Yeah, but . . .

A piece of gear’s life expectancy in my arsenal is assumed to be short when I have to almost force myself to head into the field with it. And sometimes it’s an eminently decent option.

But not as good, in one way or more, as my other options. Out with the 100-400mm GM and 1.4X on the a7 IV this afternoon, I kept wishing I had the RF gear in my hands. This copy of the zoom has a draw that reminds me a lot of the RF 100-500mm, focusing correctly on a part of the subject, but with other parts bafflingly lacking critical focus. Unlike how Canon does it with the 100-400mm, it’s as though the focus point is at one end or the other of the focal plane, depth-wise, even when eye AF is active.

The lens will probably get ditched soon, not because it’s “bad” by any means, but because I’d need to have my head examined if I kept carrying a 2.4kg setup when I have much lighter gear that’s a bit better with greater reach. The 70-350mm G APS-C lens is about as good and has no AF issues. The GM lens gets another try on the a6500, with failure meaning near-certain banishment.

The a7 IV? Going nowhere. It may turn out to be an 18-135mm camera, but it has two major things going for it: colors/IQ that I like, and great controls for managing MF glass.

Nothing worth posting today, so one from my recent travels . . .

R5/RF 100-400mm/RF 1.4X