In my opinion buy the 100-400 for the 100-400. If you need the 200-600 range get the 200-600. Using a 1.4x TC on the 100-400 24/7 doesn’t make sense when there is the 200-600. I bought the 100-400 for the wide 100mm and it’s ability to do very nice macro work while the 200-600 can’t focus very close. Not to mention the size and weight difference.
Eli The 100-400 is an amazing lens by itself. The closeup sharpness is excellent. I love it! The 1.4x could come in handy in situations when longer reach is required in the absence of an alternative.
Eli. I used my 100 - 400 G Master for close up shots of butterflies when I could not get close enought with my 90mm macro lens. The minumum focusing distance of the 100 - 400 is amazing. Having sold it, I am now getting used to the 2.4m minimum focusing distance of the 200 - 600mm. I have to keep looking behind me in case I walk backwards into the river/canal. Nevertheless, the detail at 2.4m is still very good, if not quite on a par with the 100 - 400mm. It works beautifully with my A9 and I think it will be incredible with the new A7RIV for close up shots.
I’ve been shooting for a couple years and I like to think I’m overly critical of sharpness and I can’t find a difference between the two. I think some people don’t realize af is slightly different between similar photos. I honestly think that extra reach without the teleconverter is sharper. Not a shocking revelation but should be noted. I personally after watching this video went with the 200-600. I have the 70-200 mk II and this just fits right into the lineup. Great shots man.
some of images have motion blur to begin with so hard to judge, but the comparison shots are helpful. To my eye 100-400 with or without 1.4 tc consistently look sharper than 200-600 wide open.
Dmitry Brodsky Thanks for your comments. Mode 3 was used with shutter speeds of 1/3200 and above for BIF. Mode 3 is said to used for action shots, this not found in my Sony 100-400Gm. My canon 100-400 IIL also has three modes like the 2-6. Swans were static and all EXIF are available in the few shots in my Smugmug account. Now that I have my own copy of d 2-6, I have the luxury to do more test without hurry. Will load more examples in did course.
I hear the A7RIV will be able to do PDAF with 1.4 converter and the 200-600mm. That will really give incredible range in APS-C mode with 26 megapixel. Since I photograph small birds in the wild this will be great if it does.
Charles Mann. I agree: It will also provide greater detail when cropping in FF. I am considering replacing my A7III with an A7RIV in about 12 months. Additionally, it has a far better EV and better AF. It sounds like the perfect match for my A9.
The quality of the images is so similar as to not be a consideration for me. The 200-600 has big advantage of more open at 600 and having the internal zoom. It’s disadvantage is the extra weight and longer minimum focusing distance. I have personally replaced the 100-400 with 200-600 and love the latter lens except if I need to hold up for a prolonged period, such as waiting for bird to take flight
Natural world Chew. Good video: I recently part exchanged my 100 - 400mm G Master + SE:20TC for a 200 - 600mm + SEL14TC and agree completely with your assessment. Though my 100 - 400mm was an fantastic lens, the 200 - 600mm is a more suitable lens for me. From a strictly personal point of view, the extra 200mm is worth the slight trade off in optical quality. It is really only during a side by side comparison of almost identical shots that the optical difference is discernible. The 200 - 600mm is an excellent lens for wildlife; I have captured Swallows and Dragonflies in flight reasonably easily. I tried mine out with the SEL14TC yesterday and was pleased with it's performance under 1000 ISO. So far, I have only used it with my A9 but will use it on my A7III soon.
Hello , Between a Sony 200 - 600 mm lens And a Sony 100-400 F 4.5 - 5.6 with a multiplier of 1.4 to use on a Sony A7 IV which of the two solutions is better for sports photos at night with very good lighting?
If there was an only choice between the two, I would pick the 100-400GM without the 1.4x. That said, in the situation of the night stadium you described, a 300/2.8 will be my choice if it was available.
The use of 1.4x in a stadium at might isn’t a good idea. Your 100-400 bare lens would be better if you can use 1/250 with ISO not exceeding 3200. Minimum shutter speed for humans in sport is 1/250. If you find your pictures a bit too noisy at higher ISO, there is good software program called Topaz that can help.
Really very detailed and clear information, I am hesitating between these two zooms and between A9 and A7III and A7R III. What I have understood after a lot of thinking and inquiring is that I am going to sell all my Canon equipment ... Merci ! Thxs !
Jean François Roederer I am glad you found it useful! Yes, it’s time to go mirrorless for that’s the future. If you are after speed, a9 is the way to go.
IQ is about the same between those 2 lenses, the 100-400 performs a bit (like 5%) better until 400mm, but anything above 400mm is a big win for the 200-600, especially the fact that you have more light and a shallower DOF ... and of course a lot more reach!
Not having used the A7riii, I would not be the best person to comment. But that said, my research tells me that the 42mp beast seems a tad noisier than the a7iii (24mp) at between half to one stop at high ISOs. That’s still pretty awesome for such a huge MP camera. AF wise, I believe it performs credibly, though it can’t match up to the a9. If I have to make just one positive point about the a7r3 with the 200-600 combo, it would be the crop factor. You are having to a field of view equivalent to a 900mm (600 x 1.5) at 18 mp instead of 10 mp wort the a7iii or a9. Again that said, and yes teleconverters are helpful, I believe that getting close is always the best option. Better than crop or teleconverters. For all intent and purposes, I believe the a7riii wasn’t designed specifically for speed but for making large enlargements, say, in the area of commercial advertising posters, etc. Landscape photographers will find it very useful, too. Then again, there are many excellent action shots taken with a7r3. If you are concerned with noise, it would be better to go with a7iii or a9. The recently announced a7r4 has a fairly robust AF but it is a bit of an overkill for most applications. Besides it gets a bit noisier at higher ISOs.
I am really confused between these two lenses. I know this is not a review video but still which one would you suggest? From your video what I observe is that 100-400 with converter is better than 100-600 giving almost same reach and sharper images most of the time. I maybe wrong. Also one more thing to consider is the Auto focussing speed of both the lenses. So your answer is much awaited 😊
sandeep uttamchandani Ultimately, it’s a matter of personal preference. If you prefer a smaller, more portable package, then the 100-400 with the 1.4x may be your answer. The 100-400+1.4x is more portable when it comes to putting it into a bag, not that the 2-6 is that inconvenient. Experienced photographers will notice that the 100-400 G Master is a tad faster in AF acquisition, even with the 1.4x attached, the AF performance is excellent and usually very decisive. It’s driven by a pair of double linear motors. And the IQ is great with or without the 1.4x. Sony doesn’t go into the details of the 200-600 AF motor, except to say it’s equipped with “Sony’s Direct Drive SSM (DDSSM) focusing system”. It’s most likely a new single linear motor system for this lens. It locks on and tracks quite effectively in my experience and I took this on a trip to Thailand today, leaving the 1-4 at home. You need to understand your lens; every lens has its strength and weaknesses, and with a little experience, you can capture some super shots! The super high end 400/2.8 and 600/4 use a pair of the new powerful XD linear motor. It’s often said that the 200-600 doesn’t require this super high end motor system.
@@NaturalWorldChew thank you so much for a comprehensive reply. You made my choice simpler 😊. I might go for 100-400 with 1.4x as that 100 mm focal length is not worth sacrificing when the results are same with better focusing on 100-400
@@sandeeputtamchandani3907 You should probably also consider the short zoom turn. 1/4 turn is excellent to go from 200-600mm. That makes it really easy to cover a lot of range, quickly. Really helps with birds in flight. I have a 400mm 2.8 and I have to carry another body and the 70-200mm... Almost worth it for the quality, but I'm getting older.
Hope you will get yours soon and start shooting. I got mine three weeks and enjoying it. Haven’t used much of the 1-4 but will keep it. Glad you found the video useful!
The Sony 200-600mm all the time. A teleconverter never does any good to resolution and / or Autofocus performance. Plus, I also found out that the Sony A6400 performs way better on the Sony 200-600mm than on the Sony 100-400mm.
Thanks for that input. It seems most are testing the lens on the most expensivem full frame cameras and forgetting the mass who shoot with 24mp, lower cost cameras.
Larry Sullivan Well, APS-C is ideal for Wildlife. That has nothing to do with cost. I use the 200-600mm on an A9 and A6400 as well. Before using a teleconverter, I prefer an APS-C such as the A6400.
Larry Sullivan The a6400 (or a6500, a6300) will definitely be a very useful body to included in the bag, especially with that 1.5x crop factor. So far we haven’t gotten any concrete news on a stacked sensor aps-c model. The A9 does spoil you with the no blackouts and high frame rate (when needed). I have enjoyed the A7iii over a year and shot many good action pictures, while I have not shot the a6400 on the 2-6, I am sure the real time AF (and overall improved AF) will yield some great shooting experience.
I want to buy either the 100-400 or 200-600 next year, so i do have some time to think about this. For me i think 100-400 will be the best, as it is easier to bring along. With the 200-600 i have to change my backpack lol. What backpack would you recomend that fits the 200-600mm? Just to get an idea of the price i need to add:)
Tom's lille hjørne Yes, it’s very wise for you to do advanced planning. 100-400 is smaller at the shortest zoom of 100mm so choice of bags is easier. But in actual fact, the 200-600 is not that unwieldy as the 400/2.8 or 600/4. It’s so versatile and quite portable. Any reasonable sized backpack camera bag should be able to accommodate the 200-600. And they not terribly expensive. I will be loading a short video on bags for the 200-600 in the next 48 hours. I have an old camera bag that accepts the 200-600 with lenshood inverted easily. Bag of this type of design are ideal. I have loaded the photo on my Smugmug account here: naturalworldchew.smugmug.com/Lens-testing/Sony-200-600-G-VS-100-400-GM-shootout/i-rbFTjt9
Viktor Skalican Thank you, Viktor! Good question. The instruction manual recommends that the IS should be turned off when using a tripod which is an indication that the IS remains on. Yes, this Instruction was not on the 100-400 manual. Not being a tripod user myself , I was curious to test it out. With the IS on, I still get very sharp photos at 1/5 sec just like with the IS off. However, there were a couple of times when, with the IS on, there appears to be double images. I would suppose this has to do with IS not automatically becoming inactive on a tripod as opposed to the 100-400.
Biswajit Ray Sure. The A7iii is a capable nature photography camera. Just that at 10 fps, there is a lag in that you can’t use what the last shot was. At 8 fps you can keep up. The AF is very good and works well with both the Sony 100-400 and Sony 200-600. I use it a lot to capture birds in flight and it works.
I have searched the internet to see if the 1.4 TC will work with the 200-600. Finally I see that it does indeed work. Thank you for that. How do you find the performance of the 200-600 with the 1.4 TC?
Peter Yu Thanks for your comments. I am actually quite surprised by the performance of the 1.4x on the 2-6. Whilst it’s not quite like 1-4+1.4x, I can say that I would use it if necessary. Of course, as you may already know, there is some slight performance difference in view of the fact that 1.4x on the 2-6, you are approaching f9!
I love your choice of music. It's very soothing just like being outdoors shooting landscape, nature, and wildlife.
sound off for me, very soothing
you have the soul of an artist, someone that really loves photography, Thanks for sharing.
Excellent presentation, real world examples not just talk. Thanks!
No talk, in fact.
Thanks for the comparison video and the image samples, that helps heaps.
Great video. Excellent photography and examples. Thank you!
Thanks! It’s not an easy decision but i opted for the longer zoom.
Great comparison video
In my opinion buy the 100-400 for the 100-400. If you need the 200-600 range get the 200-600. Using a 1.4x TC on the 100-400 24/7 doesn’t make sense when there is the 200-600. I bought the 100-400 for the wide 100mm and it’s ability to do very nice macro work while the 200-600 can’t focus very close. Not to mention the size and weight difference.
Eli The 100-400 is an amazing lens by itself. The closeup sharpness is excellent. I love it! The 1.4x could come in handy in situations when longer reach is required in the absence of an alternative.
Eli. I used my 100 - 400 G Master for close up shots of butterflies when I could not get close enought with my 90mm macro lens. The minumum focusing distance of the 100 - 400 is amazing. Having sold it, I am now getting used to the 2.4m minimum focusing distance of the 200 - 600mm. I have to keep looking behind me in case I walk backwards into the river/canal. Nevertheless, the detail at 2.4m is still very good, if not quite on a par with the 100 - 400mm. It works beautifully with my A9 and I think it will be incredible with the new A7RIV for close up shots.
I’ve been shooting for a couple years and I like to think I’m overly critical of sharpness and I can’t find a difference between the two. I think some people don’t realize af is slightly different between similar photos. I honestly think that extra reach without the teleconverter is sharper. Not a shocking revelation but should be noted. I personally after watching this video went with the 200-600. I have the 70-200 mk II and this just fits right into the lineup. Great shots man.
Glad to find your video. It has been at least 20years since I last met you. Good to know that you are still into birding!
Prince Hey! Nice to meet you again on RUclips! Cheers!
some of images have motion blur to begin with so hard to judge, but the comparison shots are helpful. To my eye 100-400 with or without 1.4 tc consistently look sharper than 200-600 wide open.
Dmitry Brodsky Thanks for your comments. Mode 3 was used with shutter speeds of 1/3200 and above for BIF. Mode 3 is said to used for action shots, this not found in my Sony 100-400Gm. My canon 100-400 IIL also has three modes like the 2-6. Swans were static and all EXIF are available in the few shots in my Smugmug account. Now that I have my own copy of d 2-6, I have the luxury to do more test without hurry. Will load more examples in did course.
I hear the A7RIV will be able to do PDAF with 1.4 converter and the 200-600mm. That will really give incredible range in APS-C mode with 26 megapixel. Since I photograph small birds in the wild this will be great if it does.
Charles Mann Yes, the a7riv 61mp certainly allows for great cropping!
Charles Mann. I agree: It will also provide greater detail when cropping in FF. I am considering replacing my A7III with an A7RIV in about 12 months. Additionally, it has a far better EV and better AF. It sounds like the perfect match for my A9.
The quality of the images is so similar as to not be a consideration for me. The 200-600 has big advantage of more open at 600 and having the internal zoom. It’s disadvantage is the extra weight and longer minimum focusing distance. I have personally replaced the 100-400 with 200-600 and love the latter lens except if I need to hold up for a prolonged period, such as waiting for bird to take flight
Great video and looking forward to my 200-600mm lens!
Yeah! Hope you get it soon. Enjoy!
Thanks for the comparison video and excellent photography, Could you please make a video for Sony A7III with 200-600 for birding, wildlife photography
Excellent video,thanks for posting.
Natural world Chew. Good video: I recently part exchanged my 100 - 400mm G Master + SE:20TC for a 200 - 600mm + SEL14TC and agree completely with your assessment. Though my 100 - 400mm was an fantastic lens, the 200 - 600mm is a more suitable lens for me. From a strictly personal point of view, the extra 200mm is worth the slight trade off in optical quality. It is really only during a side by side comparison of almost identical shots that the optical difference is discernible. The 200 - 600mm is an excellent lens for wildlife; I have captured Swallows and Dragonflies in flight reasonably easily. I tried mine out with the SEL14TC yesterday and was pleased with it's performance under 1000 ISO. So far, I have only used it with my A9 but will use it on my A7III soon.
pete draper I think Sony nailed it with this lens. Enjoy!
Hello , Between a Sony 200 - 600 mm lens And a Sony 100-400 F 4.5 - 5.6 with a multiplier of 1.4 to use on a Sony A7 IV which of the two solutions is better for sports photos at night with very good lighting?
If there was an only choice between the two, I would pick the 100-400GM without the 1.4x. That said, in the situation of the night stadium you described, a 300/2.8 will be my choice if it was available.
The use of 1.4x in a stadium at might isn’t a good idea. Your 100-400 bare lens would be better if you can use 1/250 with ISO not exceeding 3200. Minimum shutter speed for humans in sport is 1/250. If you find your pictures a bit too noisy at higher ISO, there is good software program called Topaz that can help.
Looks like 100-400 + 1.4 is consistently sharper.
I would have t see his shutter speeds to really make that determination. Could be the user causing that difference in sharpness
They are so similar I really wouldn't call one sharper
Thanks !
awesome video and very interesting. thanks you.
Really very detailed and clear information, I am hesitating between these two zooms and between A9 and A7III and A7R III. What I have understood after a lot of thinking and inquiring is that I am going to sell all my Canon equipment ... Merci ! Thxs !
Jean François Roederer I am glad you found it useful! Yes, it’s time to go mirrorless for that’s the future. If you are after speed, a9 is the way to go.
I am thinking of doing the same, buy the A9 and 200-600 and give it a test then possibly sell my Canon gear then buy a Sony macro lens also.
I choose both!
Awesome the camera and lens.
Awesome pictures !!!
Donovan Kage Thanks, Donovan!
Thank you for this video ☺️
sai kishan You are most welcome!
IQ is about the same between those 2 lenses, the 100-400 performs a bit (like 5%) better until 400mm, but anything above 400mm is a big win for the 200-600, especially the fact that you have more light and a shallower DOF ... and of course a lot more reach!
Sony A7R iii + 200-600mm what you think about this combinations? I have doubt about noise, your review please 🙏
Not having used the A7riii, I would not be the best person to comment. But that said, my research tells me that the 42mp beast seems a tad noisier than the a7iii (24mp) at between half to one stop at high ISOs. That’s still pretty awesome for such a huge MP camera. AF wise, I believe it performs credibly, though it can’t match up to the a9.
If I have to make just one positive point about the a7r3 with the 200-600 combo, it would be the crop factor. You are having to a field of view equivalent to a 900mm (600 x 1.5) at 18 mp instead of 10 mp wort the a7iii or a9.
Again that said, and yes teleconverters are helpful, I believe that getting close is always the best option. Better than crop or teleconverters.
For all intent and purposes, I believe the a7riii wasn’t designed specifically for speed but for making large enlargements, say, in the area of commercial advertising posters, etc. Landscape photographers will find it very useful, too. Then again, there are many excellent action shots taken with a7r3.
If you are concerned with noise, it would be better to go with a7iii or a9.
The recently announced a7r4 has a fairly robust AF but it is a bit of an overkill for most applications. Besides it gets a bit noisier at higher ISOs.
200 600 seems to be quite cheaper with similar image quality. But 100 400 is more useful because of 100 to 200mm range.
G master sharpness is on another level.😎👍🤘
I am really confused between these two lenses. I know this is not a review video but still which one would you suggest? From your video what I observe is that 100-400 with converter is better than 100-600 giving almost same reach and sharper images most of the time. I maybe wrong. Also one more thing to consider is the Auto focussing speed of both the lenses. So your answer is much awaited 😊
sandeep uttamchandani
Ultimately, it’s a matter of personal preference.
If you prefer a smaller, more portable package, then the 100-400 with the 1.4x may be your answer. The 100-400+1.4x is more portable when it comes to putting it into a bag, not that the 2-6 is that inconvenient.
Experienced photographers will notice that the 100-400 G Master is a tad faster in AF acquisition, even with the 1.4x attached, the AF performance is excellent and usually very decisive. It’s driven by a pair of double linear motors. And the IQ is great with or without the 1.4x.
Sony doesn’t go into the details of the 200-600 AF motor, except to say it’s equipped with “Sony’s Direct Drive SSM (DDSSM) focusing system”. It’s most likely a new single linear motor system for this lens. It locks on and tracks quite effectively in my experience and I took this on a trip to Thailand today, leaving the 1-4 at home.
You need to understand your lens; every lens has its strength and weaknesses, and with a little experience, you can capture some super shots!
The super high end 400/2.8 and 600/4 use a pair of the new powerful XD linear motor. It’s often said that the 200-600 doesn’t require this super high end motor system.
@@NaturalWorldChew thank you so much for a comprehensive reply. You made my choice simpler 😊. I might go for 100-400 with 1.4x as that 100 mm focal length is not worth sacrificing when the results are same with better focusing on 100-400
sandeep uttamchandani I am glad you have made a decision. Hope you will get done great shots!
@@sandeeputtamchandani3907 You should probably also consider the short zoom turn. 1/4 turn is excellent to go from 200-600mm. That makes it really easy to cover a lot of range, quickly. Really helps with birds in flight. I have a 400mm 2.8 and I have to carry another body and the 70-200mm... Almost worth it for the quality, but I'm getting older.
My 200-600 is coming but don't think I will be selling the 100-400 either thanks for the video good have real examples
Hope you will get yours soon and start shooting. I got mine three weeks and enjoying it. Haven’t used much of the 1-4 but will keep it. Glad you found the video useful!
The Sony 200-600mm all the time. A teleconverter never does any good to resolution and / or Autofocus performance. Plus, I also found out that the Sony A6400 performs way better on the Sony 200-600mm than on the Sony 100-400mm.
Stefan1968ful Good tip, thanks for your input!
Stefan1968ful That’s why I just bought the A6400 for my upcoming 200600.
Thanks for that input. It seems most are testing the lens on the most expensivem full frame cameras and forgetting the mass who shoot with 24mp, lower cost cameras.
Larry Sullivan Well, APS-C is ideal for Wildlife. That has nothing to do with cost. I use the 200-600mm on an A9 and A6400 as well. Before using a teleconverter, I prefer an APS-C such as the A6400.
Larry Sullivan The a6400 (or a6500, a6300) will definitely be a very useful body to included in the bag, especially with that 1.5x crop factor. So far we haven’t gotten any concrete news on a stacked sensor aps-c model. The A9 does spoil you with the no blackouts and high frame rate (when needed). I have enjoyed the A7iii over a year and shot many good action pictures, while I have not shot the a6400 on the 2-6, I am sure the real time AF (and overall improved AF) will yield some great shooting experience.
Good one. Love 1:08, that was a 20-shot compilation? Thanks for sharing.
Yes, that was a 20-shot burst compiled into a quick sequence.
I want to buy either the 100-400 or 200-600 next year, so i do have some time to think about this. For me i think 100-400 will be the best, as it is easier to bring along. With the 200-600 i have to change my backpack lol. What backpack would you recomend that fits the 200-600mm? Just to get an idea of the price i need to add:)
Tom's lille hjørne Yes, it’s very wise for you to do advanced planning. 100-400 is smaller at the shortest zoom of 100mm so choice of bags is easier. But in actual fact, the 200-600 is not that unwieldy as the 400/2.8 or 600/4. It’s so versatile and quite portable. Any reasonable sized backpack camera bag should be able to accommodate the 200-600. And they not terribly expensive. I will be loading a short video on bags for the 200-600 in the next 48 hours. I have an old camera bag that accepts the 200-600 with lenshood inverted easily. Bag of this type of design are ideal. I have loaded the photo on my Smugmug account here: naturalworldchew.smugmug.com/Lens-testing/Sony-200-600-G-VS-100-400-GM-shootout/i-rbFTjt9
@@NaturalWorldChew a big thank to you for helping out:) gonna check that
@@tomslittlecorner Much appreciated. Cheers!
The A9 has much better focus than the other camera so it’s apples and oranges
Great video! Does stabilization turn off when it is on a tripod automatically like 100-400 GM or does it still work?
Viktor Skalican Thank you, Viktor! Good question. The instruction manual recommends that the IS should be turned off when using a tripod which is an indication that the IS remains on. Yes, this Instruction was not on the 100-400 manual. Not being a tripod user myself , I was curious to test it out. With the IS on, I still get very sharp photos at 1/5 sec just like with the IS off. However, there were a couple of times when, with the IS on, there appears to be double images. I would suppose this has to do with IS not automatically becoming inactive on a tripod as opposed to the 100-400.
@@NaturalWorldChew Well thank you. I would like to use it mainly for video.
What do you mean by ‘bare lens’?
With no converter.
I would give overall sharpness to the 100 to 400 with the 1.4 teleconverter.
I agree. I decided to go with the 100-400 with 1.4 converter. Amazing results and it packs niceley into my camera bag.
Ducks are fast enough especially when they are flying towards you
Steve P Yes, any frontal approaching bird poses a challenge for a camera’s AF system.
Hi sir I want to know... is sony a7iii good fo wildlifephotography ?
Biswajit Ray Sure. The A7iii is a capable nature photography camera. Just that at 10 fps, there is a lag in that you can’t use what the last shot was. At 8 fps you can keep up. The AF is very good and works well with both the Sony 100-400 and Sony 200-600. I use it a lot to capture birds in flight and it works.
@@NaturalWorldChew thank you so much sir 😊
Biswajit Ray You are most welcome. If you have any questions, just ask. All the best.
@@NaturalWorldChew ok sir 😊
I have searched the internet to see if the 1.4 TC will work with the 200-600. Finally I see that it does indeed work. Thank you for that. How do you find the performance of the 200-600 with the 1.4 TC?
Peter Yu Thanks for your comments. I am actually quite surprised by the performance of the 1.4x on the 2-6. Whilst it’s not quite like 1-4+1.4x, I can say that I would use it if necessary. Of course, as you may already know, there is some slight performance difference in view of the fact that 1.4x on the 2-6, you are approaching f9!
100400 is still a bit better than 200600, but 200600 achieve its best cost performance comparing to the price.
Where are all the beach babes? We all know that is what these lenses are for 😀
👍
Amazing photos although as an amateur I didn't really spot any differences (LOL).
Joachim Kusche 😆