Sony 100-400 GM vs 200-600 G (3 weeks in Ecuador)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 2 окт 2024
- I give my opinion on the Sony 100-400GM lens vs. the 200-600G lens after using them for 3 weeks in Ecuador on the a7RIV and the a7III. Primarily, I compare the usability of the lenses (design, autofocus, etc) and then the image quality. Both lenses were a lot of fun to use, and if you're deciding between the two, you have a tough decision on your hands!
I hope you enjoyed, and HAPPY BIRDING! Checkout my first bird photography video from Ecuador here: • BIRD PHOTOGRAPHY in EC...
The Lenses:
Sony 200-600G ▶ geni.us/sg99l7
Sony 100-400GM ▶ geni.us/100400
For more videos, be sure to subscribe here:
SUBSCRIBE ▶ geni.us/GhZe
FOLLOW ME
Instagram ▶ geni.us/7tV2ie
Facebook ▶ geni.us/q1tBto
PHOTO GEAR
My Photo Editing Software ▶ geni.us/PhotoEdit
GREAT Noise Reduction Software ▶ geni.us/Topaz
Sharpen Your Photos ▶ geni.us/sharpen
My Main Camera ▶ geni.us/alpha1cam
My Video Camera ▶ geni.us/WdpB
WILDLIFE Lens ▶ geni.us/sg99l7
My Second Wildlife Lens ▶ geni.us/Sigma1...
Monopod ▶ geni.us/gitzomono
Monopod Head ▶ geni.us/Wimberley
Wide-Angle Lens ▶ geni.us/17-28
MACRO Lens ▶ geni.us/90mm
MUST HAVE Camera Strap ▶ geni.us/sluAsKY
Rain Sleeve ▶ geni.us/Stpy
Camera Bag ▶ geni.us/cRZgtj
VIDEO GEAR
My Video Editing Software ▶ geni.us/videoedit
Tripod ▶ geni.us/tripodInn
Tripod Head ▶ geni.us/502AH
Mic ▶ geni.us/KcJO2
Camera Monitor ▶ geni.us/atomosnin
My Video Gimbal ▶ geni.us/G4kfBf
Field Recorder ▶ geni.us/ZoomH
Where I Get My Music/Sound Effects (Get 2 Extra Months) ▶ geni.us/musicvid1
For Business Inquiries: contactstefanoianiro@gmail.com
#100400GM #200600G #BeAlpha
-------
The above may contain affiliate links. Please consider buying from your local camera store before purchasing through larger retailers.
I'm a photographer who never did any bird photography or animals, I simply don't have the money to spend on such big lenses: I absolutely love watching your videos. I don't think I'll ever get into bird photography but it's such a joy to watch your passion and you seem like such a nice guy. Really fantastic channel and fantastic pictures. I wish there were more youtubers like this and less of the "I'm so cool and witty and let me manipulate you to buy these garbage products" kind of youtubers. Just honest people showing what they are passionate about. Bravo.
That means so much! Thank you!
See if you can use a 1.4x or 2x teleconverter with some of the limited Sony lenses
@Manny F What for? They would just degrade IQ. If you can't get your shot at 600mm, 1200mm is not going to make it any better.
Haha, up until 2:58 i thought "definetly the 200-600 for me". And THEN... :-)
Hey Everyone, hope you enjoyed the video, there’s a couple things I’d like to add/mention:
1. I’ve recently updated to Adobe Premiere 2020 and it took me 3 days of constantly trying to export this video to get a final version without glitches. So if you notice anything weird in the video, let me know! I’m working on getting a new laptop. So, bear with me for a bit haha.
2. One thing I forgot to mention: I think the 100-400 is more consistent at getting critically sharp results. For general uses (social media, small prints) it’s not a huge difference, but if you’re someone who likes to pixel peep and create very large prints, I think the quality and critical sharpness of the 100-400 is what you’ll be after.
I've been hearing 100-400 is better too.
OMG premiere 2020 has been such a mess. It's so buggy. The update they just released like a week ago fixes alot of the essential graphics and export errors but it's still a bloated program. I feel like they rebuilt alot of stuff from the ground up but they neglected efficiency of the software. Unlike super streamlined resolve...
@Bryce Thoman Hey! I wouldn't say the 100-400 is significantly sharper. When I look through my Ecuador photos, I can't tell which lens I used unless I look at the metadata (or remember using a specific lens for that shot). You can get critically sharp results with both lenses. Like I mentioned in the above comment, I do believe you will get consistently better results with the 100-400. I only tested the lens for 3 weeks, and mostly in overcast conditions. But if I used both lenses equally for say, a few months in different conditions, I do think I'd have more keepers with the 100-400. I'd check the metadata of the photos taken with your 200-500. If the bulk of your images are taken at 500mm, and then you're cropping in post, you may want to lean towards the 200-600. Since I do a lot of songbird photography, the problem is usually I'm not close enough, which is why I went with the 200-600. But if I was doing a lot of larger shorebirds/raptors, especially in flight, I would have likely went with the 100-400. I seriously don't think you can go wrong with either lens, unless you get a bad copy of one, of course. Let me know if you have any other questions!
@Bryce Thoman Hey Bryce! Sorry I didn't answer your last comment. RUclips doesn't always notify me when there's a reply on a comment thread 🤦♂️ I wouldn't say the majority of my images are critically sharp. However, I think my situation is a little different. I do a lot of jungle/forest birding, where my shutter speed is often 1/30th - 1/250th. Most people recommend your shutter speed be double your focal range to be safe. So I'd have to be at 1/1000th, at least. The reason I'm so low is the f/6.3 aperture and the fact I don't want to push my ISO too high on the A7RIV. But when I'm out in a field/wetland/forest edge where I can use normal shutter speeds, even say 1/500th, my critically sharp images significantly increase. From what I've seen from my images, I do give a slight edge to the 100-400 when you hit critical sharpness, but it's so very minimal. The reason I give the edge to the 100-400 is because when I hit critical sharpness, I was able to crop the image more % wise than critically sharp 200-600 images. There also seems to be more variance in the 200-600 from user to user. Some reporting issues, some are extremely pleased. To be honest if I had to choose one that fits my personal needs, I'd go with the 100-400. However, I'm also considering my future plans. Sometime in the distant future I'd love to invest in a 300 or 400 f/2.8 for larger birds/mammals/low light photography. Which is one of the reasons I chose the 200-600 because it covers a different focal length and will serve a different purpose. I actually just had a great few days doing BIF tests at a beach and wetland. I tested a bunch of different shutter speeds. Anything above 1/1000th handheld while using good technique was amazing. Pretty much all bang on, except for a few that were dropped because the AF would grab onto the wing for a few frames or user error (I was half submerged in the ocean for some of the sequences, so waves rocking me back and forth caused some issues haha). The decision between both telephoto lenses is tough. Even after testing them, it didn't really solve anything for me. Both are great, both have very strong pros with few minor cons. You don't notice a difference in sharpness between crop mode/full frame, since it's simply a crop of the full frame image. Not sure if I mentioned this to you, but I'd definitely go to your local camera store and try to rent them, even for a day or two. IMO, both lenses are so similar, you'll definitely benefit from trying both and see which matches your style/needs the best. To date, it's hands down the hardest decision I've had to make between 2 lenses.
@Bryce Thoman I've never had to do an "official" sensor cleaning (with the swabs and liquids). So far all I've had to do is rocket blow a few small pieces of dust here and there. But I know what you're talking about. Some people reported an abnormal amount of sensor dust. Haven't experienced that yet!
"we pay people in maple syrup"...priceless!
Most important difference so many forget to mention in reviews is the fact that the 100400GM has DUAL linear AF motors. The 200600G has a single motor to move all those elements. This is why the 100400GM is faster to focus on moving subjects, with more precision
Is there anywhere I can find this data? I'm planning to upgrade to from my kit telephoto lens, and the only sources for autofocus speed, accuracy are youtube reviews, which may be subjective.
@@sahilmeena8018I mean I own the 200-600 and the 35mm 1.4 gm (which has dual linear motors). The af in the 35 is slightly faster than the 200-600mm (which has much heavier glass). Basically what I’m saying is that it’s pretty hard to notice the difference between 1, 2 and 4 linear motors. I wouldn’t base your buying decision on the factor as it’s just to fluff up spec sheets (unless it’s the 85mm 1.4 gm which is actually slow at af). Even my 55mm 1.8 is insanely fast and it’s about 10 years old. The 200-600mm focuses very very fast.
Not necessarily. The weight that matters is the moving elements within the lens, and the wider aperture lens probably has heavier elements to move around.
Another advantage of the 200-600mm over the 100-400mm is that the barrel doesn't extend. The balance on my hand or the tripod doesn't change when zooming. Besides it's less likely to get dirt on the elements when the barrel is fixed.
What an honest , revelant and informed evaluation . Great voice , pace and humour. Well done young Stefano.
I used the 200-600 for a college football game in the US. Rented it. Glad I did. It was too heavy for me. I shoot with the a9. I think I’ll give the 100-400 a shot. It is lighter and easier to hand hold, isn’t it?
There's some wonderful pictures here, thank you for sharing them & your opinions.
Glad you enjoyed! Thank you 🙂
200-600 for me is dead on sharp at either extreme. Tracking birds in flight is superb at 600mm.
You’re right about macro use of 100-400.
One other observation. You can put 200-600 on a gimbal since length doesn’t change. Also no internal dust problems.
Yeah that's what I've noticed too. It's definitely sharper in those middle zoom ranges (like pretty much all telephoto lenses) but definitely sharp at 600, as well. I really appreciated the internal zoom, especially after using the 100-400. So handy! I'm trying to find some areas around me to do BIF so I can better test it, can't wait 😁 Thanks for commenting!
Own both of these lenses. No dust problem with either. 100400GM is a bit sharper,lighter and focuses closer. The 200600G is great for smaller birds....larger birds or general Wildlife tye 100400 is superior...and has faster AF. The MFD is another reason to own 100400. End of day was a tough choice so I now own both :)
If you can handle the weight, then getting the 70-200 f/4 macro + 200-600 is a killer combo. PS. Your honesty is something pretty refreshing on RUclips, which has become a bit of a sewer of biased (and paid) opinions
I love my 100-400mm. It is just so flexible. I also have a 1.4 teleconverter for if I really need to get closer (but of course it won't be as good as the 200-600 in low light and shallow DOF). I think if you are primarily a wildlife photographer though - the 200-600mm would be a better choice.
Yeah, not being close enough is certainly a more common issue in Wildlife Photography, than being too close. So I can see the 200-600 being overall more appealing to buyers. That and the fact they've made it very similar in performance/IQ to the 100-400!
"unusable" is the most superlative, overused, and generally untrue term used in the photography community. it's very rare when something actually truly is unusable.
Another telephoto lens has been released for the Sony E-Mount: the *Sigma 100-400*. Checkout my first day with this lens here -> ruclips.net/video/lEc5kVlE_uc/видео.html
I'm coming from Micro Four Thirds, with an Olympus E-M1 Mark I and the Panasonic Leica 50-200mm f 2.8-4, and I am looking to replace them for a better AF capable camera for wildlife. From what I have seen I like the Sony 100-400mm f 4.5-5.6 because it's smaller size and lighter weight if I'm not taking the lens with me I'm not using it and the Sony 200-600mm doesn't even fit in my backpack, don't think I would take it with me on my work commute (which brings me every day close to wildlife at the edge of the town) and I am not doing any long, far or special trips for wildlife, only what I can walk to from where I live (for the foreseeable future). I love everything about wildlife, from big mammals to small birds to birds of prey, insects, rodents, etc. It will be hard to give up on Micro Four Thirds for the crazy good Sony AF and better ISO performance and DR of the Full Frame.
From what you've said, it does seem like the 100-400 is a better choice! I really enjoyed using micro four thirds (GH5) for video. In terms of photos though, you'll definitely see a jump in quality and performance. Let me know how it goes 🙂
Great review and thanks for posting. Loved your photographs. You certainly helped to cement my decision and I'm heading for the 100-400. The portability and the close range ability were the deciders for me. I often cart the camera along on my dog walks and take my chances with the wildlife but I like the sound of being able to capture the flora and occasional fungi. The 200-600 is just not portable enough for my typical situation.
Love the video! I've compared the two back to back as well. My results were similar to yours. The 100-400 is definitely a little bit sharper. In conjunction with an A7R3, I actually liked images slightly better shooting with the 100-400 in crop mode at 400mm @5.6 than the 200-600 at 600mm @6.3 without crop mode. Add to that the smaller size and lighter weight and the 100-400 was the clear winner for me.
Thank you! And that seems like a good choice! Especially if you prefer the results of the 100-400. I would be curious to try both on their crop sensor cameras too!
What about 400 mm on the 200-600 in crop mode? whats the f number there? Would've been interesting to compare
@@pablo_costas The 200-600 is F6.3 from 300mm
@@pablo_costascrop mode doesn’t change f-stop: it simply crops / digitally ‘zooms’ in.
You pay people with maple syrup... 😂🤣😂 Excellent comparison and video!
Haha thank you! 😁
Came looking for this, my favourite part of the video! Great comparison btw
Thank you very much , my English not very good but i think i get the points, please slow down you fast speaking in next vidos
Thank you! And thanks for the feedback, I'll definitely slow down in future videos 🙂
Nice Review, thank you for that. Could you pls tell me which color Profile do you use? I really like your colors. Did you change the settings?
Thank you so much! The profile I use is Cine4. But it would only be visible in the videos and JPEGs, since they don't really alter the RAW images. I didn't change any other setting within that profile.
Good review and comparison, I own the 100-400GM and I do shoot at 400 90% of the time and have to crop so that’s why I have been interested in the 200-600 or a 1.4 x teleconverter but then I’m at f8 560mm instead of 6.3 at 600
Thank you so much! Yeah that's my reasoning too for not using teleconvertors with these zoom lenses. Definitely try out the 200-600 if you have the chance! Would love to hear your thoughts on the two.
Your image processing is really good, the colours look amazing on ur photos
Thank you! I don't really edit them too much. The colors straight out of camera of the a7r4 are great!
Agree! What software are you using to process your images?
@@taiebyoel I have the Adobe Suite but really only use Lightroom for photo editing for the channel.
Thanks, and what about the color profile ? Do you use Adobe Color or Camera Standard profile ?
@@taiebyoel Adobe color when exporting 🙂
So helpful! As I look to my first 14day Safari across Africa, I’m on the fence when it comes to the right lens for game drives (wildlife). I’m really looking to get shots of eyelashes on the wildlife. Thoughts? Just picked up the 100-400, then saw this (is a teleconverter a viable option?) Thanks!
I wouldn't use a tele on these zooms, but that's just a personal preference. I know people who use them and enjoy them. I would suggest renting one first to actually try it out beforehand (unless you already own one). I've only been on a couple of safaris back in the day before I was really into photography. At the time I had a 300mm and was able to get decently close to a lot of the wildlife. But every safari is different, so kinda difficult for me to say. I'd be more than happy bringing the 100-400. I think having the close minimum focus distance could be an added benefit. Since sometimes you can't really move too much when you're in the vehicle. From what I remember, there were a few instances where we had wildlife walk right up to the truck!
Great video. Your channel has made me want to travel to Ecuador. I currently have an A7Riii and looking to get a second body. Trying to decide whether to get an A9ii or A7R iv. Also want either a 200-600 or 100 -400.
What two lenses would you take if you were going to Ecuador again?
Also any opinions on the A9 against the A7R iv. Did you crop much?
Thanks
Thank you! Ecuador is incredible, you'll love it. If I was going back, I'd take my 200-600 and the 90mm macro. I do have 2 bodies so it's easy to keep the macro lens on one and the telephoto on the other.
I haven't used the a9 a whole lot. I photograph a lot of smaller songbirds, and on occasion do BIF/faster action photography. For that reason, the a7r4 makes more sense for me. I did use the crop mode quite a bit. I found it especially helpful for focusing in busier situations and for better composing my shot in the field. It's like having an aps-c camera and full frame camera built into one. Although I wouldn't recommend it for higher ISO work.
just watched one video of yours yesterday and i subscribed... informative , to the point n with example...geat content...thank you...
100-400 can be used in general purpose cases also like urban landscapes, etc. 200-600 has a very specific role.
I watched this video earlier this year when I was trying to decide which of these 2 lenses to buy. I finally decided on the 200-600 with a 2x converter in order to shoot an annular eclipse that occurred here a few months ago. Recently, I've been re-watching reviews to learn a little more about the 200-600 and to get some ideas for other uses of the lens outside of nature/bird photography. I live in a very urban area and my only mode of transportation is a scooter. Anyway, you said you were in low light most of the time because you were in the jungle. The a7III, the camera I use, has a great reputation in low light. I find that my a7III when paired the 200-600 is great when I'm in the jungles/forests here in Taiwan, or when night shooting the people on the street below my apartment. I don't have the 100-400, but your comments have made me rethink my reasons for not considering it as part of my arsenal. I have always loved super-zoom "macro" photography. Back in my film days, I used a 70-300 with a 2x converter with my Minolta 7000i to do "macro" photography of insects, spiders and humming birds. I needed a lot of light, back then, because I always shot with either ISO 100 or 400 film. I appreciated your review of both lenses and why it could be possible to own both of them because of their unique shooting qualities, compared one to the other, that don't overlap. I have all the G zoom lenses from the 12-24 thru the 200-600 and have recently been saving up to replace them the their GM counterparts, well, maybe not the $3000 12-24 GM lens. I haven't been considering ever buying the 100-400 GM, until now. Thanks for your review.
If you put the tension of the zoom ring of the 100-400 to smooth, it would be as easy to zoom as the 200-600. I own them both and find the 100-400 more versatile (usually)
Great video! Keep your reviews like this. Real world use, unbiased, pros and cons of both. Love it! No one cares about shooting brick walls and pixel peeping at 400%. The results are in the images... Real images! Those humming birds and the shutter speeds you were using tells a lot about image stabilization too! A++
Thank you so much! This is my first real review video so it's nice to hear that. I would love to get my hands on some gear from different companies to compare. Especially with all these new mirrorless cameras and lenses coming out, would be a lot of fun to see the differences. Thanks for watching 🙂
I like using the 200-600 with the 1.4x TC. Most of the time I have them together. Of course, I'm usually shooting in good light. I finally broke down and got the Sony 2x TC. Yes, it needs more light, but generally, that's not a problem for me. It will focus slower with less light...again, not a problem. In testing, not much difference between using the 1.4x and cropping vs the 2x when the subject is within 50'. It's at longer distances that the 2x TC beats the 1.4x with cropping. Comparing the 1.4x to the bare lens with cropping....the 1.4x wins.
Another issue is focus breathing. Unfortunately, the 200-600mm has a serious issue with focus breathing at close distances. Apparently, internal focusing often results in focus breathing where the 600mm is maybe closer to 450mm at close range...or even less. So...compare that to the 100-400. Not internal focusing. I'll do comparisons when I get my new 100-400mm, but it may well be that there is very little difference in the size of the object at close range between these two lenses. The 100-400 is an honest 400mm at 8', but the 200-600 is more like the low 400's at 8'. And, of course, the 100-400 will focus much closer than the 200-600. Now, with the TC or extension tubes, you once again get 600mm at 8' out of the 200-600, but you've just give up a stop of light...and it was already slower than the 100-400mm which is 5.6 at 400mm. Obviously, if you're always shooting at greater distances, you won't care about focus breathing of the 200-600, but I'm often shooting butterfly's at close range. Shot a morning cloak butterfly today. Bright sunshine, so used the 2x TC on the 200-600. The shots came out fine.
Great review. I’m really enjoying your channel. I just picked up the A7RIV. My next purchase is more than likely going to be the 200 to 400 to shoot in the marsh while kayaking.
Thank you so much! Hope you're enjoying the A7RIV. That'll be a fun lens to use in the kayak. Especially if you're targeting egrets and herons! A lot of cool shots to be had of them catching prey.
I own both of them and both are great lenses. A small advantage for me has the 100-400 GM but no matter which lens you prefer... both will make the user happy ;-)
Definitely agree!! 🙂
I had a 100-400, but returned because the images were not as sharp as my 200-600 - but seeing other people’s comments, I think I must have had a poor example. Maybe I will try another one?
I have just got my hands on another 100-400 and my assumption was correct. This lens is even sharper than the 200-600, so I had a poor lens before. Never knew before, that lenses of one model can vary so much.
Excellent overview, thanks. Love your work too. I own the Sony 200-600mm G, and after watching this, I wonder if it isn't worth getting the 100-400mm too? I love shooting insects and flowers, as well as birds. That said, I use the 24-105mm G or the Sigma 14-24mm for those closer items at the moment. I have the A7iii and A7rii bodies so far. As an oldie, the weight of the 200-600mm is a factor, I get neck ache after a while holding it, and a monopod is useless, I find. Hence thinking about the lighter 100-400mm.
So awesome to have you in my country man, i'm glad you enjoyed the trip and got to see our incredible wildlife!
Have you tried 100-400 with 1.4x vs 200-600 at their longest end?
Wanna know the response speed and IQ. Thanks!
No sadly I haven't tried the Sony teleconvertors. When I was shooting with Canon I never really enjoyed using teleconvertors on larger zoom lenses. So I haven't bothered testing them yet. Especially with the a7r4 that gives me more room to crop. If I'm not mistaken, there are a couple of youtube videos out testing both those setups already 🙂
Very good review, thanks so much! I want to get into bird/wildlife photography. I mainly photograph landscapes and have been struggeling in deciding if I should go for the 100-400 or 200-600... I'm tending to the 200-600, as I'll usually tell myself if I'd go for landscape or wildlife when hiking. Do you know if there is a big difference in terms of bokeh when photographing at the long end of both lenses? From what I could see from your pictures it seems not. But I's like to have your opinion on that. Thanks!
Cheers from Switzerland!
Thank you! From what I've seen the difference in bokeh is pretty much negligible. Didn't notice much difference between both lenses. I think lens choice would depend on whether you're using this lens for landscapes, as well. If you are, I'd probably go with the 100-400 since you can get out a bit wider. If you're getting it just for wildlife, what type of wildlife are you looking to photograph?
@@StefanoIaniro I'm not sure. I currently have thr A7M3 but will change for the A7R3 so thay I can crop more. So, I guess the 100-400 might be the better choice even for wildlife if I plan to go for birds (mainly).
Excellent review. I have both lenses and I'm thinking about selling the 100-400 GM and keeping the 200-600 G. I also have a 70-200 f4 G lens which I love. There's just too much overlap to keep the 100-400.
I have both of them, both amazing lenses. The macros like around 4:22 - did you darken the background by carrying a flash with you or in post?
I did most of my macro during the night, so the dark background is a combo of flash at nighttime.
The opportunity to take macro shots justified the price tag of gm lens.More versatile options,better for travel and quality of course.I will choose 100 400 sony over 200 600.
I love your honest comparison and pros and cons of each lens. I love my 100-400 but want to get more reach, as I am always having to crop so much for songbirds. I have A73...if I upgraded my camera to an R version, which is best for birds? Then I could use the crop feature. I am in nova Scotia so low light is often an issue.
Thank you so much, very glad you enjoyed! I actually lived in Nova Scotia for a couple months this summer, it was a lot of fun! I still think for smaller songbirds I would lean towards the 200-600. With that being said it also depends on your style. If I was mostly doing backyard birds and work from a hide, I would likely lean towards the 100-400, especially if you already own it. But for general walk around photography, I prefer the 200-600
Hoping to get the 100-400 for landscape. I have the a7iii and want to venture a little into wildlife since I'm relatively close to Yellowstone and had planned to go to Switzerland which has been postponed for a year. The compactness of the 100-400 appeals to me the most. In crop mode I can get up to 640mm plus I really like the short focus distance as I think I'll use it more. Thanks for the great explanation on the differences.
I'm glad you enjoyed! And that's awesome that you live near Yellowstone. Hopefully the parks reopen soon. Although I'm sure the wildlife is getting a nice break.
You mentioned you use APS-C mode to gain focus on the bird's eye first and even pop back. How do you do that on a Sony A7 camera since the APS-C mode is only available in the menu not on a custom key. Could you give a little big of a guide?
hi, thanks for this good detailed video, great pictures, both optics are great if the animals are present that is the prerequisite. :-)
Alfred from Germany / Bavaria
Hahaha so true! Thank you!!
After 2 weeks of researching and YouTubing among the Sigma 100-400mm, SONY 70-200mm GM, Sony 100-400mm GM, and the Sony 200-600mm G over and over again, I finally made a decision and ordered the 100-400 mm GM. Can't wait for the lens to come tomorrow.
A very good and fair review.
I do want to add another option regarding the reviewers love for the 100-400 as a dual purpose, macro lens .
I own both Canon and Sony gear. My cleanest lens I have in my Canon gear is my 100mm macro (clarity and color). I noticed some really high rated e mount macro lens in the $450 to $600 range. For me, even if preferring the 100-400, I would be inclined to have the 200-600mm, then carry a second camera, let's say like my A6300 and put a macro on it.
Knowing the excellence of my Canon 100mm macro, I highly don't the 100-400 lens can compete with a prime 80, 90, or 100mm macro, especially with close up photos of insect eyes etc.
I am a surf photographer, the 200-600mm suits my needs better so no brainer for my needs but do understand not everyone has my same needs or other gear.
Nice video, I might be interested in the 100-400gm as an "all-around" lens, including near macro.
Just one thing, it's a bit strange that you compare the sharpness of the 100-400 @400 vs the 200-600 @600, the main argument that people were having was "what has better IQ, the 100-400 + tc 1.4 @560mm or the 200-600 @600mm?", but in the case of the R4, it could actually be "what has better IQ, the 100-400 + 1.5 crop @600mm or the 200-600 @600mm". With the TC, the 200-600 had the advantage at the long end, and with the R4, we don't know yet but it seems like you're saying the 200-600 *could* have an advantage?
Also, for BIF, the range is crucial, and most photos I've seen taken with the 100-400 have lost a lot of quality because of heavy crops (think 10% of the image), so, although the 100-400 has a slight focus acquisition advantage over the 200-600, its main weakness is the limited range ... I think :)
Thank you! And the advantage of the 200-600 @600 is the fact you're getting a full-frame 61mp image. Whereas the 100-400 @600 would be a 26mp image. If you're somebody who makes prints, this is where it becomes advantageous. In terms of quality, the 100-400 is a bit better. So when viewing images from both lenses at 600, you don't really notice a difference until you start cropping in. When cropping in that's where you see a slight advantage to the 200-600, since you simply have more MP to work with. In general terms, the quality is certainly good enough to get the 100-400 and use it in crop mode. The crop mode however is just a crop of the full frame image, so the benefits you get are mostly in AF coverage and the fact that you don't lose sharpness/IQ like you would with a TC.
And for BIF I definitely agree, and I think it also depends your location. Some people live in areas with birds that are more used to people and for that reason they have birds that fly very close - which is where the 100-400 is beneficial (especially if doing larger birds like herons, egrets). But for my area, birds don't fly too close, so the 200-600 is the way to go 😁
@@StefanoIaniro Thanks for your detailed answer!!
@@youuuuuuuuuuutube No problem! Let me know if you have any other questions 🙂
I've been looking to buying the 100-400GM for a while, but one day there was suddenly a great offer for the 90mm macro, and I went ahead with it. Then Sony came up with the 200-600G, and now I think that having the 90mm in my collection is an extra argument in favour of the latter.
I can imagine that if I get the 100-400GM, then my macro lens will see much less use, as I'll always be tempted to leave it at home and take only 100-400GM with me. Even having both of them in the bag, I'll be too lazy to swap sometimes.
200-600G, on the other hand, will make very distinctive use cases for both.
The only issue, is that I've always believed in compact setups, and compactness was what made me buy the first Sony mirrorless as it came out.
200-600G seems to require quite some dedication, you won't take it with you "just in case". This also means, that you might miss some unexpected photo opportunities...
Yeah that makes a lot of sense! With the 200-600/90mm, I tend to do specific macro days and wildlife days. Especially since I use an external flash and wireless trigger for my macro work. By not having both lenses with me, I do miss some opportunities, but I also like the idea of focusing on one subject matter. Sometimes when I try to photograph everything, I come out with nothing.
@@StefanoIaniro Thank you Stefano, I'm ordering the 200200-600G 🙂
I'm glad to have found this channel.
Will be checking your wildlife photography tips now in a hope to be able to produce photos that are half as good as yours one day!
I am pulled so strong to the 200-600: it kosts approx 400€ less, I hate expanding lenses, and with this in mind you think first you get 200mm more for less money. But not slightly lower picture quality, min focus distance or the better zo9mring at the 200-600: I always thought start at 200mm and the big min distance cuts your creativity more than 400vs 600. Because if the object is framed to small you can mostly nearer.so mostly you can catch the 200mm by foot. And you are only glued to birds, sports cars, or anything which is far away but you aren’t able to get nearer but you have to. So a Mountain side landscape requires the shorter lens. And so I heard from you exactly what i made up my mind: much more creativity with the 400. Even it is still toy like for me when the zoom lense expands.like a 300€ mom and dad crappy super zoom cam.
Thanks for the video. I bought he 100-400 GM in Dec 2017 and I have loved it. I have started transitioning into doing more bird and wildlife (I primarily am a portrait photographer). I am waiting on my 1.4TC and hoping it will bring my GM closer in for the birds. I appreciate your positive take on both. I have watched a ton of 200-600 vids and most were done when it came out and with GAS and Latest Shiney, the videos kind of trash the GM. I love doing flowers as well so at this point I think I am going to keep the GM and maybe when I open back up my studio I can swing the 200-600. Thanks man.
So glad you enjoyed, thank you! It really is such a tough decision between the two. Although I decided to stick with the 200-600, I sometimes find myself in situations where having the 100-400 would have been beneficial. Just last week I found a bunch of Garter Snakes while birding and would have loved to have the minimum focusing distance of the 100-400... especially since I left my macro lens at home haha. Hope you get some good results with the 1.4TC when it gets in!
Really good breakdown between the two lenses. I purchased the 100-400 earlier this year after weighing it against pre-ordering the 200-600, and I'm glad I did. I'm still only shooting with the RII, but it performs nicely with it. The external zoom really doesn't matter to me at all, and makes it easier to fit in my bag. I'm also a landscape photographer first and wildlife photographer second (or third) so I find the 100-400 was more versatile for what I shoot, such as compressed telephoto landscapes. I got to try out the 200-600 over Thanksgiving (my uncle owns it with the RIV) because I wanted to be sure, and after trying it out, I'm still happy with the 100-400. The question for me is whether or not it's worth it to get the 1.4 or shoot in crop mode when I do need the extra reach.
Thank you! I definitely agree, if wildlife isn't your main target, you certainly benefit from having the 100-400 instead. Personally I've never been a huge fan of TCs on zoom lenses. I tried them out back when I was shooting Canon. Never got into it. For prime lenses however, the 1.4TC is definitely more appealing.
Yo brotha, thanks for the review! Quick question any tips on reducing soft focusing issues? I’m using the RIV with 100-400mm shooting at 100-320 oso and fast shutter speeds but nothing comes out sharp. Focus is locking on and turning green but all my images are VERY soft 1:1. Sorry to ask in the comments. Any help would be appreciated. Cheers!
Thank you! The first thing I would do is set it up on a tripod and photograph an inanimate object. Just to make sure your combo is capable of getting sharp images. Make sure you don't have any Picture Profile on that affects detail or sharpness of an image. That will alter the JPEG preview you see on the back of your camera, but it won't affect the RAW. So if you're basing your images off the JPEG you might think they're soft, but then the RAW will be okay. I'd also suggest taking bursts of images. The initial press of the shutter can cause motion blur in your first couple of images until your hand/camera stabilizes. Also if your subjects are really far away, and you're doing heavier crops, you may also be experience atmospheric distortion due to heat waves, fog, etc. What AF mode and area do you use?
Stefano Ianiro Wildlife Stefano Ianiro Wildlife thank you very much! I need to do the tripod test today for sure. I was shooting entirely manual with AF-C and burst shooting as I normally do with wildlife. Literally I couldn’t get a sharp shot on ducks gliding on the surface within 6ft/2m of me. Also, I thought the same with the jpg previews but they are still soft when the raw files are opened in lightroom. Additionally, my focus area is set to center (was getting a green reading that it was locked consistently) and style is standard.
Thank you again for your reply and I’m super excited to have found your channel! Subscribed and now following on IG too. Cheers!
@@ryanolinger9355 Thank you! And hopefully it works out. Good luck!
I have the 200-600 and i love it at 600mm i never had a cheap telephoto zoom that was that sharp! I think it is a bargain for the money.
thanks sharing, nice video 👍
Glad you enjoyed! Thank you 🙂
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?
Would the 60-600mm Sigma be a good allternative?
Good, informative video. I sold my 100 - 400mm and purchased a 200 - 600mm, then Sony announced the A7R4. So, I will be purchasing a secondhand 100 - 400mm to compliment my 90mm for my "dedicated" macro days. It will be a better option than the 200 - 600mm for butterflies and dragonflies which are too far away for my 90mm macro lens. I do prefer the 200 - 600mm for wildlife in general, though.
Yes, especially for birds I felt more comfortable with the 200-600. I'm definitely looking into doing more dedicated macro days so I think the 200-600 with the 90mm should be a good all around combo 🙂
@@StefanoIaniro. I do use auto extension tubes with my 200 - 600mm in order to reduce the minimum focusing distance to about 2m. Here's the problem, though. If you suddenly see a bird in flight that you simply must capture, you are prevented from doing so by the extension tubes. The 100 - 400mm, however, will allow you to take the shot.
Exactly! Like I mentioned, you won't miss a shot with the 100-400. You can photograph everything and anything. How do you find the 200-600 with extension tubes?
@@StefanoIaniro. They work brilliantly well. I actually own two sets, one attached to my 90mm lens and the other set on my 200 - 600mm during my dedicated macro days. As you well know, though, as a wildlife photographer it is very difficult to ignore everything else, even when you are determined to do so. Hence my reason for purchasing a 100 - 400mm.
That's one of the biggest reasons I'm missing having the 100-400! I'll look into extensions tubes for macro in the future. I had some in the past for my DSLRs but haven't gotten around to buying any for my Sony cameras.
I recently bought a new 100-400 GM and when mounted on my A7IV and A7RV there is a slight rotational wobble (clockwise-counterclockwise) which I never experienced in another lens. Also tried it on my good old A7III and on that it does not wobble.
I notice the wobble when holding the lens and the body handheld and rotating the zoom ring (smoothest setting)
Anyone else noticed this? Is it normal?
Very good video and very good personality. ❤
Very helpful review. Don’t forget about the teleconverters for extra reach with the 100-400.
So I have a project in a few months in big open terrain filming and photographing reindeer. Im thinking 200-600?
Not sure how close they'll be. But if they vary from close up to really far out, I would likely choose the 200-600. Just so I'd have both ranges covered. Also, using the crop mode plus clear image zoom for video can get you a lot tighter.
Tnx for this, seems thorough and honest with the assumptions made explicit.
Thanks so much!
Hi, Great video on the 100-400and 200-600. I've got an A7iii and plan to buy the 100-400 in the near future. I have one questions. I'm a little surprised that you did not mention using clear image zoom to get more reach from the 100-400. I've used it on the 70-300 and didn't think it degraded image quality but I'd like your opinion. Would that be a useful option on the 100-400? Thank you.
Thank you! And I didn't mention it because (unless there's a new firmware changing this) - clear image zoom only works for JPEGs. I shoot RAW, so for myself it really isn't an option. I do however love the feature and use it quite a bit when it comes to filming wildlife in 4K.
I’ve been considering both lenses and have tried both (briefly). You absolutely nailed the difference between the two in regards to usability. The zoom ring on the 200-600mm is so buttery smooth and quick compared to the 100-400mm. But I was absolutely shocked at the sharpness of the 100-400mm. I didn’t think a lens that isn’t internal zoom would be so sharp. I think for size, weight, sharpness and macro ability, I’m leaning toward the 100-400mm even though I enjoyed the handling of the 200-600mm considerably more. Thanks for such a good video!
Thank you! This was definitely the hardest decision to choose between both lenses. So many benefits to both, but I agree the slight edge goes to the 100-400 for majority of shooters
Fantastic review! I currently have the a7r4 and 100-400 as well, but am thinking of getting the 200-600. My concerns are that 6.3 might be a little too dark for me, as I already have some problems with 5.6 on my 100-400. I'm working on songbirds in generally overcast or canopied areas and often have to resort to tripods at 400mm wide open so I can shoot at up to 1/15s. In your opinion would I benefit from the 200-600 under these conditions?
Thank you! If that's your usual shooting conditions, I would likely stick with the 100-400. Although you'd certainly benefit from the longer focal length for songbirds, I think if you're at f5.6, 1/15s already, with the 200-600 you'd pretty much have to bump your ISO up quite high. And although I don't mind using higher ISOs every so often on the a7r4, I wouldn't want to make it a regular occurence. Since it's not the best at handling noise. Hope that helps!
Thanks for your great video on these two wonderful lenses. I will be buying the 200-600mm though you seriously made me consider the sony 100-400mm which costs AU $700 more and I feel I need the extra reach especially for photographing and filming birds, wildlife and the moon.
You give some great points for both lenses in this video and if I didn't already own the Sony 90mm I would be even further swayed to the 100-400mm.
Top images too!
If you only had the budget for 1 lens (this year) to do animal portraits (parrots that are inside) and start experimenting with wildlife in general, would you invest in the Sony 70-200 GM or get the 100-400 GM? I'm using the a7 III and having a hard time deciding between the two. I rented the 70-200 to try and loved it. I'm also interested in the 90mm macro from Sony so the fact that focusing is so close with the 100-400 is really leaning me towards that lens. I'm in Canada too.
Like you said at the end, I would lean toward the 100-400, as well. If you were only doing indoor work I would have leaned towards the 70-200. But it seems you'll want more of an all around lens, which is where the 100-400 shines. Especially since it can tide you over as macro lens, and down the road you can decide if you want a 90mm lens for your kit. Not sure how comfortable the parrots are with being photographed, but being able to use the 100-400 as a macro lens means you don't have to get as close to them as you would with a 90mm, which is certainly beneficial for more timid subjects.
Omigod, you shoot slow! The image stabilization must be fantastic.
Hi Bro,
try to comparing with Sigma lens also 60-600 for Sony 😁
Great review. I have both the lenses and use them on an A7RIV, and your review is right-on. I like and use them both. One point, for me, is that I’m good taking handheld pictures with the 200-600 for about 2 1/2 hours after which my wrist is extremely sore, and my armies get tired and shaky. I’m pushing 70, so the weight is an issue for me. How do you “punch-in, get focus points, then punch-out to frame the shot?” You obviously use OSS At those shutter speed. Which mode do you use for small birds?
12:15 - Tightness and quality. This raises a question on different options to consider, but we’d need all the pieces to test and find out for sure.
As you mentioned, the 100-400GM has better quality/sharpness overall, but if you’re cropping in, the 200-600 will suit you better.
What if you get the Sony 1.4x/2x teleconverter and slap that onto the GM lens? Light transmission aside, does the toll on sharpness drop it below the 200-600?
I keep coming back to this video... Still on the boat of the 100-400mm.. could you maybe dive into the macro abilities some more with this lens? :D
Well for really up close detail, I'd still suggest a conventional macro lens over this. But the positive about using the 100-400 is you don't have to get as close to your subject. I'd use it from large insects, to frogs, and reptiles. But for smaller insects, I think having a macro lens makes more sense to capture those very small details. It's nice cause minimum focusing distance is under 1 meter. So you don't need a whole lot of working area to use the 100-400. If I get my hands on it again, I'll definitely compare it to a macro lens and the 200-600
Great video and wonderful photos. I'd be interested to see if you stuck with your choice 4 years on!
I bought the 200-600 one year ago thinking it'd be my go-to dream lens for wildlife, but have consistently found myself returning to the Fuji XT3 with 70-300 for it's size, weight and more useful range for closer-up wildlife and pseudo-macro capability.
Whilst I hate to take the hit on value selling the 200-600, and feel it might be one worth keeping for future adventures in wildlife photography, oh man is it ever heavy to walk around with!!
I've also been eyeing the 70-200 f/4, since I shoot more video than photography now and the A7Iv has a crop in 4K 60 that's actually beneficial for most wildlife I shoot... so now I'm a little torn between the 100-400 or the 70-200 + 2x convertor... the 70-200 is a true macro which makes for some great versatility and the 2x makes it 1:1...
... not easy is it! My local camera stores don't carry these tele's as rentals either so it's really hard to try before buying.
Thanks again for sharing your thoughts!
I have the 200-600mm and mine is very sharp at 600mm. If yours is soft at 600mm, it could be due to sample variation and/or user error. Just to be clear, I also have a 600mm f4 lens and I have been photographing birds for over 20years. The biggest handicap for me with this lens is the f-stop. In low light situations, I wished it was an f4 lens :-)
I agree! Mine is definitely sharp at 600, as well. I also agree with the f-stop, especially for jungle/forest birds. It's manageable but an f/4 or f/2.8 would be great
I have the 100-400 and i live it. It's so good but there are a lot of people who wish item the 200-600. I may end up getting that one as well. No one ever has anything bad to say about the 200-600 and everyone says it's so sharp. And it's cheaper.
Nice pictures. I go to Ecuador every year. You should definitely go to Galápagos 10 times better than inland Ecuador. One suggestion, get an Atomos to show the recorded focus speed.
Galapagos is definitely a dream of mine! Would love to go one day. And I agree, the Atomos is on my list of things I need for the channel 🙂
So agree with your point about the switch focus limiters, a third option would indeed be great!
Yeah I wonder why they didn't add it 🤔 Thanks for commenting 🙂
Another phenomenal video with phenomenal pics! How did you get the background so dark for the insect shots? Flash?
Thank you so much! And all those "macro" shots were during night hikes, so that plus flash created the dark backgrounds 🙂
very use-full brilliant i have alpha 7 II WITH A 24 - 240 3.5
i want to buy A LENS for birds and wild life is 100- 400 with a 1.4 tele convertor better idea than the 200m- 600 to avoid the frame drops which i noticed I have used the 100 too 400 for two trips to TANZANIA found that always i did not have the reach FELT needed to go out further did not have the TC THEN saw u got the humming birds on the 200 600 felt brilliant to my eye
am a eye doctor not a professional photographer the difference between the G AND THE G MASTER
APPRECIATE THE REPLY
WOULD PREFER A 200 600 G MASTER LENS
Hola Stefano. Me gustaría preguntarte por que modelo de cámara Sony utilizas con el 200-600 mm, soy usuario de Nikon (d500) y el tamron 150-600 g11 y estoy pensando cambiar a Sony por el objetivo 200-600 que me parece una opción muy buena para fotografía de naturaleza. Gracias y un saludo.
Hey! I'm using the Sony a7RIV and the Sony a7III. Sony a7RIV I use more for photos, and I use the a7III for videos!
Thanks, yours has been the best of tens of videos I've seen on this comparison. You answered so many questions I had about whether to sell my 100-400 and go for the 200-600.
That's awesome to hear, very glad I could help 🙂
Are you still selling your 100-400mm lens? Thanks.
@@hungqtran7960 Sorry, already sold it. I now have the 200-600. :)
Don't sell your 100400GM. Two different lenses... the MFD of the 100400GM alone makes it worth having for general purpose nature closeups and wildlife. My 200600 is my smaller birding lense. By owning both I have a lot of flexibility and do not need a dedicated macro. Lastly, the 100400GM has Slightly faster AF on R4 at this time, and you do get a 600mm equivalent in APSC mode. For many thats plenty of reach .
@@njrtech It's already sold, I couldn't afford both it and the 200-600. I totally get what you're saying though, the 100-400 is a fantastic lens, but I hated the extending barrel zoom, and found it too "sticky" for quick adjustments. I do miss that MFD though, and it's smaller size / portability...
Just got the A7RIV and immediately want to shoot my son’s HS soccer games usually at night under lights. Later I want to get into wildlife including BiF so really considered the 200-600, but a camera store employee told me the low light performance of the R IV combined with smaller iris of the bigger lens may not work for me. He suggested the 2.8 70-200 for this reason. What do you think would work for low light sports AND wildlife out of these 3 lenses with the R IVa?
Amazing video! I truly enjoyed it! Im a portrait photographer who typically photographs high school and college seniors as well as lifestyle shoots. I was recently informed that for my birthday in two weeks, Im going to be going on a trip to Tanzania and enjoying a 3 day safari followed by relaxation on zanzibar beach. my goal is to return with amazing images of wildlife. Id love your opinion on which of these to RENT for my trip. Im a big guy, 6'1 250 former linebacker. the weight of the glass isnt a factor for me. Thanks for your help!
Hey Stefano! I have been following you for a little while now and I have really enjoyed your content. I was wondering if you could give me your perspective on my situation. I am likely going to buy a Sony a6400 (but am still considering a full-frame sony) and I want to get a telephoto for shooting bird videos. The crop sensor would add some extra reach which seems like a good idea. I have never used a telephoto before and don’t want to spend a crazy amount of money. What are your thoughts? Thanks!
Hello, about close range of the 200-600 what about adding a closeup lens in front ? Did you try it ? Rather easy and quick to put on/off.
Hi I am from PEI and currently use canon r6 and sony a9 for potraits, I am looking to start bird photography and interested in sigma 100-400 lens because it is lens expensive and versatile. Do you think that 100-400 has enough reach when paired with sony A9 ? Thanks in advance
I do like landscape and portraits and shootung animals with different birds. but now am confused i do hv only one lens 24-75 tamron so now shall i go for 100-400 with 2x telecconverter or just jump to 200-600
Could you make a video how to transport those lenses safe during flight?
Like do you use a pelicase oder are you pushing it into hand luggage?
I use the Lowepro BP AW II 450 camera backpack. It's pretty comfortable and the exterior is more firm than a regular backpack. There's removable velcro dividers so you can make sure everything is snug in there and doesn't move around too much. I haven't tried a ton of camera bags but I've been really happy with this one. It also fits in the overhead compartment of every plane I've been on!
@@StefanoIaniro thanks a lot!
@@StefanoIaniro I've got the Protactic AW 350, was trying to decide if I should buy the 450... Did you look at the 350 before settling on the 450?
@@JKPhotoNZ Yes, I checked the 350, but ultimately decided on the 450 since I usually carry around extra gear for filmmaking. The 350 would be great as a day pack, but when needing to carry all my gear on a flight or to a shoot, it would definitely be too small for what I need.
I would love to know how you pack up a camera bag for carry on for flights.
Looking at going to Alaska for bears in August, and I’d like to appropriately pack bags.
I thought that it was a good point that the 100-400mm made you think more on composition, where as you said, with the 200-600, people are more likely to use the long end and fill the frame, making most pictures tend to look the same or at least feel the same. btw I watched this video for the 200-600mm review thinking to get it, but now im leaning towards the 100-400mm maybe with the 1.4 extender for a more versatile and compact kit. Thanks for the review :)
Glad you found it helpful! Thanks for letting me know :)
@@StefanoIaniro I actually ended up getting the 100-400mm and im loving it. really awesome to be able to do close work too. :) thanks
2024 ... found this video ... lovely person, useful information , great video , nice job !
So, Stefano, have you tried 70-200 for a walk around. Have you encountered a lot of sensor dust/dirt contamination?
I'm hearing a lot of people commenting on the issue and constantly having to clean the sensor
No, I haven't tried the 70-200. Although I've seen great photos/videos with it, I just don't know how often I'd lean towards that focal range. If ever I do a trip to a place where the wildlife is more tame, like the Falklands or the Galapagos, I would certainly give it more thought. Especially the f/2.8 version!
I've been switching lenses quite a bit and since getting the a7r4 I haven't had to use the rocket blower or clean the sensor once. It's weird, it almost seems like some a7r4s are more prone to sensor dust than othere? I heard some people having really bad issues with it, so I was expecting mine to be the same. But so far so good!
I enjoy your videos. I am a fuji xt3 100-400 shooter, and looking to move over to Sony for the 200-600. The fuji is a nice package, but I am looking for more reach with native lens. I am on the fence with the A7111, and A7R4. You have both so, what's your opinion for best body? I also love shooting birds, wildlife. The crop mode on R4 looks incredible. Although, I am concerned with file size.Thanks!
Thank you! I'm hoping Fuji releases some more wildlife lenses, I'd love to try out their cameras.
For myself, the a7iii is a great choice if you do a lot of video, or do a mix of both photos/videos. And also if you shoot in a lot of low light scenarios. It noticeably outcompeted the A7RIV in low light. The A7RIV has amazing AF performance and image quality wrapped into 1 camera body... so long as you don't push your ISO too much. The biggest benefit in my opinion is with such high res photos, since I can crop more, it means I don't always have to get so close to my subject. I think if you're strictly talking about taking photos, the A7RIV is the better choice overall. If you're on the fence but not looking to buy right now, maybe wait until they announce the a7IV. That might be a better comparison to the a7RIV.
@@StefanoIaniro Thank you for the quick reply. I don't do video at all. I also wish Fuji would add additional lenses. The 100-400 is really the only option. It's an excellent lens. Take care...
I am curious about your use, or non-use, of a tripod. My 200-600mm lens on the A9II with the battery grip is pretty heavy to be handholding for extended periods. I come from a Canon 80D (crop sensor) with the Canon 100-400mm, which is overall considerably lighter than my new Sony rig. Just wondering if you use a tripod or monopod, say, with a gimbel head to both stabilize your shooting at low shutter speeds and also to relieve you of the shakes after shooting for long periods. Maybe the disadvantages of lugging an extra piece of gear and reduced reaction time discourages its use?
Hey, I use a tripod a lot nowadays, but mostly because I'm filming videos for RUclips and I like to take a mix of stills/video of wildlife. My preferred style is still handheld with a Peak Design shoulder strap. That way I can rest my arms while I hike. I have been able to make sharp images at 1/50th handheld, but certainly not consistently enough to fully ditch a tripod on days/situations with minimal light.
Hi Stef, as always a great explanation and a nice tip in the end as well. Thanks for sharing.
IMO all the name brand super-telephoto lenses are sharper at the long end. I compared my Nikkor 200-500 with Nikon D500 and Tamron 150-600 with Canon 77D of my friend and Nikkor was sharper when cropped at 600 mm. I even heard that Sony is by far the sharpest at the long end.
Thank you so much! I do agree, those 3rd party lenses that I've tested were softer at 600. I LOVED the 200-500 Nikkor. I heard they may be coming out with an update to the D750. I'd love to rent it and test it out with their 500PF. Haven't used a Nikon in over a year!
@@StefanoIaniro I heard the successor for D750 will be a full-frame equivalent of D500. Also, I love the Nikkor 200-500, but the real pain is the zoom ring which takes quite a lot to turn from 200 -500. My workaround for this is, I always keep it at 300 mm out in the field. Waiting for more videos...!!!
@@swaroopsankarsivadasan If they can pull that off, that would be pretty sweet. Hopefully they could do the same for a mirrorless camera! A d500 mirrorless would sell like crazy. Thank you 😁
the conclusion that I got after watching a variety of reviews 100-400 vs 200-600 is 100-400 for high resolution pixels above 24mp, 200-600 for A7iii, A9, A9ii is very suitable, both AF and sharpness, for bird photography 100-400 can use APSC mode as said happy RUclips video can match 200-600, that's the conclusion from me, there is input please
Excellent Video , choices can only be made, as you say by personal choice, its all about what you shoot and your expectations. Super photos too. Currently I use Olympus after a lifetime of Nikon and Medium format. Sure I miss the quality but try carrying the weight of a 600mm in comparison to a lens of 600mm on M/43 up a mountain and I know the full frame would stay in the boot of the car!
Thank you so much! I agree! With all the different camera and lens options there's always something you gain and something you lose by using one system or another. The Olympus must be awesome to travel with 🙂
Great video and photos Stefano! Glad you came to Ecuador 🙌🏼
Thank you so much! Really hoping to meet up next time. Your volcano photos are insane 🔥🔥🔥
i just put in a rental order for the 200-600, I'm so pumped to try it out!
Awesome! How long do you have it for? Will you be comparing it to any other lens?
@@StefanoIaniro it comes in on the 19th and ill have it until the 30th. Luckily my office is closed during that time so i can take full advantage of it.
Pretty much the only thing i have to go against it is my ancient Canon 80-200 L that i adapt to my a7iii.
@@RamusJamus Perfect timing! Haha. Not sure which adapter you're using, but I'm pretty sure you'll see a noticeable increase in autofocus speed with the 200-600🤓
@@StefanoIaniro I use the MC11, my copy is decent but i notice from time to time i have to remove the adapter from my camera and reattach it to start working because the AF starts to fail mid way through a shoot.
I've been looking into long telephoto zooms all year like the sigma 100-400 or 150-600 but because of that issue i mentioned im so glad i waited until the 200-600 come out!
@@RamusJamus Yeah that has happened to me in the past while using the MC-11 and 150-600. Since ditching the adapter I've had fewer headaches lol. Definitely let me know what you think after testing the 200-600!