Eager to see ...

[DonSchap]

One of the things I plan on doing next week is comparing the SONY 70-400mm f/4-5.6 G SSM (53 oz) to the older Tokina AT-X 840 (Model I) 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 (32 oz), to see what all the hub-bub might be about.

Again and again, over the past two years this new and significantly heavier SONY lens has been available, someone has always griped that it was "the lens to get." Well, I am getting one ... and we shall see.

Under this particular thread ... I am planning a side-by-side ... indoors, outdoors - lamp, sun and cloudy ... on the Full Frame and the APS-C bodies, just to see if the price difference is really worth it. I am leaning toward believing it is, but the shutter will not lie.

Anyway ... here we go.

[SONYNUT]

i have to 70 300G ssm works pretty good...the diff between 300-400 was hardly worth the extra 700 bucks..

and with 25mp+ on the 900 you can crop the hell out of it and still have a good pic

[DonSchap]

Steve,

the "base aperture" for the SONY 300mm f/4.5-5.6 G SSM is 4.5 @ 70mm. I am not too thrilled about losing the extra light as it is. Having the additional tube diameter allows for an improved image, overall, as I understand it.

It also tends to seem a bit more "ruggedize," which can be an asset when you are tromping around in the wilds and has a tripod ring, which the SONY 70-300mm and my Tokina 80-400 do not.

SONY 70-400mm f/4-5.6 G SSM


SONY 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 G SSM


Tokina AT-X 840 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 (Model I)

$700? How do you explain the CZ 85mm f/1.4? That actually seems $700 more than it should be.

[SONYNUT]

I looked at both t.. The 70-400 was pretty flimsy on the long end....money wasn't the issue...quality was...granted the 70-300 is plasticy.but hey..if it was a zeiss it would be better..

But then i have my big ol 600 for nature stuff

[DonSchap]

But then i have my big ol 600 for nature stuff

Show off! LOL

[DonSchap]

Here are the reported base aperture changes as you zoom in on your subject:

70-100mm f4
100-150mm f4.5
150-250mm f5
250-400mm f5.6

I do not know how that stacks up against the 70-300 G SSM, but still having f/5 @ 250mm sounds pretty cool.

From what I have read, the biggest knock on the 70-400 is the bokeh at the long end (>250mm). While I rarely consider this something I look for, there are those that do, of course. I will just have to experience ... and compare.

[Peekayoh]

70-300mm is
70mm- 85mm f4.5
90mm-110mm f5
120mm - 300mm f5.6
and I have to admit a bit on the soft side at the long end until f8.

70-400mm definitely the Daddy.

[DonSchap]

Thanks, Peter, I'm feeling better already.

On an added note, concerning equipment limitations:

• the TAMRON SP AF 200-500mm f/5-6.3 Di LD has a minimum focus distance (M.F.D.) of 10-feet!
• the Tokina AT-X 840 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 is limited to a M.F.D. of just ... 8-feet.
• the SONY 70-400mm f/4-5.6 G SSM has it down to 5-ft.

Believe me, that little constraint will be appreciated, too.

Man, back at school, in the AM ... who knew?

[DonSchap]

and, believe it or not ... OOTB ... it was DOA! My eagerness was just a waste of time.

Honest to Jake! Dead as a doornail. On either camera, no response. It was just like hooking up a MANUAL lens with no connection ... ONLY A BIG & HEAVY MANUAL LENS!!! The camera had no aperture information, the lens did not AF ... (like Gov. Blagojevich would tend to say, were he still in office) "Just f'in dead!"

This is the second expensive SONY lens I have gotten from B&H with a major failure in it. I'm sorry, this is starting to really play with my patience. What is the heck is going on? What a worthless waste of time and effort. Someone, other than me, needs to check these BEFORE they get shipped out!

Okay boys and girls, just so you know which one it is, here's the serial number ... just in case they want to pass it around ... again!

SAL70400G
Serial Nos:

P-84370830-F
S01-1808203-8

I wish I had better news ... because this is just unexpectedly tragic.

[SONYNUT]

Now for all the double talking b&h bs fest...have fun with that...