I have always been a big believer in primes being the only way to go for my wildlife shooting. Couple of years ago I was using a 600 mm on my Panasonic GH5. My brother had the Sigma 150 to 600 contemporary. I had an adapter to fit it to my camera so borrowed his lens for part of that afternoon. At one moment my wife was standing on the outside of a fence and there were four horses standing on the other side of the fence. I was able to get a really nice close-up zoomed all the way into 600 mm of all5 heads, but then I remembered I could zoom out to 150 and did so. That’s when I was sold!...on these new super zoom, super telephoto lenses. I was able to get my wife and 4 horses fully in the frame by zooming out. It was a revelation moment for me and that amazing bargain of the lens, only $900. It has become my staple and I would not even imagine using a prime again unless I was working a specific project or it was supplied to me and it was the main lens needed for that particular project. Probably where a better-in-lower-light lens would be required.
I absolutely love my Sony 600mm! I use it 98% of the time. Once you get used to how far away you must be from your subject, this lens is awesome! I ordered the new Sony 300mm as I photograph hummingbirds, and I find myself in closer range than 8 feet even with an extension tube. Birds in flight in closer range is difficult. But I love that lens. I bought the 200-600mm twice over time, thinking I should have a wider option. But the focus and hunting are greater than 600mm. The 600mm locks instantly.
@@BigFoot-w4d I honestly am selling my 100-400mm. At times it's fast and many other times it hunts too much for hummingbird photography. I wasted too many shoots trying to get it to focus. The 300mm and 600mm are lightening quick to focus. Even though it's a sharp clean lens just not for me. :+) But glad we both love our Sony's!
Hey, I'm one of the guys that met you a St Vrain shooting Osprey. I wish I could afford a nice prime like that, but I think I prefer the zoom versatility IMHO.
I have just got the 600 F4 GM and am loving it. It is difficult in a RUclips video to appreciate the differences it makes, but in actually editing the photos, enlarging to 100% it is quite obvious. Not that the 200-600 is bad, but the prime images just have an extra edge
Interesting comparison. I myself use the sigma 150-600 and have managed to get beautiful images. Obviosly the extra 2 stops of light would be great to have, but considering I got if for about 1200$ and not 12K, I'd take the raised ISO :) especially with the new noise reduction tools that make previously unusable images perfectly ok.
I'd take the 600/4 in a heartbeat if I could afford it : ) More than one stop of a difference in terms of bokeh and ISO. I guess if I could dedicate more time to wildlife photography I would eventually buy it.
I have a 16-35mm, 100-400mm and 200-600mm paired with A7rIV bodies. I shoot wildlife videos 90% of the time and the 600 prime has been on my list for a while but for video, doesn’t seem like the benefits are worth the addition, especially for the price 🤔
Yeah, but can you vlog on it!? Seriously, I'm so impressed by what you've been able to capture of late!! Also, from what I hear Topaz is worth every penny and not too labor intensive... It might be worth looking into it if you have footage that equals the photos you've taken.
LOL!! funny, I was out today vlogging with the 600. Fo Sho … LOL Thanks pal, decide to up my game this summer after being pissed about the lack of cool wildlife photos during a trip to Yellowstone. Still mess up so often. But, dam … it’s fun my friend. and I love to learn. Thanks again Brian, appreciate you.
Yes, vlogging is possible with an extension ring so that you can get close enough! But then you only see the skin pores or an eye instead of the face.😁
yea, the 600 is on another level my friend. BUT …. many of these photos were taken with exceptional settings, which really make wildlife photography. It’s better, … but like most things. It’s really the user.
Shooting the stuff is such a female dog. Who wants to carry round all that heavyweight and then the hardness of tracking the bird with a prime and no ability to zoom compared to not being able to get a clear enough shot but saving money with a 200 and 600 good Lord. Photography is such a racket.
Hi, sorry but I just love the way presenters say "I shot this with the Sony A1 and 600 F4 lens" where on earth do ordinary working class people/hobbyists nowadays afford £5,879.00 for a body and £11,999.00 for a lens near total £18,000 or approx $23000.
I get your point though this lens isn’t really just for the weekend photographer. There are people that shoot professionally and could easily make the money back to pay for the lens or that are so committed to photography and find the value of the lens worth spending. I don’t think rolls Royce, Aston Martin, and Bugatti has to stop making luxury cars because working class people can’t afford them.
Mark is great but the camera market is just a racket I shouldn't have to spend $5000 for a used lens plus use a tele to get closer to something. Come on now camera makers! And that Sony Alpha one should be lower in price by about $1500.
I live in Singapore, which is the birding capital of the East. Every weekend, the parks, which we have a lot of, you'll see regular people walking around with $30k+ setups. Disposable income is a real thing here. I think we have a total of 4? World renowned wildlife photographers, the rest are just serious hobbyists with money to burn.
Those shots with the prime are amazing. I would love to use one, but the reality of hauling a lens that big into the Amazon or across Africa, keeping it safe in transit, not getting into trouble at the airport (Ethiopia), and the cost makes it not possible for me. It's a tradeoff. But your image quality is superb, and love the images.
As much as I lust for a 600mm prime, every time I wondered about having a 600mm f4.0 replace my 200-600mm I forced myself to zoom-in to 600mm and forget about the zoom ring. Every single time I aborted that simulation after just a couple of waves (surf photographer) and resumed zooming out as the surfer approaches me, as often the most spectacular maneuvers are performed after the surfer picked up some energy/speed, getting much closer to me in the meanwhile.
Most of mine are at 100 yards or more and I just can't get closer. When the subject is closer I can pull out so much more detail. 2/6 and a 6000 I am on a budget so
As long as you have enough light for the 200-600mm, I can't really imagine a scenario that you'd need to dish out over $10k more for the 600 f4. If bokeh is an issue, just throw into Google photos and adjust background blur. voilà.
Quick question, will that prime lease always blur out the background? I shoot surf videography and like to be able to show the waves in the background of my subject
You can reduce the blur by increasing the aperture of the lense so more of the photo is in focus, but there are downsides to high apertures such as decreased light.
Stunningly sharp and concise wildlife photos! The coyotes were magnificent! And thanks for being so informative about these lens. You help a lot of people with decisions and advice.
I have the 6700 and never use a teleconverter with the 200-600 combo. You're getting 900mm which is plenty to work with. I have tried the 70-200 GM II with 2x and it's pretty soft wide open with the 6700.... with the aperture stopped down you can get a slight better sharpness but at that point the 200-600 is way better option.
When I got my A7 m4, I also got the 200-600mm. I hated it. It was tack sharp at 600mm but only if your subject was 50 ft away. Which is pretty useless for small birds and especially warblers. I replaced it with the Sigma Sport 150-600mm which has proven great, since the minimum focus distance was so much better at 600mm. The Sony prime 600mm has a much better minimum focus distance of 15 ft. It weighs nearly 7lb which is a lot to sling around when you shoot hand-held. I think I'll pass. If I was a pro, I'd go for it.
I think for photography 600mm f4 is just the way to go. I'm 90% video guy, and videos are pretty flexible and I think the 200-600mm f5.6-6.3 is a better lens for video. I usually just keep it at 6.3. Also the other benefit in video is that you can crop if you have a larger sensor and still maintain pristine IQ in 4K video even if you push it all the way to an actual 1080p. Too dark? Go 24fps with 1/50s or even 1/40s if needed. I think the 600mm is brilliant and would love to have it, but I think 200-600mm would serve me be good at the moment. But I would rather get the 400mm f2.8 for night wildlife filmmaking with the a7SIII.
@@SoftCampingSouthAfrica I would rather buy the 400mm f2.8 GM instead myself, especially for you in Africa to film wildlife at night with A7SIII/FX3/FX6/ZV-E1. A 1.4x teleconverter would make it 560mm f4.
Nice Video! If excellently blurred Bokeh is your primary goal in your wildlife pictures, then you have made a good choice on the Sony 600mm prime. But please do not sell your 200-600mm lens short. The reeds in the picture of what looks like an immature White-Crowned Sparrow do a great job giving the picture a natural wild area context. To me, the sparrow looks "wilder" than a bird completely isolated by bokeh. Please do not get me wrong: when I pull off a good case of bokeh I celebrate! Why? Because for this M43 user full bokeh is very hard to pull off since distances between me, the subject, and the background are hard for me to control. Besides, most of my friends and clients are researchers of the natural world and they sure do like context in their pictures. In short, never get rid of your 200-600mm lens so you'll be able to fine tune your pictures for the specific needs of your clients. Cheers!
Such great points, my friend! You know the Sony 200 to 600 lens is really an incredible lens and offer so much and versatility, bokeh and sharpness. Totally agree!
Hard to say, not sure it made sense for me. But, I love the quality I can get out of this lens. It’s much sharper than the 200 to 600. But, quality is far more dependant on the user, settings, time of day, subject … ect.
Shooting Peregrine Falcons with 200-600 with A7RV get very few tack sharp shots! My Son's Sigma 500mm f5.6 with A7RV nailed a lot more and much sharper!! the bottom line is the 200-600 on high speed is not really good!
I have always been a big believer in primes being the only way to go for my wildlife shooting. Couple of years ago I was using a 600 mm on my Panasonic GH5. My brother had the Sigma 150 to 600 contemporary. I had an adapter to fit it to my camera so borrowed his lens for part of that afternoon. At one moment my wife was standing on the outside of a fence and there were four horses standing on the other side of the fence. I was able to get a really nice close-up zoomed all the way into 600 mm of all5 heads, but then I remembered I could zoom out to 150 and did so. That’s when I was sold!...on these new super zoom, super telephoto lenses. I was able to get my wife and 4 horses fully in the frame by zooming out. It was a revelation moment for me and that amazing bargain of the lens, only $900. It has become my staple and I would not even imagine using a prime again unless I was working a specific project or it was supplied to me and it was the main lens needed for that particular project. Probably where a better-in-lower-light lens would be required.
I absolutely love my Sony 600mm! I use it 98% of the time. Once you get used to how far away you must be from your subject, this lens is awesome! I ordered the new Sony 300mm as I photograph hummingbirds, and I find myself in closer range than 8 feet even with an extension tube. Birds in flight in closer range is difficult. But I love that lens. I bought the 200-600mm twice over time, thinking I should have a wider option. But the focus and hunting are greater than 600mm. The 600mm locks instantly.
The 100-400 GM has 600/4 performance.
@@BigFoot-w4d I honestly am selling my 100-400mm. At times it's fast and many other times it hunts too much for hummingbird photography. I wasted too many shoots trying to get it to focus. The 300mm and 600mm are lightening quick to focus. Even though it's a sharp clean lens just not for me. :+) But glad we both love our Sony's!
Hey, I'm one of the guys that met you a St Vrain shooting Osprey. I wish I could afford a nice prime like that, but I think I prefer the zoom versatility IMHO.
Very well said. It is my dream lens for my a1. Thank you for this informative video.
I have just got the 600 F4 GM and am loving it. It is difficult in a RUclips video to appreciate the differences it makes, but in actually editing the photos, enlarging to 100% it is quite obvious. Not that the 200-600 is bad, but the prime images just have an extra edge
The 600mm prime is pretty special. Congrats on your new lens!
Interesting comparison. I myself use the sigma 150-600 and have managed to get beautiful images. Obviosly the extra 2 stops of light would be great to have, but considering I got if for about 1200$ and not 12K, I'd take the raised ISO :) especially with the new noise reduction tools that make previously unusable images perfectly ok.
Totally agree on the noise reduction, software tools.
I'd take the 600/4 in a heartbeat if I could afford it : ) More than one stop of a difference in terms of bokeh and ISO. I guess if I could dedicate more time to wildlife photography I would eventually buy it.
bingo, the bokeh, the nearly two stops of light ….
I have a 16-35mm, 100-400mm and 200-600mm paired with A7rIV bodies. I shoot wildlife videos 90% of the time and the 600 prime has been on my list for a while but for video, doesn’t seem like the benefits are worth the addition, especially for the price 🤔
Excellent review in mentioning the pros/cons of each. Thank you!
Glad it was helpful!
Within the first 10 seconds I got a heaping eyefull to know exactly what the video is going to be about and it's going to rock!
👊😃👍
thanks pal, this one was fun to make …
Yeah, but can you vlog on it!?
Seriously, I'm so impressed by what you've been able to capture of late!!
Also, from what I hear Topaz is worth every penny and not too labor intensive... It might be worth looking into it if you have footage that equals the photos you've taken.
LOL!! funny, I was out today vlogging with the 600.
Fo Sho … LOL
Thanks pal, decide to up my game this summer after being pissed about the lack of cool wildlife photos during a trip to Yellowstone.
Still mess up so often. But, dam … it’s fun my friend. and I love to learn. Thanks again Brian, appreciate you.
Yes, vlogging is possible with an extension ring so that you can get close enough! But then you only see the skin pores or an eye instead of the face.😁
Holy cow, the 600 photos are nuts! Seems to have a bit more contrast, and detail, than the 200-600.
yea, the 600 is on another level my friend. BUT …. many of these photos were taken with exceptional settings, which really make wildlife photography.
It’s better, … but like most things. It’s really the user.
@@BrianGJohnsonPhotographyAmen
I have both lenses and I hate the zoom for being front heavy.The 600 GM is a joy to use!
Shooting the stuff is such a female dog. Who wants to carry round all that heavyweight and then the hardness of tracking the bird with a prime and no ability to zoom compared to not being able to get a clear enough shot but saving money with a 200 and 600 good Lord. Photography is such a racket.
Hi, sorry but I just love the way presenters say "I shot this with the Sony A1 and 600 F4 lens" where on earth do ordinary working class people/hobbyists nowadays afford £5,879.00 for a body and £11,999.00 for a lens near total £18,000 or approx $23000.
Rich people
I get your point though this lens isn’t really just for the weekend photographer. There are people that shoot professionally and could easily make the money back to pay for the lens or that are so committed to photography and find the value of the lens worth spending. I don’t think rolls Royce, Aston Martin, and Bugatti has to stop making luxury cars because working class people can’t afford them.
Mark is great but the camera market is just a racket I shouldn't have to spend $5000 for a used lens plus use a tele to get closer to something. Come on now camera makers! And that Sony Alpha one should be lower in price by about $1500.
I live in Singapore, which is the birding capital of the East. Every weekend, the parks, which we have a lot of, you'll see regular people walking around with $30k+ setups. Disposable income is a real thing here. I think we have a total of 4? World renowned wildlife photographers, the rest are just serious hobbyists with money to burn.
@@cruelolol I totally get that point though.
I have problems with the 200-600 mostly related to sharpness. Most of my photos require Topaz.
I have the same issue
Same here.
Those shots with the prime are amazing. I would love to use one, but the reality of hauling a lens that big into the Amazon or across Africa, keeping it safe in transit, not getting into trouble at the airport (Ethiopia), and the cost makes it not possible for me. It's a tradeoff. But your image quality is superb, and love the images.
Lovely images and info. Thank you
Glad you enjoyed it! Cheers and enjoy.
I just loved you in AC/DC ha
As much as I lust for a 600mm prime, every time I wondered about having a 600mm f4.0 replace my 200-600mm I forced myself to zoom-in to 600mm and forget about the zoom ring. Every single time I aborted that simulation after just a couple of waves (surf photographer) and resumed zooming out as the surfer approaches me, as often the most spectacular maneuvers are performed after the surfer picked up some energy/speed, getting much closer to me in the meanwhile.
Great thoughts for sure. And they’re both such fantastic lenses. Thanks for sharing!
Most of mine are at 100 yards or more and I just can't get closer. When the subject is closer I can pull out so much more detail. 2/6 and a 6000
I am on a budget so
right.
As long as you have enough light for the 200-600mm, I can't really imagine a scenario that you'd need to dish out over $10k more for the 600 f4. If bokeh is an issue, just throw into Google photos and adjust background blur. voilà.
Thanks for the video, I have the 200-600 and pretty pleased with it, I'm considering the new 300/2.8 to use with 1.4 or 2 converter.
Good choice!
Incredible shots Brian! Getting back into photography and you're in my top follows.
thanks Jack.
I compliment my 200-600 with my 600 f4 however the 200-600 should not be un-derated for its versatility
Hi brian... where in national park do you like to for route? Im in colorado and ive never experieneced this animals there
Very well say Brian! I have both and I use the 600 F/4 95%. Love to see video 200-600 vs new 300 GM + 2x TC
Quick question, will that prime lease always blur out the background? I shoot surf videography and like to be able to show the waves in the background of my subject
You can reduce the blur by increasing the aperture of the lense so more of the photo is in focus, but there are downsides to high apertures such as decreased light.
@@xTheITx Good to know thank you, now I'm facing the big decision, will I invest in the 400mm 2.8 or the 600mm F4
Stunningly sharp and concise wildlife photos! The coyotes were magnificent! And thanks for being so informative about these lens. You help a lot of people with decisions and advice.
Many thanks!
Excellent video, Brian! Beautiful and informative. Thank you.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Well I made it this far, so it means it was an entertaining video!
Hi ,brian which would you recommend between 200-600 or 70-200 f.2.8 gm II with Sony a6700 maybe with a 2x teleconverter
would not recomend the 2x tele. The 1.4 …. sure, but not the 2x
I have the 6700 and never use a teleconverter with the 200-600 combo. You're getting 900mm which is plenty to work with. I have tried the 70-200 GM II with 2x and it's pretty soft wide open with the 6700.... with the aperture stopped down you can get a slight better sharpness but at that point the 200-600 is way better option.
What program do you use to de-noise? Those results are insane!
lightroom with AI denoise!
@@BrianGJohnsonPhotography Nice I started using that recently - amazing stuff!
When I got my A7 m4, I also got the 200-600mm. I hated it. It was tack sharp at 600mm but only if your subject was 50 ft away. Which is pretty useless for small birds and especially warblers. I replaced it with the Sigma Sport 150-600mm which has proven great, since the minimum focus distance was so much better at 600mm. The Sony prime 600mm has a much better minimum focus distance of 15 ft. It weighs nearly 7lb which is a lot to sling around when you shoot hand-held. I think I'll pass. If I was a pro, I'd go for it.
Of course 600/4. This is understood.
I think for photography 600mm f4 is just the way to go. I'm 90% video guy, and videos are pretty flexible and I think the 200-600mm f5.6-6.3 is a better lens for video. I usually just keep it at 6.3. Also the other benefit in video is that you can crop if you have a larger sensor and still maintain pristine IQ in 4K video even if you push it all the way to an actual 1080p. Too dark? Go 24fps with 1/50s or even 1/40s if needed. I think the 600mm is brilliant and would love to have it, but I think 200-600mm would serve me be good at the moment. But I would rather get the 400mm f2.8 for night wildlife filmmaking with the a7SIII.
I’m the same, I shoot 90% video in my 200-600 and been pleased. I’ve always wondered if I needed 600 prime
@@SoftCampingSouthAfrica I would rather buy the 400mm f2.8 GM instead myself, especially for you in Africa to film wildlife at night with A7SIII/FX3/FX6/ZV-E1. A 1.4x teleconverter would make it 560mm f4.
Nice Video! If excellently blurred Bokeh is your primary goal in your wildlife pictures, then you have made a good choice on the Sony 600mm prime. But please do not sell your 200-600mm lens short. The reeds in the picture of what looks like an immature White-Crowned Sparrow do a great job giving the picture a natural wild area context. To me, the sparrow looks "wilder" than a bird completely isolated by bokeh. Please do not get me wrong: when I pull off a good case of bokeh I celebrate! Why? Because for this M43 user full bokeh is very hard to pull off since distances between me, the subject, and the background are hard for me to control. Besides, most of my friends and clients are researchers of the natural world and they sure do like context in their pictures. In short, never get rid of your 200-600mm lens so you'll be able to fine tune your pictures for the specific needs of your clients. Cheers!
Such great points, my friend! You know the Sony 200 to 600 lens is really an incredible lens and offer so much and versatility, bokeh and sharpness. Totally agree!
Hey Brian I'm also in Colorado! and in truly wondering if it's worth to upgrade I have the 200-600 atm
Hard to say, not sure it made sense for me. But, I love the quality I can get out of this lens. It’s much sharper than the 200 to 600.
But, quality is far more dependant on the user, settings, time of day, subject … ect.
Thanks for sharing, impressive lens.
Thanks you Dom!
I have both and you are spot on .
Me watching this video, not owning the 200 - 600 yet, thinking, that's a lot of money already 😅
right!! right!!!
Shooting Peregrine Falcons with 200-600 with A7RV get very few tack sharp shots! My Son's Sigma 500mm f5.6 with A7RV nailed a lot more and much sharper!! the bottom line is the 200-600 on high speed is not really good!
Good stuff Brian
Thanks Doug, much appreciated! Hope this message finds you well.
1:17
2000 vs 13k. As a not pro, i pock 2000😂
What a revelation..the 600 f4 is better than the 200 -600.. who would have known that..
Hey, thanks for the comment and engagement. I appreciate that.
Why the sarcasm?