Sony 200-600 vs Sony 100-400 an Easy Choice?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 9 июл 2024
- Sony 100-400 vs Sony 200-600 & the 1.4x Extender - which sony zoom should you buy?
Thanks to Ryan Mense - Sub and Follow Him
/ ryanmense
/ @ryanmensewildlife
➨ My Recommended Gear: kit.co/photorectoby
🖼️Print your Beautiful Photos photorec.tv/bayphoto
🎧Creating content? Awesome music for your videos here: photorec.tv/music
🌠 Build a beautiful website! SAVE 10% off your first purchase, go to www.squarespace.com/photorectv
Video info
Buy Links:
200-600 bhpho.to/36RCIDm
100-400 bhpho.to/2S7LvNc
🌠 Follow me / photorectoby
💬 Join an awesome community and get the support you need to become a better photographer - Get your work critiqued, get your photography questions answered and so much more photorec.tv/join
Find and Follow me at:
/ photorectoby
photorec.tv
/ photorectoby
/ photorec.tv
500px 500px.com/photorectoby
SUBSCRIBE ruclips.net/user/camerarec...
GooglePlus: goo.gl/4iQn2
I have both lenses and shoot them with an a7Riv and an a9. I find that you need the 100-400 to take full advantage of the resolution of the a7Riv. You can punch in to the APS-C mode and you can cover the 200-600 range, still with a 26MP image. The 200-600 images are just ever so slightly softer on the a7Riv (though still very good images, indeed, if you are not pixel-peeping). The explanation from Sony is simply that GM lenses are built with higher resolution than G lenses. I like the 200-600 on the a9, where it has plenty of resolution for the 24MP sensor and matches beautifully with the tracking auto focus to captures birds in flight. You can't go too far wrong with either of these lenses, but budget considerations and which camera you are using might push you a little more toward one than the other. At least that is my experience for my shooting. As always, your mileage may vary!
Great summary!
I use mine on the A9II the 100-400 has not got back on the body yet for my wildlife photography
I have a7r3, crossing fingers the a9 drops a bit more in price before i grab it. I have the 200-600, and youre right, the 100-400 (rented) seems to come out a bit cleaner.
Sigh... will now save up to go broke all over again to own both....
Cheers!
I found that the 200-600 focus speed is not as fast as the 100-400 with using the A9 or A7Riv. Agree that with the A7Riv the 100-400 are just a bit sharper. That said I do tend to use the 200-600 more mostly because the reach is just better. If I am going out on a trip in which I know there will be more birds in flight shots I do grab the 100-400 because I have found that it is just far superior in focus speed. Depending on the trip I am far more likely to take the 100-400 than the 200-600. With the A7Riv I would pick the 100-400 if I was forced to only pick one, for the A9 it would probably be the 200-600.
@@davidlewis5929 i just grabbed the 100-400 last week. (Which is stupid, because with Covid i cant use it anywhere ;) ). Now i have both lenses, my justification being the 100-400 will replace my 70-300 in my bag. The 600 is too big to carry around for day to day stuff, more just specialty stuff.
Hoping to grab the a9 soon, pair it with the 600, and that will be my dedicated airshow / wildlife setup. The r3 with the 400 will be my carry setup for those times something cool comes along that you werent expecting
whenever i'm on the fence, I take a long walk and when I get back I order both lenses.
Lol. I would love to be able to own both lenses!
😂
:D this coment made my day!
I already had the 100-400mm and the 1.4x teleconverter. In the end - the way I see it is that if you primarily shoot wildlife you should choose the 200-600mm, but the 100 - 400mm is a much better general lens to own. It allows you to be portable, get some great portraiture / landscapes, is a lot more flexible for sports, and even allows you to get great macro-esc shots with it's short focus distance. But again.... if you are looking for wildlife - don't overthink it.... go buy the 200-600mm
Solid summary of the choices. I agree!
The bigger problem is that it makes it F8... they are definitely different lenses for different purposes. I think when i get old and move to the country I would get the 200-600, but then again I might just treat myself to a 400 F2.8 - for now though flexibility and pack ability are at the top of my list....
I'm a old Navy Photographers Mate 1971 to 1975 USS TICONDEROGA for the Apollo 16-17 recovery. It off I enjoyed your presentation. I just purchased the 200-600 and I have the A9, A7riv, and finally a A7rii and I'm learning how to use them each time I go out and videos like yours and Mark Smith are very helpful for this old sea dog. I grew up with film and used Canon Cameras up until I tried a Sony and I was hooked on the Sony it's lite weight and great focus. I have several G lenes now I did keep my Canon 70-200 2.8 with two extenders and finally my 16-35 2.8 with meta bones adapter. So anyway I'm still learning and by the way my Navy buddy and fellow PH lives in Shoreline Washington and he just switched to a Leica with fixed lens at over 5gs. Lastly I will be watching more of your videos thanks. If your ever interested I can share some of my Apollo 16-17 photos on messenger.
Great video. Gives me peace of mind that I made the correct choice in buying the 200-600. I do less portrait work. I do miss the option to focus close-by though. I need a second A7 iv for my other lens 😬
Thanks for posting, very helpful!
I picked the 100-400 for several of reasons. 1) mobility - can walk around with the 24-105 and the 100-400. I find the 100-200 range very important; 2) I have a lot of 77mm filters; and 3) the close focusing really is useful for me. As I get better with using the 100-400 range, if I see that I'm finally at the point of more wildlife images compared to the current way I use the 100-400 then I will get the 200-600.
Awesome review! Thanks 👌🏻
I've shot with both and compared the pictures in Lightroom as well. I think if you have an R series Sony (a7r2, r3, r4) you will be happier with the 100-400. Using crop mode I can get the same range as the 200-600 and still have a ~20mp image, plus I can shoot at 5.6 instead of 6.3. Comparing that side by side to a non-cropped image of the 200-600mm, the 100-400 just barely wins. The landslide victory for me was size and weight. If you have a lower resolution body, the 200-600 starts to pull away because you can't crop the 100-400 and maintain the same quality. Just my personal observation.
If you use a A6300,6400,6600 you can get 24 mp and 600mm with the long end of the 100-400
W/ these 1.5 crop sensor cameras
Mike Hines I would get the sigma 100-400 it’s a beast
@@angelguzman8737 yeah, sigma 100-400 is beast for people who can't afford a Sony 100-400 GM ;) native GM lens is always win
Thank you
@@deankim9958 I have sigma 100 400 and although its sharp alright, the autofocus struggles with quick movements. Ordered the sony 100 400 and glad to read sharpness is better even on a7riv, that i have.
Another plus for the 100-400 is the close-focusing down to 3.3 feet. This allows the lens to be used almost as a macro lens with subjects 3" or thereabout, like butterflies and small lizards or frogs.
Good video. One of a few reviews I watched and I ended up going with the 200-600. Thanks
Your video shows a lot of details that help me a lot with making the decision. Thank you!
Glad it was helpful!
It’s an easy choice. If you are into Wildlife, take the 200-600mm. If you are into general shooting including landscape, take the 100-400mm. I use both of them and the 100-400mm is a stellar performer in my Landscape work combined with a Sony A7r4. The Sony 200-600mm I use regularly with my Sony A9 for Wildlife.
Excellently put. The comparison between the 200 600mm and the 100 400 mm isn't apt imo. It's which suits the requirement of the user
Great review. Love to have either. Thks
I have used both of these and found the zoom operation of the 200-600 significantly better than a stiff 100-400 making the 200-600 a very easy choice.
thanks for making this informative video. i'm not a pro (serious amateur) and take mainly wildlife. my extreme setup is the 200-600 with the 2xtc on an a7r4. it is very unforgiving, but sometimes you just can't get close enough. reach and crop is hard to walk away from. this setup is what i drive around with looking for subjects (btw, it is useless shooting aerials). my a9 travels with the 24-70 gm mounted (for landscape and insects), and i also pack an a992 with the g70-400 mounted (for flight). shot this way this winter during the local eagle season. after watching the video and reading the comments, i'm considering switching the a9 to the 200-600 w/o the tc, and running the a7r4 with the 24-70. the a992 setup with the g70-400 is working OK (use it so shoot the 3 second cheetah dash from the photographers blind in reno). avoiding lens changes in the field because of sensor dust. find it to be a real problem.
my question would be: is the gm100-400 on the a9 be a significant improvement over the a992 and the g70-400 for fast focusing.
Thank you for this review. I was looking for my first telephoto lens and the 100-400 seems a better choice for me. It's more compact and also lighter. Paired with the 1.4x extender, I think it's a solid choice for a beginner wild life photographer that has spaghetti arms haha
Great video! I'm leaning towards the 200-600 to get into wildlife photography as well as experimenting with astrophotography. I have the Sony 24-105 so the 100-400 would be nice since I would have some overlap in focal length and it's a great size. But for the same price, I could get the 200-600 and a 2x tele-converter for three times the range. Thanks for the video! It's nice to see these two lenses side-by-side.
I just purchased the 100-400 and have been amazed with what it can do in my limited use. I knew that I wanted the close focus capability so I didn’t consider the 200-600 much.
Great comparison thanks!
Thanks for the comparison. I went with the 200-600mm since I already have the 70-200 2.8.
I travel with the 70-200 and use the 200-600 mainly for aviation stuff.
Hi Taylor, i am confused which one to buy 70-200 or 100-400 ? apart the reach distance do you like your 70-200 2.8 ? is it versatile ?
@@FarhanKhan-gt7hd hey there my friend. I already had the 70-200 and was looking for a telephoto to get a little more reach. I decided to go with the 200-600 and I love it!
As for the 70-200 2.8 I really enjoy that lens. I have had absolutely no issues with it. However, some of the pros I follow are saying that is due for an update.
Best of luck!
I just recently bought the Sony 200-600 primarily for astrophotography. Hasn't arrived yet but I am getting acquainted with it with videos. Very nice video you made.
I am a Nikon fan since 1967 when I was a much younger man and began a serious hobby in astronomy as early as 1959... I have the Nikon 500mm F/5 Reflex Nikkor but these new Sony lens are simply amazing and considerably out-do my Nikon 500mm.
I have used for years, a 10" Meade telescope and no "camera lens" is going to give me what a 10" telescope can give me but... the Meade is getting too heavy for me and the trade off for the 70-300 Sony lens that I have been using lately, has made me see-the-light. For the A7RIII that I use (love those megapixels) for astrophotograpy and the mentioned lens, I decided I would be able to get out much more often with my iOptron Star Tracker and the 200-600 lens - I have gotten to the age that it is best I have some help with the 10" and not all my friends are as energetic as I am. I really appreciate your video and all the other videos I have seen on this lens and I am going to have fun with it. There are also a lot of YT videos where some really impressive deep sky photographs have been taken with other 600mm lens by astronomy buffs and definitely helped sell me on going this way. Thanks again.
As someone who is shopping these two lenses- thank you for the insight. Although, the 1-400mm does seem to be stronger without the converter. I do wonder if that lens would be all around better for event photography or really any instance where that additional reach is not required.
I’m not a wildlife photographer so I think the 100-400 would work best for me due to it’s smaller size and min focus distance. In fact, some of the macro photography I’ve seen with the 100-400 blew me away!
Thank you very much for this very informative video and the comparison of these 2 lenses, you present the information very clearly and beautifully 📷
Glad it was helpful!
absolutely right to go to the catalogue and check which range you shoot most. I did this, both for shooting and then for finally keeping: this made a huge difference for me.
This is very personal, but very instructive. I shoot at very extreme ranges, but the final photos are ion a much more modest range. this is a very efficient way to save money and reduce weight. But ... as I said ... very personal
This was a great review, you answered all my questions,, Thank you. I am going with the 200-600mm
I've just recently went through this tough choice also. Ultimately I went for the 100-400 for the size and min focal distance.
It's just far more versatile.
I agree the 100-400 is incredibly versatile! 200-600 for those looking mostly for wildlife!
Exactly, it all comes down to reach requirements, if you can come close enough to your subjects then there is no need for a 200-600.
Yep... I selected the 100-400 for the exact same reasons. No regrets whatsoever.
I know this is old but this is an awesome review, thank you!
Which would you recommend for moon shots and deep space astro?
Just grabbed the 200-600. Primary use is rocket launches, video of those, and other aircraft, ships at sea, boating shoots, and so on. Tested out a 100-400 for the launches, and it didn't have the reach from 5-6 miles away. Video wasn't bad, but still was not close enough as the rocket or aircraft are more distant. I did not have the teleconverter to compare though. I've seen others mount the camera to an actual computerized 8 or 10 inch telescope that have 2000-3200 mm FL at F10.
tried to find out your video of africa with 100-400, kindly share the link. thx
Thanks for the video! I shoot on the Sony a7iii. Would you recommend the 100-400 or a combo of the 200-600 and the 70-200?
Excellent video. I have the 70-200 F4 and am choosing the 200-600. For you, the 100-400 makes great sense given your amount of use in the 100-200 range. Luckily I have that range pretty well covered with my 70-200. Your objective comparison and review was super and most helpful to me in confirming my choice.
What would you say for someone that mainly uses to shoot sports like surfing? Looking to purchase one of these but can't decide.
@Bo Passer and Toby, I played with both the 100-400 (which I have) with the 1.4x and the 200-600 and came to the same conclusion (appreciated the focus speed and larger aperture of the 200-600) and will be getting the 200-600 (despite the weight) when I can for birds and wildlife. Will just have to do more arm strengthening....Great review!
Thanks Lori! Love to see my PEN friends commenting here too!
I would have to agree with Toby's assessment completely. I happen to own both lenses with the A7rIV. I find the 100-400 to be ever so slightly sharper but for me it's mostly the size and weight. Unless I'm specifically going birding or for wildlife I find myself repeatedly choosing the 100-400 over the 200-600. All that said. I REALLY love the extra reach when I need it. I shot both at a recent airshow and was very happy with the results from both but I could track better with the 100-400. Hope this helps.
Bo - thanks! When will we see you on a trip again?
I have the 100-400 and found no problem at airshows hand-holding and tracking all day, but wish I had more reach. Was the tracking with the the 200-600 a weight or focal-length (narrow angle) issue? Thanks
@@dalefmurphy Hi Dale, It was the weight for me. It was cumbersome. The lens itself performed flawlessly. I also had no problem tracking with the 100-400. One other thing to consider is I had just gotten the 200-600 and wasn't used to working with it. I have no doubt that was part of it. I want to make it clear I am very happy with the 200-600 but I prefer the 100-400 is all. I hope I answered your question. Take care
@@photorectoby Hi Toby, Going to Scotland next year and a couple domestic trips I''m looking at 2021 now. BTW I absolutely loved the New England trip. I really look forward to another one with you. You and Steve are my two favorite photography folks. Take care
Thank you for a great review comparison. I like to shoot long length so I would definitely pick the 200-600 mm. The term “wild life” might mislead people to thinking wild life only. As for me I like to shoot without getting caught like people facial expression without them noticing me. I shoot parade that sometime I am too far to get to subject. Sometime I would get on top of my car or stood on the fence. Therefore 200-600 mm will serve me well in any long length and hard to reach subjects. It’s fun being to shoot a long distance without being noticed. Thank you again and please keep up the good work. :)
I would go for 100-400 as well for the same reasons as you gave in the review - size and weight - more travel friendly. In any case I shoot with APS-C so I get 150 - 600mm. The 100-400 lens would be easier to pan birds in flight.
So I own the 24-105mm f4 from sony and the A7II. I'm wanting to get a second lens for landscapes and wildlife. I rented and used the 100-400mm last year in Yellowstone and loved it. Now I have no idea which one should be my second lens. Is the 200-600mm too niche or would it be a good compliment to the 24-105mm adding a ton of options I don't currently have?
Would the Sigma 60-600mm be a good alternative to either of these Sony lenses?
I am in the odd predicament of looking at Sony for wildlife to compliment my existing Panasonic Lumix G9 for low light and the rare occasions I would like more shallow depth of field - that second option is actually pretty rare. Would a A7iii or 6600 be a good choice for the 200-600?
Just back from 3 weeks on Safari, including Ngorogoro Crater where your shot in the video is from. Loved the 200-600 w/my 7RIII... perfect lens for the conditions. Internal zoom is huge in terms of handling in a Land Cruiser filled with 5 other non-photographers. Hated the 1.4x teleconverter and ended up leaving it in the suitcase most of the trip. The slight loss of focus for subjects in dark areas was frustrating, forcing manual focus and some missed shots. Nice review... appreciate!
when you did the size in the bag you fliped the shade on the 400 and did not flip the shade on the 600 ?
Thanks for the great review! I have the 100-400 GM along with both 1.4x and 2.0 x tele converters. I have been thinking about buying also the 200-600 G on the side, but I think I will stick to the 100-400 GM with the TC:s.
6:29 sorry but where is the link?
BTW Thank you for showing how and how much you cropped images. Rarely people show this in their videos.
Sorry- here is the link photorec.tv/content/sony-200-600-vs-sony-100-400-14x-extender-easy-choice (raw files are linked there)
I have both and much prefer the 100-400, not for reasons of weight (though that is a factor), but because the 200-600 is a slower lens and at comparable focal lengths, is much slower in terms of t-stop values. I have to bump the ISO up a lot to match the light gathering of the 100-400. Thanks for your review!
Which one would you recommend for the Sonly A7S3 (which has great low light capabilities but a low resolution sensor) and for the use of video shooting?
Depends what you're filming! Lions? 600. Children? 400.
I have both plus the 600 f4. When I want absolute sharpness and reach, it's the 600 F4 with 1.4TC. When I want close focus and flexibility it's the 100-400. When I want the reach of the 600, but smaller and more flexibility then the 200-600. I seems Sony makes all 3 to meet the variety of needs that disparate photographers have. For the wildlife photographer with tight budget then 200-600, macro work such as butterflies and bees then 100-400 beats both of the 600mm lenses. It is nice to have the choices. 😎🤙
I use the 200-600mm on a A7III for shooting Skydivers and personally find it a great choice. Next time I am out though, I will be using a G9 with a 100-400mm. I plan on using both systems but I could see my 70-200 GM living more on my body.
Your summary was spot on for me. The 200-600 for me leaves uncovered the 105-200 range. And like you wildlife is but a smaller part of my work. Though it sure would be nice to have the 200-600 during those times.
Yep! I may end up owning both at some point.
Just bought the 100-400mm for my Sony A6600. I have tremors and I believe this one has more built-in stabilization than the 200-600mm. I could be wrong though - please tell me if I am. I will probably end up with both. Really enjoyed this video - very helpful! Thank you!
Currently I want to know if the Nikon or cannon 300mm prime is better, thanks
so I already have the sony 100-400 do i need to buy a 200-600 or just buy the 1.4x Extender?
or 2.x Extender?
Great review.....2024...Having used the both Sony 200-600/5.6-6.3. and the Sony 100-400...I will go with the Sony200-600 when I eventually get down to purchase....(I am not a fan of external telescoping lenses) and I also already own the Sony 70-200/4...I currently use a pair of Sony A7c bodies with a holdover original A7s...I am no longer much of a video maker...I am from Olympia but currently retired in retired in Bangkok...cheers
Hi,
Really like your reviews and the straight forward approach. Will you be reviewing the Canon 90D. You had review most Canon and Nikon bodies so I was wondering when that review might come
I am not sure I will be able to get that done - lots of workshops in the near future. I do think it is a great camera and a solid upgrade from previous bodies.
Thank you for the great review, many good points!
I should say though, if you scale up a photo from 100-400 @400 to compare with a photo from 200-600 @600, the result is gonna be inherently unfavourable for the former. Not only because the amount of pixels per detail is less to start with, but also because you add extra resampling to it.
I think, downscaling photo from 200-600 to match one from 100-400 would make a more fair comparison.
I have and A7r3 and just purchased the 200-600 because I got a deal on it that I couldn't pass up. Open box at Best Buy, 1500 dollars in pristine condition, but marked down because they couldn't get it sold. I already have the 100-400 with a 1.4 teleconverter and was considering getting the 2x. I have been trying to get some shots of an eagle in a nest that is just out of reach with the combination. I can say that I aways find myself needing just that little bit more range and love this lens so far. It is definitely noticeably heavier than the 100-400. I am a big guy and have no problems with the 100-400, I would want a tripod for the 200-600 if I was shooting any length of time. The OSS handheld is great even at 600mm. I love taking pictures of birds and the extra zoom is fantastic and gives me clarity I just can't get with the 100-400. I can say that if I didn't do birds I probably wouldn't have gotten the lens.
thank you so much. I will choose 100 to 400
Is the 200-600 appropriate for use in a stadium at night?
No matter how much people say that the new G lenses are equivalent to the GM, its not true. The operations are equally fast, but there is a difference in the wavelength of the glass polishing.
In a 61 megapixel image taken with G lens, if you activate the zoom button, we can see good sharpness. but further zooming into the image, you will see the coarse grains a kind of glass noise at the highest image zoom point. But with GM lens you will see even more details and sharpness at that point. GM lens will also give accurate colours.
So the Gs are fine until you are using the A7R III, and don't need much enlargement.
I tested this with 24-105G and 100-400GM.
I will wait for a prime 300mm 4.0 and/or 400mm 4.5 and/or 500mm 5.6. I will like Sony to make 1,4x and 2x teleconverters to the Sony 135mm 1.8 GM - THAT will a GREAT combo.
Toby, any thoughts on the 100-400 combined with the 2x Extender? I bought this combo a year ago and now never use the extender as it just produced mush. Using an A7RII, images taken at 400mm without the extender blown up to the same size were sharper than the same image taken at 400mm with the extender. I have wondered whether this was because the extender means the aperture is f/11 at 400mm, so diffraction issues start to become noticeable and might (?) explain the poorer result. Or is this extender just rubbish? Thanks.
Hi Dale - I tried both extenders and while I didn't think they were rubbis with the 2x I did feel like AF was slower and quality took enough of a hit that it really isn't worth it except for very static scenes, like the moon :)
My go to’s are the 100-400mm and the 24mm awesome lenses.Almost use them exclusively.
I use the same combo
@@kumingo , Hello, I have the a7r iv with the 24 1.4, and today I buy the 100-400 just like you, what lens / s do you use in the middle range, a 24-70 2.8, or fixed? Thank you. (excuse me, but I use a translator to write)
i know this video is a bit old but what is the best lens with af for wildlife for a sony a7iii?
These are still the top two lenses for Sony photography looking to capture wildlife. I give the 20--600 an advantage for strictly wildlife.
What camera were you using?
Good comparison mate , i have been agonizing over these two lenses for some time now , In my neck of the woods( Australia .... bushfire central ) , the 400 mm is usually around $3600 or + or - 100 , the 600 mm around 3000 ish .
I`m just a hobbyist , i like shooting ships and city shots and the odd sunset , and rainbows when i can catch one :) .
I`m like an old woman , i keep changing my mind , one week i`m leaning towards the 400 , the next the 600 :) , and i`m only a peasant pensioner so getting both is sort of in the too hard basket in the short term .
I think the 600 is ahead on points for me , just for that extra bit of reach, and it is a few bucks cheaper . .
Cheers .
I've got the 200-600, but 100-400 is more convenient to bring when traveling.
What backpacks are those?
I purchased the 100-400 just after pre-orders for the 200-600 opened up. I didn't regret the choice then and I don't now, even after shooting with the 200-600 a few times. I just don't shoot wildlife enough to justify it, whereas the 100-400 is the more versatile choice for me, and it's always in my camera bag when I go out to shoot. I can't say I'd do the same with the 200-600.
Yep!
That's me. I shoot a lot of motorsports, especially professional drag racing, air shows, etc. I would like to have more reach, at times for the airshows but the 200-600 gets to be a real burden during a long day out in the sun. It's great for wildlife though, most of the time!
Yeah, my uncle has the 200-600, so I've gotten to shoot with it a few times. It's a nice lens, but it's a little too bulky for my taste to carry and to shoot with on a regular basis. So when I shoot birds, I have been very happy with the 100-400 and the 1.4x TC, and I take it with me everywhere I go. The loss if image quality is negligible.
Great video! Anyone have any suggestions as to whether the 100-400 or 200-600 would be better paired with the new Sony FX30, for wildlife videography?
Great question! I think I would leave toward the 200-600 for even more reach but I want a second opinion. Ask ruclips.net/user/ryanmensewildlife
@@photorectoby ended up getting the 200-600 and love it! Thank you!
@@wildlifehouse Nice- Can't go wrong with that lens!
@@photorectoby I have window to return the FX30 and 200-600 and am now thinking about swapping for the A7IV and the new Sigma 60-600. Any thoughts? Please let me know if you would choose the A7IV with the Sigma 60-600 or Sony 200-600 or the FX30 with either of those two. I was also thinking about the Panasonic S5ii but a wildlife photographer said that it won't compare to Sony in terms of animal autofocus. Decisions decisions! 😀 Thanks again!
@@wildlifehouse I would stick with the 200-600 - it is an excellent lens and while I found the sigma to be great I just love the colors and contrast from the 200-600 and I think it is a better match for the Sony a7iv. I don't have enough video experience to compare a7iv vs fx30. Sorry.
I'm currently debating between these two. I have the Sigma 100-400 right now, but the Sigma does not work with the teleconverters. So 400mm is it. I was thinking of getting the Sony 100-400 plus the 2x teleconverter for 800mm. But of course, with the 200-600 + 2x you get all the way to 1200mm. That'd be nice for birds. I do like the smaller size and weight of the 100-400, though. Tough choice! The Sigma has been pretty good for shooting moose this past week, but I've been able to get pretty close to them. With other wildlife, I can't get so close, so considering getting as much reach as I can get.
Thanks
I'm a Canon user who is about to make the move to Sony, and I'm leaning toward the a7RIV for my first camera. I love wildlife photography as well as all other kinds of photography, and I don't want to plunge too deep by buying a prime lens due to the cost. Any thoughts on straddling the fence and buying a 70-200 f2.8 GM lens and a 200-600 to have all ranges covered? This is where I'm leaning at the moment, but could really use some advise from the experts...
Hi Brian - I think that is a good solution. It is going to set you up with two excellent lenses and a fantastic camera. Grab the tamron 28-75 for the wider end and you got it all.
Thank you for your advice.
I'm a hobbyist and currently looking for a telephoto lens for my general purpose. I'm thinking of the 100-400 and the 70-200 GM. It's hard to decide. I mainly shoot street photos/ landscape and a bit of portrait and wildlife too. I travel quite a lot. Which one should I pic?
I really like the 100-400 when comparing these two. It's versatile enough for portraits, street, and wildlife. The 70-200 is a great lens but it is never going to feel long enough for anything but some backyard wildlife.
Man, thank you again. You're so helpful.
But with the 2x teleconverter you get more reach on the 70-200. Also some extra reach if you put it in apsC mode.
Thanks for the great review...although now I want both of them. 😅 Stuck between wanting a powerful travel-sized zoom that also covers bird photography or a much more bird-focused lens that's way cheaper. Also nice to meet another Seattle photographer!
Hi there, thanks for the comparison. I'm also in the Seattle area and taking a whale watching tour soon. i'm renting a large lens from Glaziers for this, which one would you recommend for the whale tour? Thanks
This is good information...and I thank you for your time...but you references "lens creep" in regard the 200-600...it's an internal zoom...how is that possible? Could you expound please? Again, thank you for taking the time for this.
He probably meant by bumping the zoom ring
I would still go with 100-400mm GM lens because of the reasons that you have mentioned especially when it comes to air travel.
I finally got a chance to watch this ! I just bought the 200-600 and am loving it! But I need to put it through a wildlife / landscape test here in Arizona. Love your videos!
On A7iii which lens would you recommend? I don’t own any telephoto zoom and mainly do landscapes (16-35 GM) and macro (Sony 90mm G).
The 100-400 is versatile - great for portraits and landscapes and it fits easily in normal sized camera bags. The 200-600 value great for wildlife and is more affordable.
This may come as a surprise to some, but a big use I've found for the 100-400 is for macro photography. And that's also one of the biggest differences between the 100-400 and 200-600. The 3ft focusing range at 400mm means that I can get some really tight shots on flowers, specifically insects and such on flowers, without disturbing them and ruining the shot. Sure it's not going to be great for ultra macro photography, but for flowers and butterflies it's fantastic. Again, this isn't my main use for this lens, but I've found that I don't need a separate macro lens now for what I shoot. At 100mm it's also a decent portrait lens. Currently I'm trying to decide between the 1.4x or 2.0x teleconverters.
I agree that the 100-400 is great for close focusing needs. I strongly prefer the 1.4x ruclips.net/video/A6Seehp2imk/видео.html
This may be the best comparative review of these two lenses that I've seen - thank you! I own a 200-600mm and have found it to be a very good lens and if Sony had labeled it a 'GM' I believe they would have still got it right. Before I switched from Canon to Sony gear in 2019 I used my 100-400 'L' lens as my 'go-to' landscape lens. I miss having that focal length in my bag, especially since it is so much easier to carry. A good friend uses a Sigma 100-400mm and his images are very, very good! Have you tested that lens and made any conclusions relative to it and the Sony GM?? Cost would certainly factor into my decision here but IQ still wins the day.
Thanks great advice, I own the A9 II and both lenses. I like them both but end up to take 100-400mm mostly with me. Nature pictures require nearly always cropping and losing resolution. So when I expect a picture which needs a lot of crop I change to the 6600 camera, which is 24 Mp (7R4 is 26Mp). I started to like the 6600. Great Af tracking. Great size, Just a beautiful camera. Thanks for all your great videos.
I just bought the a6600 and its great so far! Debating between the Sony 200-600 or the Tamron 150-500
Learned a lot from this video and the comment section
Exellent - Glad I could help.
I think Ill go with the 200mm-600mm lens for the extra reach plus my A7R III can also do a 18mp 1.5x crop and bring that 600mm to 900mm. Also, I already own a 70mm-300mm that I can use for lower focal lengths.
Sounds like a good plan!
@@photorectoby Thanks
Still on the fence!! But take away the 1.4x because APS-C gives you 1.5X and you are using mostly the center of the lens that is shaper anyway. Just get the 2x where you can get 1200mm in APS-C mod. The same for the 200-600 you get 1800mm which by the way is the mm you need to fill the frame of a full moon but use a tracker for everything moves fast that close. I did it with the Sigma 150-600 (adapter and block updater to much to have on hand) during a lunar eclipse and got some great lunar mountains on the edges. But you have to love the APS-C button selection (C1) and not putting on the 1.4x . I like the internal zoom of the 200-600mm the most.
I bought the 200-600 mainly for the reach on my hummingbird projects but I wouldn’t want to carry this in the field all day. When the 100-400 came out a sony rep let our group try in on a church shoot, great lens but i did not pull the trigger. For me the choice is which one would i use more, the answer the 100-400. If i was a professional i would have both, now i may trade in the 200-600 for the 100-400, oh well!!!
I find the aps-c option intriguing. But I think the 100-400 lens would be more doable. Your thoughts ? Iam referring to using Sony a6000 series cameras, especially the A6400 or a6600 .
Yep the 100400GM+tc1.4 is a travel combo... And thats what i wanted.
There should be a number of second hand ones after 2.5 years
I went with E 70-350 for A6400. Appreciate the extra weight saving.
for crop sensor that is a great lens!
I have the A6600 and use the E 70-350G as a compact telephoto, or the FE 200-600G when I need length more than I need compactness. I didn’t consider the FE 100-400GM because (1) it’s neither here nor there - not as long as the longer lens, nor as compact as the compact lens; and (2) I already kinda have that lens as my A-mount 70-400G.
The 70-350 and 200-600 do make it a little easier for me to transition away from my A-mount.
Hi, I have recently acquired a used Sony E mount 1.4x TC. I have used it on my A7Riii with the Sony 200-600mm lens. However, I find that when the A/F is set to Wide or Zone the TC doesn't allow the A/F to work unless the focal length on the zoom is less than 320mm. Without the TC on the lens and A/F in either of the two modes I've mentioned the A/F works fine. Please may you advise me if the TC is not supposed to work on the 200-600mm or is there a setting I'm missing. Thanks Brian
Hi Brian, I haven't heard this and I don't remember having this issue when testing. I don't have the lens with me at this time to test but I will see what I can do.
@@photorectoby thanks, any help or confirmation of what the 1.4x does with the 200-600mm and A7RIII will be greatly appreciated. A friend thinks it's a limitation of the camera aperture in those A/F modes. Thanks Brian
Hi! Does anyone have experience with a6400 with the 100-400mm?
I'm planning on going to photo safari in coming years as a once in a lifetime trip (other trips don't include safaris but are quite frequent). So I'm thinking that 200-600 would be good because it's cheaper and I'm guessing the extra reach would be good to have on the safari. However I like the 100-400 because it's smaller and lighter and most of my photography is not wildlife although I encounter something randomly during my travels. I'm going to buy a6400 anyway to be backup body for my a7iii and for the situations when the animals are beyond the reach that a7iii provides.
So should I go with the maximum reach to make sure that I can shoot the animals that are further away or just face the fact that I'm never going to travel with the 200-600 after the safari and go with the 100-400 for portability? I already have the 70-300mm FYI.
If this is going to be "once in a lifetime" I'm going to suggest a different solution to your dilemma. Buy the 100-400 since that seems to be your preferred focal length/weight/travel lens... and when you're about to go on safari visit one of the big lens rental sites and just rent the 200-600 for a week or three. You can select which lens to take into the field each day depending on what you're photographing - or take both if you're doing car-safari. It'll cost you ~$100 a week to rent it so 3 week trip with a 200-600 will cost less than a 1.4x TC all by itself would. ;) Also, consider renting the A7rIV for your trip. That's a bit pricier to rent, but I'd rather have 61MP once-in-a-lifetime images than the 24MP A7III
I use the clear image zoom feature in the a7riiiA at 2x with my 200-600mm for moon pictures & they come out great! Such a great lens!
Clear image zoom feature?
@@jav_eee it's in the 2nd settings menu,5th page. It says zoom. You can get 2x the zoom and not lose any clarity.
I would take the 100/400. I have the a6400 which would take it to 150/600 with the gm quality. I've shot the 200/600 and it's a great lens but a beast to travel with.
Rented both lenses to compare side by side on my A7R4. They are both excellent lenses - great imaging, focusing speed & tracking, good vibration reduction. The only cons were: the 100-400 only goes out to 400, at least full frame, but 26MP gives “600” ; the 200-600 is heavy, not as versatile as it’s min is 200mm, the internal zoom is great but the adjustment ring is a bit too loose and the zoom creeps, and I found that at 600mm there’s a lot of noise on photos - but it can be processed out & I don’t know how much of that is the A7R4. Just some thoughts. Image wise both are exceptional.
Good Summary!
I sold my 100-400mm for the 200-600mm .. complemented by 70-200mm f4 .. they are great for range and resolution on A7RIII and A7II .. and would probably be same price as 100-400mm + TC x1.4 combo .. I was using 100-400 all the time at 400mm and shots with TC x1.4 where higher ISO .. grainy / noisy and muddy compared to the 600mm @ f6.3 in darker conditions .. Also when fully extended, the 100-400mm didn't look much smaller on a monopod or tripod .. just a tad smaller and lighter .. but hey .. its not a walk about lens .. 700-200mm is good for that .. I use 200-600mm for birds, outdoor sports and races .. and it is good .. and it doesn't suck in dust !!
I do love the true travel friendliness of that 70-200 f/4!
this is probably good choice if you can easily haul two lenses or don't need to do dual missions. The 70-200 f4 (used) can also basically be had for the difference in price between the 100-400 and 200-600.
I own the 200-600 for shooting birds. I have borrowed the 100-400 often and I ALWAYS come away with better pictures of the 100-400. The chief reason is the 100-400 is more manipulable and can track birds a lot better. The weight of the larger lens makes it clunky to move and track quickly, and I get tired faster. The 100-400 while similar in the image, is a far better lens in my opinion. I will keep the 200-600 but will buy the small one as well. I already own a 1.4 TC anyway.
I owned both of these lenses along with the 2x teleconverter.
I shoot wildlife and birds in flight.
I prefer the 200-600mm when possible without converter.
Traveling by plane I take the 100-400mm and 2x teleconverter.
I think the 100-400mm is sharper and the bokeh is smooth, plus the minimum distance might work in tighter spots
They are both fantastic paired with my Sony a9 body.
I also occasionally use a Sony a7r2.
I think that is a great summary!
Get the 200-600 and an a6400 and you have a 1.5x teleconverter due to physics of the cropped sensor, but withouth the drawbacks kf having an extra teleconvertor, for a lot less than a 100-400mm. Wildlife for days! 24mpx condensed in a cropped sensor is equivalent of cropping in on an A7R III/IV. So pretty sharp indeed. It might be my next lens, but in my tests, it was so heavy to handle it by hand, that it becomes impractical without a tripod.