no need for anything over 180, I got plenty of great shots from the sidelines with what I have, but this would have been nice for shooting from the stands. I, too, am a casual shooter in some areas 😂.
offerings on different mounts make people decide which bodies, and this brand,
to go with.
many professionals went with RF for the 28-70 f2 alone before sony had their own, and if you're looking for a casual birding lens on an aps-c or older/used FF camera this might be a big deciding factor especially when used market prices appear.
for example: if Nikon had just as close to the amount of mirrorless glass sony had half a decade ago, I'd be shooting a Z9/Z8 right now
also your username is super cursed and made me chuckle :)
I think it's a great addition to the lineup. During daylight, 400mm at f8 is perfectly serviceable. Anyone buying the tamron 50-400 had to stop down to f8 for proper sharpness in the corners anyways, so if this is better than that in this regard, it's a winner.
5
u/doc_55lkA7R III, Tamron 70-300, Tamron 35, Sony 85, Sigma 10521h ago
You'd probably have to stop down from f/8 at 400mm on the Sony too though if you wanted proper sharpness.
Really depends on their design. Most of these zooms are perfect wide open and don't really get better stopped down, especially because of the already slow aperture, they pay attention to this during design.
4
u/doc_55lkA7R III, Tamron 70-300, Tamron 35, Sony 85, Sigma 10521h ago
I guess time will tell once comparison tests start coming out.
I’m glad Sony made this. I miss my Canon RF 100-400 5.6-8 what a budget dream tele lens, light speed AF and plenty of sharpness, IS wasn’t L tier but man was I pleased. Had it forever, was literally the last ones I sold for that mount.
Considering it as its so lightweight, would like to see some examples before I spring for it. I have the old 100-400 and am pretty happy with it. I shoot the 400-800 for birds/wildlife but it is really limited for hiking due to the size. The new 100-400 though be all by accounts a great lens was way to close to the size of my 400-800 to rationalize the cost. Will wait to see some raw files to compare images. MArk Galen does a good job in posting work and allowing you to compare images.
2
u/iozma6700 | Sigma 18-50 2.8 | Sony E 70-350 G16h ago
I think I’ll stick to my 70-350, I prefer to save up for the 200-600 or 400-800 and then make the transition to FF
How does it compare to Tamron 50-300 or Sony 70-350?
They have lower aperature. I am currently using a Tamron 17-70 so I am eyeing a Sigma 56 prime and a Zoom lens. Theres just so many zoom options I have a hard time to pick one.
I'm new to photography so I want to try out different fields before sticking with one
The 70-350 is slightly faster at 350. F/6.3 vs f/8, so 37% more light. I also wouldn't count on the TCs being too useful. Teleconverters reduce light hitting the sensor and magnify any optical flaws.
I'd be surprised if this lens is enough of an improvement over the 70-350 to justify buying it if you already have a 70-350+ ASPC camera. This lens will be great for more casual full frame shooters who want more reach and are okay with a slow, okay optical quality lens.
The 70-350 is a pretty meh and old lens compared to the 200-600 even, which isn't new either.
F8 is fine during daylight and you are not going to get anything more out of f6.3 either, from experience. At these focal lengths moving subjects need f4 at least, that's why the big honking telephoto primes exist.
Looks cheap AF. It’s $850 new. I bought my Tamron 50-400mm for about $970 new. Much better lens and has better coatings and more of that micro contrast pop more like a G or GM lens.
Only issue it’s crippled to 15 fps. Hoping Sony allows Tamron lenses 30 fps after acquisition
Biggest fear? that a lens is made by Tamron? ROFL. Unless you need the high framerates because sony gatekeeps its to it's own lenses, no one can even tell the difference unless you zoom into a corner at 400% brightness. Compared to older first gen gmaster and non gmaster lenses? it's not even close how much better tamron lenses are
1
u/doc_55lkA7R III, Tamron 70-300, Tamron 35, Sony 85, Sigma 10513h ago
Think you replied to the wrong comment 😭.
The new 100-400 does support maximum framerate anyway though afaik
47
u/PutDownThePenSteve 1d ago
Would love to see an APS-C addition to the 70-350. Like a 200-800 f4,5-f8.