I have to disagree. Sure it is very sharp but that is not all that matters. Focus throw is way to narrow, and the steps provided by the focus by wire are too big. Mechanical focus and a wider focus throw would make this a much better macro lens. With my old macro lens i could focus stack near MFD just using the focus ring. With the Sony i need to add a focusing rail to get good results. No deal breaker i guess, but still adds that i need to bring a tripod and rail, and i had hoped the lens would be more made for macro and not macro + general photography (which is why the focus throw/focus by wire is like this, i guess).
Two weeks ago, I part exchanged my 100 - 400mm G Master + SEL20TC for a 200 - 600mm + SEL14TC. Unfortunately, the weather has not been ideal of late, but I did get out with my A9 + 200 - 600mm for five hours a couple of days ago. What I can state so far is: as a wildlife photographer, the 200 - 600mm matches my expectations and produces the results I had hoped for. I managed to capture a Swallow in flight just above the ground, a Dragonfly in flight, just above the ground, a Hover Fly, in flight at a distance of about 3 metres and a Magpie in flight against a tree cluttered background. Focusing speed and lock on are exceptionally fast and zooming between 200 to 600 is really quick. I have yet to test it out with my SEL14TC or my Kenko extension tubes, but so far I am impressed. I will also have to test it out with my A7III at some stage; but that is not a priority. Top job Sony.
@@trippalhealicks. It is so fast that it does not matter. Sony has used the older dirve in the 200 - 600mm; but it is still blindingly fast. Other than in a timed, side by side, comparison there is no way of really determining the difference in real world photography.
I thought I was going to skip through this but here I am 47 minutes later typing this, and I'm not even in the market for those two big boys on the right! Great presentation.
As you know Patrick I am not afraid to moan when I don't like a video but this is an AWESOME video. You've really covered so much and its really helpful for those of us looking to invest in Sony kit. Thanks for taking the time to put this together. I still hope Sony launch a 300 2.8 in the not too distant future...
Great and thorough information. My wife and I booked a vacation to Cabo for this October. We realized after watching RUclips videos about Cabo that we would be well served to invest in a good camera. So after reviewing what's out there, we settled for an a6000. We have been loving learning photography, and of course now it's all about the glass. Thanks for this very useful review!!! God bless!
I got my Sony 200-600mm delivered here in Shanghai about a week ago. Oh boy, what a performance on my Sony A9. And even when paired with the Sony A6400 this lens shines - this combo works much better than the 100-400mm paired with the A6400. For Wildlife this 200-600mm zoom is clearly a winner.
Stefan1968ful have you been able to compare the 100-400GM with 1.4TC vs 200-600 in terms of sharpness and focus speed/tracking. I have A9, 1.4 and 100-400...wondering if it’s worth getting the 200-600 for field sports. Thx
@@eosuser1 Hi, I used the 100-400mm with the 1.4 TC before I purchased the 200-600mm. And I was not impressed. The f-stop goes down to f/8 at the long end. So compared to the 200-600mm you lose another half a stop. Plus, the 100-400mm without TC may be a bit sharper than the 200-600mm but this is definitely no longer the case when you add the Teleconverter. And another point: for whatever reason, the Sony A6400 performs better in terms of IQ on the 200-600mm compared to the 100-400mm - this is just my observation. So I am going to sell the 100-400mm.
Great quote referring to his 100-400mm lens ‘you don’t want to go to a game with this thing because it doesn’t make you look like a real photographer’ !!!
You're prediction was right, the 200-600 is still pretty consistently sold out to this day on both Sony's website and other retailers. Just finally got my hands on one at Best Buy for a good price and I can't wait to try it out. Thanks for the video, great stuff!
Personally, I bought the 100-400 a few weeks before Sony announced the 200-600. I’m kinda glad it worked out that way because I’d be tempted by the price and the range on the 200-600, but I would probably not like the size and weight. Having rented the 100-400 before I was blown away by the GM resolution, build quality, speed, and even things like the color rendition that seemed better. I think I’m going to get the 1.4X teleconverter for it to make it a 140-560mm f/6.3 to f/8, which isn’t too far off from the 200-600 with a lot note versatility. I’ll be shooting with the 1.4X outside in the sun most of the time anyway.
Nice job Pat. Your recommendations have been spot on for me. Sold my last piece of Nikon gear last month. The 100-400 breezed through spring sports and I expect it to do the same this fall. I love lenses that make money every time I pick them up!
Not to mention, the 100-400 connected to the a7rii or the new a7riv, going to crop mode you're getting 150mm-600mm at 5.6 (I typically just set the aperture at 5.6 so it stays constant). Of course, I haven't done this yet, but possibly getting the a7riii soon. I am currently doing this with the a7iii, but obviously the file size isn't a large, still usable though!
Thank you Patrick. Exactly what i needed. I've been working as a photojournalist, doing lot of sport phoography, mainly athletics. I've been using Nikons, buts since they seem to lost the MILC battle, i've been thinking seriously to move on to SONY system. So you gave me a very good starting point on which leneses i should concentrate on. Thank you!
Very happy to stumble across this video. I primarily do video/photo for live bands in small venues and have loved the 24mm 1.4 GM and 24-105mm F4 G for that purpose, but as I'm looking to get into college sports I feel like the 200-600 and 135mm are going to make an amazing combo.
You did great with this video. One of the best comparisons I’ve watched for a wile now, I have the 100-400 and love it. The lengthy video was well worth it. THANK YOU
I shoot wildlife and pre-ordered the 200-600 almost as soon as it was available to do so. I agree that it will be very popular. I had a Sigma 150-600 C when I shot Canon (and I used it a bit with my a7r3, my first Sony camera) but I found the AF was slow and hunted too much once I switched to Sony and was using it with the MC-11 adapter. So I sold it as part of my switch over. I'm really excited to get this lens, essentially the same as the Sigma with the big added benefit of being a native Sony with more updated tech features. Great vid!
@@CarlosBarronJr I'll see what I can do, though might be the 400 f2.8 instead of the 600 since I own the 400. Just did an unboxing vid for my 200-600, you can check it out on my channel! Patrick is right though...I want that 600 f4 GM, lol.
your content is so great. infomrative, calm, objective opintions....no annoying music. keep doing whatr you're doing and thanks for sharing all your wisdom
Patrick, your videos have all been an incredible resource for me as an aspiring event/sports shooter. My journey with Sony started with this video. I have probably watched it over 20 times! I've rented the 135gm and LOVED it. I'm trying to convince myself I need that lens (even though I own the workhorse 70-200gm ii). I would love a video showcasing some of your favorite sports images (especially High School) where you used specific lenses to achieve the shots you were anticipating/looking for. My favorite combo for basketball is the 70-200/35gm, however I'd love to find instances where I can use the 135. Thanks again!
@@PMRTV appreciate the content you make on Sony Photography! I’m currently shooting semi-pro soccer, and I’m wanting to invest in more Sony lenses, now I’ve been looking at the tamron lenses as well to figure out which lens I should invest in next. I’ve debated between the Sony 70-200 F4, the Tamron 70-180 f2.8, and the 70-200 f2.8 Version 2. I want more reach but I also need better low light performance, price is being considered and I can’t figure which way to go. Considering I’m trying to switch from a Nikon D3400 crop camera with a 70-300 4.5-6.3 to using my Sony A7II with a new full frame telephoto lens. What would you suggest and why? Any advice would be greatly appreciated!
I can verify your comments about the 100-400 GM. I shot the moon with an A7R4 and the 100-400 + 1.4x tele and every shot came out - HAND HELD. I had tried this with all my Nikons over the years and rarely had what I considered a good shot. Great video in covering the main points and uses.
@@wayneevans9364 I have both the Z6 and Z7 still (having sold my D850 and D500). I have both F and new Z lenses (at least as many as they have managed to ship. The purpose of my comment was not really to compare Nikon and Sony from the stand point of better or best but a simple statement that for me the A7R4 helped to do what I had trouble doing before. I am not a Sony or a Nikon bigot. I simply go where the tech helps me the most. For other people their mileage may vary.
P M-R, your best vid yet! Packed with insightful information. I felt like I bumped into you at a hotel and we went out to the local watering hole to talk about glass and I walked (stumbled?) home with a bunch of insider information. One of these days I'll switch from Canon to Sony...dunno know if it will be the A7RIV or A9II. But darn you as I always thought my first three lenses would be the Holy Trinity. Now you got me salivating over the 135, 100-400 and 200-600. I guess what it boils down to is what do you envision yourself shooting. As a hobbyist, I shoot every genre, day and night. Thank you for your honest and candid thoughts, both in the video and in the comments. I'm sure once I dive in I'll watch this vid half a dozen times. Actually, I do have a question: in what order do you think they'll make the Mark II version and what about it will be different? Say, the first three MII lenses.
Even though i mainly shoot wildlife, considering how well the tele converters work, i opted for the 400/2.8 versatility over the 600/4. The option to shoot 2.8 is more worth it to me than the 40mm extra (560/4 vs 600/4 and 800/5.6 vs 840/5.6). The 400 is very sharp even with the 2x, and the creamyness/background blur should, at least in theory, be very similar between the two lenses. And its smaller (if you can use the word small for a 400/2.8) Then again i'm not a hardcore birder - probably hard to justify the 400 over the 600 for pure birding :D
This is great, I have been waiting for you to do this. I have 4 of these lens, including the 200-600mm. I agree with your comments about the 100-400mm with a x1.4. I almost did not buy the 200-600mm, but then I see it as a 400-600mm lens and more with the x1.4. Also love the T shirt!
Wow. Thank you for the depth of this video. I’ve been going back and forth between the 200-600 and the 100-400, and it looks like I’m going with the 200-600! Thanks for all the info! I have the 85 prime (and I think I’ll keep it after watching this!)
Cool, if you want to help me out, use my affiliate link to purchase from Bedfords and use the PMR code to get 5% off anything you buy from them and get no tax/shipping: www.bedfords.com/27242916111 (as of 1-29-21, it's $q00 off so you should get it for just $1803.10!!!!
A great review!!! I’m still using my Tamron 150-600mm w/ the MC11 and it works, but I’m ready to sell it and the three other Tamron/Canon lenses and get that transition over with. I’ve been holding onto some of my Canon gear just because it was my buddy for a long time... but it’s over. I don’t use the 150-600 a lot but when I do it’s so worth it. With the Covid issue and no live events, I certainly have time to wait for one to be in stock. But I think it’s time to finally let go of the Canon side completely. I can’t see ever going back, and can’t imaging having to replace lenses yet again. Thank you for this review, it was far more valuable than you think.
Great job and very helpful. I have the 70-200 f2.8 and was close to buying the 100-400, but held out long enough for the launch of the 200-600. Throw a question at you. What if you didn’t have the 400GM or 600GM and Sony launched a 500 f4 GM, would that be your “go to?” Of course the rumor mill is the 500 is on the table. Again, great video and thanks for putting in the time to do them.
It's a great question. IMHO, the 500 f/4 matches up great to the 300mm f/2.8. You want to always space out your glass so there are big differences in focal length. Buying the 400GM set me up more for the 200mm f/2 (if they ever choose to make one) and the 600GM. But if you push me on it, I prefer the 600 f/4 over the 400 but it's just not versatile enough to justify. Back in the good old days at Sports Illustrated, I had them all (2/4/6 and even an 800mm f/5.6) but those days are over just like earning real money from shooting pro and college sports. If the 500mm f/4GM was made, I'd hold out for the 600GM.
I so enjoyed your talk on all the lenses, I'm waiting for my 200-600mm to arrive, at the moment I have an a6000 you mentioned it on your talk, I was wondering to upgrade my camera or will my a6000 be ok?
While the a6000 is still a relavant camera today when you compare its sepcs and performance to the Canon 7DMII and other DSLR's that are now almost ten years old, the a6000 does not fair well against the a6300, a6400, a6100, and a6600. All of these benefit much from the more modern sensor which gives much better low light performance than the venerable a6000. Having said all that, you can make amazing photos with the a6000 and it will work really well with your new lens which will actually be a 300-900mm zoom because it's made for FF sensors. You are going to LOVE it!!!
This video was not confusing at all and went into great details that anyone considering these lenses would want to know. I do have a short question however, I own the 100-400 and also the 1.4 cony TC. Having used the 1.4 on the lens I wasn't exactly happy with the results but I'm wondering if the camera is a factor, I'm using the Sony A7R3 not the A9. I found I'd rather just use the 100-400 and crop rather than add the 1.4 in nearly every situation. Would this be a different scenario with a camera like the the A9? My next body will be the A9 or A9ii for sure. Thanks once again for a very helpful video, liked and subscribed.
Thanks for this video, it's so helpful! Your knowledge and experience came off naturally and you made clear the benefits and purpose of each lens and focal length. I was planning to get the 100-400mm (I used the 70-200 F/4 at the Chicago Air and Water Show and I enjoyed it but wished I had more reach... but I mostly shoot autocross) but your talking about the logarithmic increase every 100mm and the new galaxy of bokeh has me curious about how 400-600mm looks.
WRT teleconverters: Tony Northrup and others have long shown that with lenses and cameras of this quality you will generally get significantly better results by cropping the image, than by using a teleconverter. This applies to both the 2.0 and even the 1.4 Sony. This was also true with pro film cameras and teleconverters. Do the test yourself; shoot a critical focus shot with lots of fine detail, with and without the teleconverter, and then blow up the images to the same enlarged image size. Tony Northrup also showed better lens flare rejection with backlight without use of a teleconverter. APS-C mode is also better than a teleconverter, but that requires changing modes, and you lose the advantage of the full frame for cropping flexibility. This can be a particular advantage with fast moving subjects. The only thing a teleconverter actually can do is give you a magnified image in your viewfinder, but your shots will be sharper without it, even if you crop and enlarge the image to match the converted focal length.
This is very much equipment dependent. With my Canon 5DSR plus 600mm f4 ii, 1.4x iii and 2x iii taking pics of the Moon, the sharpest overall shot will be with the 2x (but only just), followed very, very closely by the 1.4x. Bare lens comes out last if blowing up to the same size as the 2x image at 100%. With the 5DSR being a high res sensor, this actually puts more of a 'strain' on the TCs in terms of IQ, but they do still produce a sharper image (if zooming to match). In the real World, I rarely use the 2x due to the light loss.
Absolutely killer video however still has me question what to do. My daughter has been pretty heavy in sports photography both indoor/ outdoor and all types of light situations(highschool and getting into college sports) She currently uses and loves the 70-200 with the 2.8. However realized especially with being on the soccer pitch the long distance is just not there but doesn’t want to loose out on the aperture.she is using a Sony a7iii. Which would you recommend between the 100-400 and 200-600? She does not do much wildlife photography. Thank you!
I really considered going to Sony (Nikon user) but even i had the chance to get a new a9 for less than $2500 i couldn't justify to pay about $5000 extra to get something similar to my actual Nikon gear, hopefully soon, job is not paying enough right now, but my 50 y/o back and shoulder really suffers! Sony has beautiful gear right now.
Great Review ! that 200-600mm is great , the light weight , the internal zoom, the AF , the looks...... it can be a 1200mm thats just mind blowing ..... I love it , my only complain would be that it becomes a 6.3 too soon , if it would be at least 5.6 at 400mm would be great or all the way ! why not ! lol ---- Besides all that the 400mm F2.8 does everything well.
Having followed bloggers and vloggers for years it's rare for me to be surprised. But I was here. Even if I'm not half interested in the lenses (I am when I dream but..) Very nice walkthrough. Thumps up and thanks for a pleasant time. Just got the 200-600 btw 🙂
Fantastic thorough review Patrick! That 200-600 is tempting. I already own the 100-400 which I love so it's tough to part with. I'm leaning towards the 400 f2.8 because with that 1.4 TC, I would be at 560 f4 which I'm good for because I can take the 1.4 tc off and have the option of 2.8. I'm into wildlife photography and there have been times later in the day and early where the light is challenging. As great as the A9's ability to handle low light, I'm currently using the 100-400 with the 1.4 which puts me at f8 :( BUT, IF Sony ever comes out with a 200-400 F4 with a 1.4 TC like Canon has, I would buy it in a heartbeat. Having that ability to zoom back for wildlife is something I enjoy now and I do worry about it. BUT (to contradict myself again), the bokey from an f2.8 or f4 is just WOW! To seperate the background is worth it - especially when my wife has green lit a purchase :)
Hi Pat! Thank you for your great insights on Sony especially the 400mm f2.8 and the 600mm f4. I primarily shoot wildlife and nature now although I have shot for the better part of 15 years agility dogs and motor sports racing. I have done both of these professionally for publications and events on a pro level. Now, I mostly lead photo workshops to various parts of the world. My last two workshops I lead were to Tanzania. When not in Africa, I do a lot of BIF at home but I love shooting larger wildlife too. I sell some at local galleries, teach, and do critiques. I shoot with an A1 and an A7R3. Current long lens is the 200-600mm. I would like to move up to the 400 or the 600 but cannot afford both. I have the 1.4 teleconverter already so I can go with the 400 mm f2.8 and the 1.4 for 560mm or the 600mm f4 bare or with the 1.4. I don't typically shoot much above 600mm because I don't like the heat waves unless I can get out early enough. I follow Tin Man Lee and he leans towards the 400mm because of the extra stop of light. I want to focus on better backgrounds and earlier light as well as evening backlit shoots. Your argument for the 600mm is tugging me in that direction. I can't afford both. I was thinking of the 400mm to shoot with the 1.4 so that I could have a more versatile lens when I occasionally shot agility dogs and other arena sports. The hard decision point is that I shoot a lot more of birds and wildlife. Why not the 400mm with the 1.4 over the 600mm? I want cleaner backgrounds with as much amazing light as I can get, that is the direction I want for my art print photos. Thanks for any light you can shed on my choice. David
I’m working my way up there!! Not sure why you didn’t mention the Sony 90mm 2.8 G? Is that better than the 85mm? (I own the 90mm)I just bought the Sony 200-600mm and I love it!!! Debating on getting the 2.0 teleconveter. I also have the Sigma 150-600mm with MC-11, Sony 24-70mm GM, Sony 70-200mm GM, Sony 50mm Zeis and looking into the Sony 135mm. Great video I subscribed and look forward to more content! Thanks
1991 DMD I decided to stay native when it comes to lenses for my Sony cameras so I would say Sony 200-600mm G is my opinion. I’m not saying the Sigma 150-600 is a bad lens but staying native gives you better focus points and faster.
Thank you so much , you help me a dicision making. 100-400 & 200-600 mm on an a 6600 ! Bird watching and some little animals are my FAVO ! Thanks, Frits from Thailand.
Got the 100 to 400 G Master on your recommendation from one of your original videos, have it on my a 6500 virtually all the time. It is a phenomenal lens for Birds, Sports, and even macro photography. I haven't yet put an extension tube on it but would like to try that as well. Thanks for your recommendations and this grade recap. Might have to think about that 200 to 600 for birds.
great! glad you enjoy it. The 200-600 is gathering a loyal following as people buy and use it... It's nice to have so many options now, as Sony shooters!!!!
A comparison you missed (although kind of oddball) is the 70-200gm2.8 w/1.4x & 2x TCs vs 100-400gm. With the 70-200+1.4x tc it would be ~100-280f4 and with 2x tc it would be 140-400f5.6. For someone starting out in sports photography (mostly soccer under lights) would you suggest the 70-200gm2.8+ 1.4 tc for speed/light or the 100-400gm for reach? Thanks in advance. And very informative video on everything else.
Great review. If you are one of the people giving this a thumbs down, do yourself and everyone else a favor and find a "Glam Rock" or "Hollywood" review written by any of the hosts of CLOWN "influencers" who have never made a dime from photography. This is a great comparison/contrast session on several lenses at different price points for shooting sports from a top class photographer with a great portfolio and resume. Well done as always PMR!
hey thanks! I think you will really like it. I have other videos about that lens since I recorded this video--feel free to find them and watch more content :)
Great, really great video. The 200-600 G is a phenomenal lens (and now the mark ii 70-200 GM is unstoppable). I use both lenses with the 1.4x Tele, and both the 1.4x and 2x Tele on the 70-200 GM II. Oh, and I love my 135 GM and the 50 1.2 GM.
Thank you for taking the time to create this educational video. I'm trying to decide on a lens to shoot High School Varsity football at night. I'll be shooting all of the games from the sidelines. I currently have an a9 with 100-400 lens and 70-200 f4.0. I also have a 1.4x converter. I will be selling my 70-200 F4 for a f2.8 later this week so i can at least use that lens with the 1.4 x converter. I also shoot with a a6500 as a backup. I'm currently budgeted for about 6k and I'm willing to invest in new or used glass providing me the best performance from my a9. What lens should I invest in?
I woud look at the possibility of the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 Sport lens in Canon mount with the MC-11 adapter. This would get you the speed you want and the reach and for a lot less $$. Sigma says you will get 15 fps with this combination. Another option is to go for a used Canon 300mm f/2.8L IS. These lenses are coming down in price all the time and you can find them in the $1800-2200 range fairly easily. Sony is going to make an FE300mm f/2.8G or GM at some point and it will be your absolute best option but I'm just not sure when they will produce this lens.
For shooting video and photo for professional baseball, would you suggest the 100-400 or 200-600?? Currently have the 70-200 but don’t think it’s long enough.
I'd actually steer you to the new 300GM if you can swing it. That lens with the 1.4x and 2X would be a better fit, I think. But if you are only considering the 200-600G and the 100-400GM, I'd go for the 200-600 every time.
Hi Patrick, great video. If you could only pick one telephoto lens would you go for 100-400 or 200-600? I'm leaning towards the 100-400 due it looks like having 100 is much more valuable than having 600... But I see a lot of great reviews on the 200-600 and it's cheaper. It's quite a difficult choice.
One advantage Sony bodies have is the clear image zoom. This extends The reach of your lens a little further. The 200-600mm with 1.4x teleconverter on a crop sensor, with clear image zoom, can yield a reach of about 1400-1500mm. FE>EF
Great vid! What would you pick for shooting swimming? To pair with either an A7RIV and A7SIII? I own both cameras and would like to have some advice between these
Excellent video. However, I’m still on the fence between the 400 and 600. Just when I thought that I was locked into the 400 while watching your video, you go ahead and say “but the 600 crushes the background…” lol
Thank you for explaining the lenses. I am also going to watch the new video. I wanted the 70-200 2.8 GM II for some time. For closer ups then the 200-600. Still not decided since for travels the 100-400 is lighter and compact, but then the 70-200 and converter would also cover same range on travels, while having a faster all around lens. Being an amateur shooter unfortunately the 400 and 600 prime end is probably not going to happen. Maybe rent it for a once in a lifetime polar trip. I am doing landscape, night, portraits, and since recently running competitions / marathons.
Good video so far. I will finish watching later. I’m very happy with my new 100-400 on my a7riii. For landscapes and travel the 200-600 is too big and heavy.
A 600mm F4 only very slightly renders the background out of focus than a 400mm F2.8 and I have a hard time telling the difference, but if you divide the aperture from the focal length you do see it is 150 vs. 143 so there is a difference. I just never thought about it until now, but I will say I have owned every super-tele from Nikon over the years except the 800mm and out of all of them the 400mm 2.8 FL is the sharpest and most versatile lens there is. The acuity, focus speed and ability to add either a 1.4x, 1.7x or 2x TC is invaluable and really covers just about anything that I need to cover. I would go so far as to say the 400mm 2.8 is my bread and butter lens, not the 70-200mm which I find I really only use now a days for basketball.
Great video, it actually didn't feel long :) I think another advantage of the 200-600g is that you can go back and forth between 200 and 600mm with a 90 degrees rotation, it looks almost instantaneous and effortless, I think it's a first for a telephoto lens. What do you think?
glad I got to the end. one focal length that never seemed to have been made is the Minolta 200/2.8. is there an optic for that fixed prime? by Sony or Zeiss .. ?
Currently debating between the 135 GM and 70-200 GM for sports photography on the A7C. The 135 despite being a prime is very tempting being slightly more portable. For someone with the budget for only one of those two lenses which would you suggest for sports. I primarily do video on my 24-105, but want a good lens that I can slap on for stills during the game. Thanks! Glad I found this channel as it fits my needs perfectly.
the 135GM is really special... in a way no 70-200 is. It offers a really unique look impossible to get from a 70-200GM, but the zoom will be more versatile. It's a tough call. I found that once I got my 135GM that I went for an entire year without using the 70-200GM--and sold it. I wish the 135GM could accept teleconverters like Canikon's do--this is a big bummer. Still, I'd lean towards the 135GM. I think you should strongly consider renting one before you jump in...
@@PMRTV thanks so much for the reply. I actually rented the 135 GM today. We have several end of year events going on at school and a quick weekend trip planned next weekend so it will be a perfect opportunity to test it out!
I’m hoping that Sony will add the XD-linear motor to the 85MM f/1.4 GM Mark ii. Or, maybe they’ll add an 85 f/1.2 like Canon. I love my 85 1.4, but my f/1.8 actually focuses easier in low light.
Another great video! I am going on a family trip to Hawaii soon and am planning on shooting some North Shore surfing. I have an a7RIV and was going to use my 20-200 GM with a 2X tele in crop mode to get the range. I am concerned that it still won't be enough so am thinking about renting a 100-400 with a 1.4 tele instead. I only have room for one larger lens in the bag (can't fit a 200-600 ). How do you think a 100-400 with 1.4 X would compare sharpness-wise (etc) to a 70-200 with a 2X for surf shots and general tele use? I'll have a 16-35 GM for my walking-around lens.Thanks!!
Terrific video. I am lucky to have most of these lenses except for the 600. I shot lots of motorsports and your comments were very helpful. You mentioned monopods so I am curious which brands do you recommend. Thankmyou.
Great overview of this lovely glass. As you said the 200-600 and say an a6400 makes a great relatively low cost wildlife outfit with crazy range. I had the Nikon 400f2.8fl and the Nikon 600mm f4 vr, these latest offerings from Sony are so light virtually half the weight which as you say makes a world of difference especially if using them all day. cheers. I Guess we'd all have one of each if money wasn't an issue. cheers.
Thanks for this video. Believe it or not I find these long informative videos quite entertaining. :-) I want to play devil's advocate, and suggest that the 200-600mm can in fact replace both the 400mm and the 600mm. My reasoning is simple, albeit possibly naive: the loss of two aperture stops is matched by the gain in low light performance of modern cameras. So let me show the numbers. At best, almost all colour films have a maximum ISO rating of 3200. (This has been the case for decades, BTW, but that's a whole other issue.) Some would say that Kodak 5219 can go one stop more, but let's stick with 3200. The A9, which is the best sports oriented camera you can buy right now, could be safely rated at ISO 12000, or maybe a little higher. So if you're shooting ISO 3200 and f/4, that's equivalent of ISO 12000 and f/8. The 200-600 has a maximum aperture at the long end of more than f/8, so you could set the ISO a little under 12000. Of course the conversation can go much deeper than the arguments I've presented, but I think you get what I mean. One final word on sliding apertures. I suggested to one manufacturer that their cameras should have a manual mode that changes shutter speed as the aperture slides. Maybe suggest this to Sony? Personally, if I want to shoot manual mode with a sliding aperture zoom, I'll set it to the slower aperture at the wide end, and so it effectively becomes a constant aperture zoom. This is very, very useful for product photography.
Great video and really appreciate going in depth on all these great lenses. I am curious tho…I’m more of a Motorsport photographer than anything, and I noticed you said the 100-400 would be good. I am kind of torn on that and the 70-200 2.8 because I want the solid 2.8, but the extra 200mm would come in handy. What are your thoughts? Also, looking at the Gen 1 70-200 as that is more my price range…using an A7iii.
If you shoot primarily day races at short-tracks, then anything will work. But if you shoot more than just ovals, then the 100-400 is great because of all the extra reach possible. The biggest thing the 100-400GM offers you is that it will fit in a Thinktank belt lens pouch and you can carry it all day without hurting your back/shoulder. If you only shoot road courses like Talladega, then the 200-600G would be even better. For shooting in corners though, it's tough to beat the 70-200GMII. It all depends on what you shoot. If you are a dirt track guy and shoot mostly at night, then the 70-200GM is your best friend...
@@PMRTV Awesome, thank you for the feedback! Assuming I will go with the 70-200 as I shoot road courses and mostly don’t need the extra reach. Might think about adding the 200-600 to the bag sometime down the line if that extra reach is something I feel is missing. Also wanting an 85mm or 35 mm for video in the paddocks and close up work. Thanks again!
Phenomenal video, it’s missing sample shots with each lens. I’m curious to know why would someone choose the 100-400 over the 70-200 with a teleconverter? How good is the background blur on the 200-600 at 6.3? Does compression compensate for slow f-stop?
jameel pugh I own both the 70-200 and the 100-400 and use both. I also have the 1.4 and 2x teleconverters. Where to use each depends on the use case. If I’m shooting wildlife or sports outdoors I generally use the 100-400 and sometimes use the teleconverters for extra reach up to 800 (at F11 though...). Indoors or in poor light or if I’m closer to my subject or if I know I will want the 2.8 aperture I use the 70-200. I shoot a lot of wresting and the 70-200 is perfect for that. If I could only have one I’d get the 70-200 and deal with the minor hassle of the teleconverters. The 2.8 aperture is just really useful to me sometimes. If you need 400-800mm reach regularly and don’t need the 2.8 so often then the best choice is the 100-400. Both are great lenses though. Your needs will depend on what you shoot.
Talking about the 400 and 600 and your preference for the 600, for me the advent of the a7RIV 61 megapixels definitely make me stay with the 400 due to the 1.5X cropped image giving me a 600 mm and about 21 megapixels file (a file almost as big as with he a9 not cropped). I always try to get as close as possible to the subjects and seldom use the 1.4X but if I do, it will have a 840 mm f 5.6. The a7RIV is an awesome wildlife camera although not as fast as the a9 but he AF capabilities are close; I use both.
This video helped so much, after tossing up on what to buy out of the 100-400 and 200-600, I ended up going with the 100-400, I rented the 200-600 and 80% of my shots were under 400mm so figured I may as well get the better lens if it suits me which is also smaller, more lightweight and the extra stop of light is really needed in the UK where is always cloudy when shooting pet parrots in flight. Great video.
Why not sub after this crazy review! If I'm picking 400mm GM over 600mm GM it would be for night wildlife filmmaking. While you own both, and if you own an a7s III I would really love to see a review of both 400mm GM and 600mm GM at night with high ISO like 25-100K or more. A1 works well with high ISO despite the 50MP. Warm regards.
I appreciate your video, it was very helpful. I do have a question. I usually do a lot more scenery and micro photography with my A7iii but do shoot high school Lacrosse which is usually in the evening and or at night. Right now I am using an APS-C 70-350 (4.5-6.3) and it does fine but would like to purchase a better lens for doing this and be able to also use it for some wildlife. I am still torn between the 70-200 F2, the 100-400 GM and the 200-600G. Do you have any recommendations and reasons to go with one over the other. Most of the time I am allowed to be on the sideline but at away games I may have to pick a spot at one end of the field. Thank you in advance.
I might tell you to go for the new 70-200mm f/2.8GMII lens with the 1.4x teleconverter. This way you can shoot in really low light at f/2.8 or in bright light with either teleconverter...
Since Nature photography is included here. The 90mm Macro should be considered. It’s one of the best macros ever made.
I have to disagree. Sure it is very sharp but that is not all that matters. Focus throw is way to narrow, and the steps provided by the focus by wire are too big. Mechanical focus and a wider focus throw would make this a much better macro lens.
With my old macro lens i could focus stack near MFD just using the focus ring. With the Sony i need to add a focusing rail to get good results. No deal breaker i guess, but still adds that i need to bring a tripod and rail, and i had hoped the lens would be more made for macro and not macro + general photography (which is why the focus throw/focus by wire is like this, i guess).
ruclips.net/video/wJ2mon9EN8w/видео.html
I totally agree. It's an exceptional lens
@@joakimolsson1024 most people would agree that the 90mm macro is one of the best nature lenses. I don’t know who you talk to that says otherwise.
@@andrewbowman409 for me it's a great lens, not one of the best ever made. I sold mine because of the annoying manual focus.
I cant believe i watched whole 45 minutes of the video without skipping a minute of it. THATS CALLED THE REAL REVIEW. THANK YOU.
Wow, thanks!
Two weeks ago, I part exchanged my 100 - 400mm G Master + SEL20TC for a 200 - 600mm + SEL14TC. Unfortunately, the weather has not been ideal of late, but I did get out with my A9 + 200 - 600mm for five hours a couple of days ago. What I can state so far is: as a wildlife photographer, the 200 - 600mm matches my expectations and produces the results I had hoped for. I managed to capture a Swallow in flight just above the ground, a Dragonfly in flight, just above the ground, a Hover Fly, in flight at a distance of about 3 metres and a Magpie in flight against a tree cluttered background. Focusing speed and lock on are exceptionally fast and zooming between 200 to 600 is really quick. I have yet to test it out with my SEL14TC or my Kenko extension tubes, but so far I am impressed. I will also have to test it out with my A7III at some stage; but that is not a priority. Top job Sony.
So, so far you're happy with the switch? Does the focusing speed on the 200-600 match the 100-400?
@@trippalhealicks. It is so fast that it does not matter. Sony has used the older dirve in the 200 - 600mm; but it is still blindingly fast. Other than in a timed, side by side, comparison there is no way of really determining the difference in real world photography.
Just bought the 200-600. Thank you for your help. I am a hobby photographer and wow did this do a great job of outlining the current lineup.
I’d say you have the best breakdown on RUclips at the moment. Thanks for that.
thanks so much!!!!
I thought I was going to skip through this but here I am 47 minutes later typing this, and I'm not even in the market for those two big boys on the right! Great presentation.
thanks so much Matt!!!
As you know Patrick I am not afraid to moan when I don't like a video but this is an AWESOME video. You've really covered so much and its really helpful for those of us looking to invest in Sony kit. Thanks for taking the time to put this together. I still hope Sony launch a 300 2.8 in the not too distant future...
agreed on all points!
Great and thorough information. My wife and I booked a vacation to Cabo for this October. We realized after watching RUclips videos about Cabo that we would be well served to invest in a good camera. So after reviewing what's out there, we settled for an a6000. We have been loving learning photography, and of course now it's all about the glass. Thanks for this very useful review!!! God bless!
I got in a bit late on the preorders for the 200-600 but i cant wait to use it on my a6400.
I got my Sony 200-600mm delivered here in Shanghai about a week ago. Oh boy, what a performance on my Sony A9. And even when paired with the Sony A6400 this lens shines - this combo works much better than the 100-400mm paired with the A6400. For Wildlife this 200-600mm zoom is clearly a winner.
Stefan1968ful have you been able to compare the 100-400GM with 1.4TC vs 200-600 in terms of sharpness and focus speed/tracking. I have A9, 1.4 and 100-400...wondering if it’s worth getting the 200-600 for field sports. Thx
@@eosuser1 Hi, I used the 100-400mm with the 1.4 TC before I purchased the 200-600mm. And I was not impressed. The f-stop goes down to f/8 at the long end. So compared to the 200-600mm you lose another half a stop. Plus, the 100-400mm without TC may be a bit sharper than the 200-600mm but this is definitely no longer the case when you add the Teleconverter. And another point: for whatever reason, the Sony A6400 performs better in terms of IQ on the 200-600mm compared to the 100-400mm - this is just my observation. So I am going to sell the 100-400mm.
Stefan1968ful my thoughts exactly sir!
Great quote referring to his 100-400mm lens ‘you don’t want to go to a game with this thing because it doesn’t make you look like a real photographer’ !!!
You're prediction was right, the 200-600 is still pretty consistently sold out to this day on both Sony's website and other retailers. Just finally got my hands on one at Best Buy for a good price and I can't wait to try it out. Thanks for the video, great stuff!
Personally, I bought the 100-400 a few weeks before Sony announced the 200-600. I’m kinda glad it worked out that way because I’d be tempted by the price and the range on the 200-600, but I would probably not like the size and weight. Having rented the 100-400 before I was blown away by the GM resolution, build quality, speed, and even things like the color rendition that seemed better. I think I’m going to get the 1.4X teleconverter for it to make it a 140-560mm f/6.3 to f/8, which isn’t too far off from the 200-600 with a lot note versatility. I’ll be shooting with the 1.4X outside in the sun most of the time anyway.
Nice job Pat. Your recommendations have been spot on for me. Sold my last piece of Nikon gear last month. The 100-400 breezed through spring sports and I expect it to do the same this fall. I love lenses that make money every time I pick them up!
As good as the 400GM and 600GM's are, I'm glad Sony put priority into making the 100-400 a GM lens also...
Not to mention, the 100-400 connected to the a7rii or the new a7riv, going to crop mode you're getting 150mm-600mm at 5.6 (I typically just set the aperture at 5.6 so it stays constant). Of course, I haven't done this yet, but possibly getting the a7riii soon. I am currently doing this with the a7iii, but obviously the file size isn't a large, still usable though!
Just got my A9. Was up in the air on what long lens to get. Had picked the 200-600 and I am glad I did. Pulling the pin tonight. Thanks
Good stuff! Enjoy the lens!!!!
Thank you Patrick. Exactly what i needed. I've been working as a photojournalist, doing lot of sport phoography, mainly athletics. I've been using Nikons, buts since they seem to lost the MILC battle, i've been thinking seriously to move on to SONY system. So you gave me a very good starting point on which leneses i should concentrate on. Thank you!
cool! I wish you luck in the switch!!!
Very happy to stumble across this video. I primarily do video/photo for live bands in small venues and have loved the 24mm 1.4 GM and 24-105mm F4 G for that purpose, but as I'm looking to get into college sports I feel like the 200-600 and 135mm are going to make an amazing combo.
absolutely!!! we all keep hoping for a 300mm f/2.8GM or a 300mm f/4G!!!!
ruclips.net/video/wJ2mon9EN8w/видео.html
You did great with this video. One of the best comparisons I’ve watched for a wile now, I have the 100-400 and love it. The lengthy video was well worth it. THANK YOU
Awesome, thank you!
Great work! ....thank you very much! ...just purchased the 200-600 and it is amazing as you say, and at the price point, a no-brainer.
Yes just going to review it soon awesome bit of glass enjoy
I shoot wildlife and pre-ordered the 200-600 almost as soon as it was available to do so. I agree that it will be very popular. I had a Sigma 150-600 C when I shot Canon (and I used it a bit with my a7r3, my first Sony camera) but I found the AF was slow and hunted too much once I switched to Sony and was using it with the MC-11 adapter. So I sold it as part of my switch over. I'm really excited to get this lens, essentially the same as the Sigma with the big added benefit of being a native Sony with more updated tech features. Great vid!
native is best, but I sure made a lot of nice images with my 120-300 Sport and 500mm f/4 Sport lenses...
@@PMRTV Yes, no issues with IQ! :)
I would love to see a 200-600 vs 400 GM VS 600 GM review / comparison video for wildlife!
@@CarlosBarronJr I'll see what I can do, though might be the 400 f2.8 instead of the 600 since I own the 400. Just did an unboxing vid for my 200-600, you can check it out on my channel! Patrick is right though...I want that 600 f4 GM, lol.
200600 will be my upcoming gift in the next week
Thank you for your video really it help me, I just ordered a9ii + 200600, included 70200GM & 2470GM, Im very happy with my decision 👍👍👍
Great to hear! Be sure to check out my menu video on the a9II so you put your best foot forward as you begin with Sony. Also, welcome home!
your content is so great. infomrative, calm, objective opintions....no annoying music. keep doing whatr you're doing and thanks for sharing all your wisdom
You made my day Hanni!!! Your comment makes up for at least 10 trolls, LOL. thank you so much!!! pm-r :)
Patrick, your videos have all been an incredible resource for me as an aspiring event/sports shooter. My journey with Sony started with this video. I have probably watched it over 20 times! I've rented the 135gm and LOVED it. I'm trying to convince myself I need that lens (even though I own the workhorse 70-200gm ii). I would love a video showcasing some of your favorite sports images (especially High School) where you used specific lenses to achieve the shots you were anticipating/looking for. My favorite combo for basketball is the 70-200/35gm, however I'd love to find instances where I can use the 135. Thanks again!
the 135GM is stellar for shooting in high school gyms... volleyball, basketball, wrestling, etc...
@@PMRTV appreciate the content you make on Sony Photography! I’m currently shooting semi-pro soccer, and I’m wanting to invest in more Sony lenses, now I’ve been looking at the tamron lenses as well to figure out which lens I should invest in next. I’ve debated between the Sony 70-200 F4, the Tamron 70-180 f2.8, and the 70-200 f2.8 Version 2. I want more reach but I also need better low light performance, price is being considered and I can’t figure which way to go. Considering I’m trying to switch from a Nikon D3400 crop camera with a 70-300 4.5-6.3 to using my Sony A7II with a new full frame telephoto lens. What would you suggest and why? Any advice would be greatly appreciated!
Patrick, thank you for making this video. Really do appreciate it.
I can verify your comments about the 100-400 GM. I shot the moon with an A7R4 and the 100-400 + 1.4x tele and every shot came out - HAND HELD. I had tried this with all my Nikons over the years and rarely had what I considered a good shot. Great video in covering the main points and uses.
Are you comparing the new state of the art A7R4 with old Nikon's, what lenses did you have? That's not a good comparison.
@@wayneevans9364 I have both the Z6 and Z7 still (having sold my D850 and D500). I have both F and new Z lenses (at least as many as they have managed to ship. The purpose of my comment was not really to compare Nikon and Sony from the stand point of better or best but a simple statement that for me the A7R4 helped to do what I had trouble doing before. I am not a Sony or a Nikon bigot. I simply go where the tech helps me the most. For other people their mileage may vary.
@@thomasnewsom6084 Thats good Thomas, thanks for your reply, Cheers.
P M-R, your best vid yet! Packed with insightful information. I felt like I bumped into you at a hotel and we went out to the local watering hole to talk about glass and I walked (stumbled?) home with a bunch of insider information. One of these days I'll switch from Canon to Sony...dunno know if it will be the A7RIV or A9II. But darn you as I always thought my first three lenses would be the Holy Trinity. Now you got me salivating over the 135, 100-400 and 200-600. I guess what it boils down to is what do you envision yourself shooting. As a hobbyist, I shoot every genre, day and night. Thank you for your honest and candid thoughts, both in the video and in the comments. I'm sure once I dive in I'll watch this vid half a dozen times. Actually, I do have a question: in what order do you think they'll make the Mark II version and what about it will be different? Say, the first three MII lenses.
Even though i mainly shoot wildlife, considering how well the tele converters work, i opted for the 400/2.8 versatility over the 600/4. The option to shoot 2.8 is more worth it to me than the 40mm extra (560/4 vs 600/4 and 800/5.6 vs 840/5.6). The 400 is very sharp even with the 2x, and the creamyness/background blur should, at least in theory, be very similar between the two lenses. And its smaller (if you can use the word small for a 400/2.8)
Then again i'm not a hardcore birder - probably hard to justify the 400 over the 600 for pure birding :D
yes, and you offer very sound reasoning....
This is great, I have been waiting for you to do this. I have 4 of these lens, including the 200-600mm. I agree with your comments about the 100-400mm with a x1.4. I almost did not buy the 200-600mm, but then I see it as a 400-600mm lens and more with the x1.4. Also love the T shirt!
Great work Patrick, I got the 400 f2.8 a few weeks ago and am blown away, super happy with it
Wow. Thank you for the depth of this video. I’ve been going back and forth between the 200-600 and the 100-400, and it looks like I’m going with the 200-600! Thanks for all the info! I have the 85 prime (and I think I’ll keep it after watching this!)
Cool, if you want to help me out, use my affiliate link to purchase from Bedfords and use the PMR code to get 5% off anything you buy from them and get no tax/shipping: www.bedfords.com/27242916111 (as of 1-29-21, it's $q00 off so you should get it for just $1803.10!!!!
A great review!!!
I’m still using my Tamron 150-600mm w/ the MC11 and it works, but I’m ready to sell it and the three other Tamron/Canon lenses and get that transition over with. I’ve been holding onto some of my Canon gear just because it was my buddy for a long time... but it’s over.
I don’t use the 150-600 a lot but when I do it’s so worth it. With the Covid issue and no live events, I certainly have time to wait for one to be in stock. But I think it’s time to finally let go of the Canon side completely. I can’t see ever going back, and can’t imaging having to replace lenses yet again.
Thank you for this review, it was far more valuable than you think.
Own the “street sweeper” Love this lens.Its a powerhouse.
Great job and very helpful. I have the 70-200 f2.8 and was close to buying the 100-400, but held out long enough for the launch of the 200-600. Throw a question at you. What if you didn’t have the 400GM or 600GM and Sony launched a 500 f4 GM, would that be your “go to?” Of course the rumor mill is the 500 is on the table. Again, great video and thanks for putting in the time to do them.
It's a great question. IMHO, the 500 f/4 matches up great to the 300mm f/2.8. You want to always space out your glass so there are big differences in focal length. Buying the 400GM set me up more for the 200mm f/2 (if they ever choose to make one) and the 600GM. But if you push me on it, I prefer the 600 f/4 over the 400 but it's just not versatile enough to justify. Back in the good old days at Sports Illustrated, I had them all (2/4/6 and even an 800mm f/5.6) but those days are over just like earning real money from shooting pro and college sports. If the 500mm f/4GM was made, I'd hold out for the 600GM.
Two years later! Excellent video thank you. Most informative.
I so enjoyed your talk on all the lenses, I'm waiting for my 200-600mm to arrive, at the moment I have an a6000 you mentioned it on your talk, I was wondering to upgrade my camera or will my a6000 be ok?
While the a6000 is still a relavant camera today when you compare its sepcs and performance to the Canon 7DMII and other DSLR's that are now almost ten years old, the a6000 does not fair well against the a6300, a6400, a6100, and a6600. All of these benefit much from the more modern sensor which gives much better low light performance than the venerable a6000. Having said all that, you can make amazing photos with the a6000 and it will work really well with your new lens which will actually be a 300-900mm zoom because it's made for FF sensors. You are going to LOVE it!!!
This video was not confusing at all and went into great details that anyone considering these lenses would want to know. I do have a short question however, I own the 100-400 and also the 1.4 cony TC. Having used the 1.4 on the lens I wasn't exactly happy with the results but I'm wondering if the camera is a factor, I'm using the Sony A7R3 not the A9. I found I'd rather just use the 100-400 and crop rather than add the 1.4 in nearly every situation. Would this be a different scenario with a camera like the the A9? My next body will be the A9 or A9ii for sure. Thanks once again for a very helpful video, liked and subscribed.
Thanks for this video, it's so helpful! Your knowledge and experience came off naturally and you made clear the benefits and purpose of each lens and focal length. I was planning to get the 100-400mm (I used the 70-200 F/4 at the Chicago Air and Water Show and I enjoyed it but wished I had more reach... but I mostly shoot autocross) but your talking about the logarithmic increase every 100mm and the new galaxy of bokeh has me curious about how 400-600mm looks.
Great and very informative video! I just wish there were some sample photos thrown in so we have examples to look at ;)
A very in depth review. Thank you for explaining them in details along with the experiences of using them
My pleasure!
Good comprehensive review. One correction - The 85mm f/1.8 is 3 ⅓ stops faster than f/5.6, not 4 ⅓ stops.
You are absolutely correct, thanks for that... I missed it.
WRT teleconverters: Tony Northrup and others have long shown that with lenses and cameras of this quality you will generally get significantly better results by cropping the image, than by using a teleconverter. This applies to both the 2.0 and even the 1.4 Sony. This was also true with pro film cameras and teleconverters.
Do the test yourself; shoot a critical focus shot with lots of fine detail, with and without the teleconverter, and then blow up the images to the same enlarged image size.
Tony Northrup also showed better lens flare rejection with backlight without use of a teleconverter.
APS-C mode is also better than a teleconverter, but that requires changing modes, and you lose the advantage of the full frame for cropping flexibility. This can be a particular advantage with fast moving subjects.
The only thing a teleconverter actually can do is give you a magnified image in your viewfinder, but your shots will be sharper without it, even if you crop and enlarge the image to match the converted focal length.
This is very much equipment dependent. With my Canon 5DSR plus 600mm f4 ii, 1.4x iii and 2x iii taking pics of the Moon, the sharpest overall shot will be with the 2x (but only just), followed very, very closely by the 1.4x. Bare lens comes out last if blowing up to the same size as the 2x image at 100%. With the 5DSR being a high res sensor, this actually puts more of a 'strain' on the TCs in terms of IQ, but they do still produce a sharper image (if zooming to match). In the real World, I rarely use the 2x due to the light loss.
Absolutely killer video however still has me question what to do. My daughter has been pretty heavy in sports photography both indoor/ outdoor and all types of light situations(highschool and getting into college sports) She currently uses and loves the 70-200 with the 2.8. However realized especially with being on the soccer pitch the long distance is just not there but doesn’t want to loose out on the aperture.she is using a Sony a7iii. Which would you recommend between the 100-400 and 200-600? She does not do much wildlife photography.
Thank you!
definitely the 200-600G
Really enjoy your videos. Always comes across as someone who knows the product and lot of experience.
I really considered going to Sony (Nikon user) but even i had the chance to get a new a9 for less than $2500 i couldn't justify to pay about $5000 extra to get something similar to my actual Nikon gear, hopefully soon, job is not paying enough right now, but my 50 y/o back and shoulder really suffers! Sony has beautiful gear right now.
Great Review ! that 200-600mm is great , the light weight , the internal zoom, the AF , the looks...... it can be a 1200mm thats just mind blowing ..... I love it , my only complain would be that it becomes a 6.3 too soon , if it would be at least 5.6 at 400mm would be great or all the way ! why not ! lol ---- Besides all that the 400mm F2.8 does everything well.
I agree, I wish it changed at 400mm, but hey, it's still a killer optic for the $$.
Having followed bloggers and vloggers for years it's rare for me to be surprised. But I was here. Even if I'm not half interested in the lenses (I am when I dream but..)
Very nice walkthrough. Thumps up and thanks for a pleasant time.
Just got the 200-600 btw 🙂
I appreciate that!
Fantastic thorough review Patrick! That 200-600 is tempting. I already own the 100-400 which I love so it's tough to part with. I'm leaning towards the 400 f2.8 because with that 1.4 TC, I would be at 560 f4 which I'm good for because I can take the 1.4 tc off and have the option of 2.8. I'm into wildlife photography and there have been times later in the day and early where the light is challenging. As great as the A9's ability to handle low light, I'm currently using the 100-400 with the 1.4 which puts me at f8 :( BUT, IF Sony ever comes out with a 200-400 F4 with a 1.4 TC like Canon has, I would buy it in a heartbeat. Having that ability to zoom back for wildlife is something I enjoy now and I do worry about it. BUT (to contradict myself again), the bokey from an f2.8 or f4 is just WOW! To seperate the background is worth it - especially when my wife has green lit a purchase :)
A agree... with everything you said... LOL
Hi Pat! Thank you for your great insights on Sony especially the 400mm f2.8 and the 600mm f4. I primarily shoot wildlife and nature now although I have shot for the better part of 15 years agility dogs and motor sports racing. I have done both of these professionally for publications and events on a pro level. Now, I mostly lead photo workshops to various parts of the world. My last two workshops I lead were to Tanzania. When not in Africa, I do a lot of BIF at home but I love shooting larger wildlife too. I sell some at local galleries, teach, and do critiques. I shoot with an A1 and an A7R3. Current long lens is the 200-600mm. I would like to move up to the 400 or the 600 but cannot afford both. I have the 1.4 teleconverter already so I can go with the 400 mm f2.8 and the 1.4 for 560mm or the 600mm f4 bare or with the 1.4. I don't typically shoot much above 600mm because I don't like the heat waves unless I can get out early enough. I follow Tin Man Lee and he leans towards the 400mm because of the extra stop of light. I want to focus on better backgrounds and earlier light as well as evening backlit shoots. Your argument for the 600mm is tugging me in that direction. I can't afford both. I was thinking of the 400mm to shoot with the 1.4 so that I could have a more versatile lens when I occasionally shot agility dogs and other arena sports. The hard decision point is that I shoot a lot more of birds and wildlife. Why not the 400mm with the 1.4 over the 600mm? I want cleaner backgrounds with as much amazing light as I can get, that is the direction I want for my art print photos. Thanks for any light you can shed on my choice. David
I’m working my way up there!! Not sure why you didn’t mention the Sony 90mm 2.8 G? Is that better than the 85mm? (I own the 90mm)I just bought the Sony 200-600mm and I love it!!! Debating on getting the 2.0 teleconveter. I also have the Sigma 150-600mm with MC-11, Sony 24-70mm GM, Sony 70-200mm GM, Sony 50mm Zeis and looking into the Sony 135mm.
Great video I subscribed and look forward to more content! Thanks
Emdrone1
Hi! I have a question between sony 200-600 and Sigma 150-600+MC11 on sony a7III, which chose better?
Thank you so much!
1991 DMD I decided to stay native when it comes to lenses for my Sony cameras so I would say Sony 200-600mm G is my opinion. I’m not saying the Sigma 150-600 is a bad lens but staying native gives you better focus points and faster.
Thank you so much , you help me a dicision making.
100-400 & 200-600 mm on an a 6600 !
Bird watching and some little animals are my FAVO !
Thanks, Frits from Thailand.
Glad I could help!
Got the 100 to 400 G Master on your recommendation from one of your original videos, have it on my a 6500 virtually all the time. It is a phenomenal lens for Birds, Sports, and even macro photography. I haven't yet put an extension tube on it but would like to try that as well. Thanks for your recommendations and this grade recap. Might have to think about that 200 to 600 for birds.
great! glad you enjoy it. The 200-600 is gathering a loyal following as people buy and use it... It's nice to have so many options now, as Sony shooters!!!!
A comparison you missed (although kind of oddball) is the 70-200gm2.8 w/1.4x & 2x TCs vs 100-400gm. With the 70-200+1.4x tc it would be ~100-280f4 and with 2x tc it would be 140-400f5.6. For someone starting out in sports photography (mostly soccer under lights) would you suggest the 70-200gm2.8+ 1.4 tc for speed/light or the 100-400gm for reach? Thanks in advance. And very informative video on everything else.
Kaad Home don’t buy a lens knowing ahead of time that you will keep a teleconverter on it. The 100-400 will perform better.
Great review. If you are one of the people giving this a thumbs down, do yourself and everyone else a favor and find a "Glam Rock" or "Hollywood" review written by any of the hosts of CLOWN "influencers" who have never made a dime from photography. This is a great comparison/contrast session on several lenses at different price points for shooting sports from a top class photographer with a great portfolio and resume. Well done as always PMR!
thank you John!!! very nice of you to say so...
Incredibly comprehensive and helped me make a decision on the Sony FE 200-600mm f5.6-6.3 G OSS Lens. Cheers!
The 200-600 will be mine as soon as I sell some older gear! Great review!
hey thanks! I think you will really like it. I have other videos about that lens since I recorded this video--feel free to find them and watch more content :)
Great, really great video. The 200-600 G is a phenomenal lens (and now the mark ii 70-200 GM is unstoppable). I use both lenses with the 1.4x Tele, and both the 1.4x and 2x Tele on the 70-200 GM II. Oh, and I love my 135 GM and the 50 1.2 GM.
yes!!!
how is the 2x teleconverter with the 70-200 GM II? have you shot video on it?
Mark Smith shoots birds with a 600F4. He really shows what that lens can do. Great video!!! Thank you!
Awesome video! Curious what sports you use the 135 for? Would you consider the 135 overlap if I already have the 70-200? Camera is A9ii.
I use my 135GM for hoops, volleyball, baseball (1st base divebacks), portraits, tennis (at the net), etc...
Thank you for taking the time to create this educational video. I'm trying to decide on a lens to shoot High School Varsity football at night. I'll be shooting all of the games from the sidelines. I currently have an a9 with 100-400 lens and 70-200 f4.0. I also have a 1.4x converter. I will be selling my 70-200 F4 for a f2.8 later this week so i can at least use that lens with the 1.4 x converter. I also shoot with a a6500 as a backup. I'm currently budgeted for about 6k and I'm willing to invest in new or used glass providing me the best performance from my a9. What lens should I invest in?
I woud look at the possibility of the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 Sport lens in Canon mount with the MC-11 adapter. This would get you the speed you want and the reach and for a lot less $$. Sigma says you will get 15 fps with this combination. Another option is to go for a used Canon 300mm f/2.8L IS. These lenses are coming down in price all the time and you can find them in the $1800-2200 range fairly easily. Sony is going to make an FE300mm f/2.8G or GM at some point and it will be your absolute best option but I'm just not sure when they will produce this lens.
For shooting video and photo for professional baseball, would you suggest the 100-400 or 200-600?? Currently have the 70-200 but don’t think it’s long enough.
I'd actually steer you to the new 300GM if you can swing it. That lens with the 1.4x and 2X would be a better fit, I think. But if you are only considering the 200-600G and the 100-400GM, I'd go for the 200-600 every time.
@@PMRTV wow thank you for your prompt response! I’m going to test out the 200-600G at spring training later this week. I’ll let you know how it goes!
Great video. Im tossed between the 100-400 and the 200-600... Im pretty certain ill do the 200-600 for the extra reach. But a great video...Cheers
Hi Patrick, great video. If you could only pick one telephoto lens would you go for 100-400 or 200-600? I'm leaning towards the 100-400 due it looks like having 100 is much more valuable than having 600... But I see a lot of great reviews on the 200-600 and it's cheaper. It's quite a difficult choice.
200-600G
"If you don't know what I'm talking about, don't worry about it" laughed my ass off there... thanks.. : D
glad you enjoyed the comment... ;)
One advantage Sony bodies have is the clear image zoom. This extends The reach of your lens a little further. The 200-600mm with 1.4x teleconverter on a crop sensor, with clear image zoom, can yield a reach of about 1400-1500mm.
FE>EF
exactly right, I use this a lot when I shoot with my 135mm f/1.8GM and need just a little more reach. good point!
Jpeg only I think. Patrick shoots jpegs.
Great video/info, what are your thoughts with the 200-600 and the a7R lll
Great vid! What would you pick for shooting swimming? To pair with either an A7RIV and A7SIII? I own both cameras and would like to have some advice between these
if you are in sunny CA or FL, definitely the 200-600G but if you are inside, I'd go with the newer 70-200GMII for sure.
Excellent video. However, I’m still on the fence between the 400 and 600. Just when I thought that I was locked into the 400 while watching your video, you go ahead and say “but the 600 crushes the background…” lol
Sorry but it truly does!
Nice! That 200-600 has my name on it :D
Thank you for explaining the lenses. I am also going to watch the new video.
I wanted the 70-200 2.8 GM II for some time.
For closer ups then the 200-600.
Still not decided since for travels the 100-400 is lighter and compact, but then the 70-200 and converter would also cover same range on travels, while having a faster all around lens.
Being an amateur shooter unfortunately the 400 and 600 prime end is probably not going to happen. Maybe rent it for a once in a lifetime polar trip.
I am doing landscape, night, portraits, and since recently running competitions / marathons.
I'd seriously think about the 70-200GMII with converters instead of the 100-400GM
Good video so far. I will finish watching later. I’m very happy with my new 100-400 on my a7riii. For landscapes and travel the 200-600 is too big and heavy.
you can't go wrong with the 100-400GM!!!! It also has faster AF than the 200-600.
Great and helpful info as always!
I wish Sony released Sony 400mm f/2.8 with a built-in 1.4x teleconverter.
Great video Patrick, you are very kind man!
Outstanding 😊, thanks 👍 for sharing 👍
Thanks for watching
A 600mm F4 only very slightly renders the background out of focus than a 400mm F2.8 and I have a hard time telling the difference, but if you divide the aperture from the focal length you do see it is 150 vs. 143 so there is a difference. I just never thought about it until now, but I will say I have owned every super-tele from Nikon over the years except the 800mm and out of all of them the 400mm 2.8 FL is the sharpest and most versatile lens there is. The acuity, focus speed and ability to add either a 1.4x, 1.7x or 2x TC is invaluable and really covers just about anything that I need to cover. I would go so far as to say the 400mm 2.8 is my bread and butter lens, not the 70-200mm which I find I really only use now a days for basketball.
I keep asking Sony to make a 1.2X (Canon) and a 1.7X (Nikon) every time I get to talk to lens engineers. Fingers crossed!
Great video I like the no bs. I ended up ordering a 200-600. Thanks
awesome!!!
Great video, it actually didn't feel long :) I think another advantage of the 200-600g is that you can go back and forth between 200 and 600mm with a 90 degrees rotation, it looks almost instantaneous and effortless, I think it's a first for a telephoto lens. What do you think?
glad I got to the end.
one focal length that never seemed to have been made is the Minolta 200/2.8. is there an optic for that fixed prime?
by Sony or Zeiss .. ?
I WISH!!! Just imagine how small and lightweight a 200mm f/2.8 prime would be from Sony at this point?????
Thanks for your sincere and honest opinions!
Always!
Currently debating between the 135 GM and 70-200 GM for sports photography on the A7C. The 135 despite being a prime is very tempting being slightly more portable. For someone with the budget for only one of those two lenses which would you suggest for sports. I primarily do video on my 24-105, but want a good lens that I can slap on for stills during the game. Thanks! Glad I found this channel as it fits my needs perfectly.
the 135GM is really special... in a way no 70-200 is. It offers a really unique look impossible to get from a 70-200GM, but the zoom will be more versatile. It's a tough call. I found that once I got my 135GM that I went for an entire year without using the 70-200GM--and sold it. I wish the 135GM could accept teleconverters like Canikon's do--this is a big bummer. Still, I'd lean towards the 135GM. I think you should strongly consider renting one before you jump in...
@@PMRTV thanks so much for the reply. I actually rented the 135 GM today. We have several end of year events going on at school and a quick weekend trip planned next weekend so it will be a perfect opportunity to test it out!
I’m hoping that Sony will add the XD-linear motor to the 85MM f/1.4 GM Mark ii. Or, maybe they’ll add an 85 f/1.2 like Canon. I love my 85 1.4, but my f/1.8 actually focuses easier in low light.
I love to see this video still being engaged with. Hope you are doing as well as can.
I need to do a new one soon!!!!
@@PMRTV always looking forward to new content from you. Thanks for all your hard work.
Using the 400 on senior portraits. Man…I shouldn’t of watched this vid. I thought I never even needed to think about that bad boy 😂🙌
no better way to blow the background to smithereens... LOL!!
Another great video! I am going on a family trip to Hawaii soon and am planning on shooting some North Shore surfing. I have an a7RIV and was going to use my 20-200 GM with a 2X tele in crop mode to get the range. I am concerned that it still won't be enough so am thinking about renting a 100-400 with a 1.4 tele instead. I only have room for one larger lens in the bag (can't fit a 200-600 ). How do you think a 100-400 with 1.4 X would compare sharpness-wise (etc) to a 70-200 with a 2X for surf shots and general tele use? I'll have a 16-35 GM for my walking-around lens.Thanks!!
Terrific video. I am lucky to have most of these lenses except for the 600. I shot lots of motorsports and your comments were very helpful. You mentioned monopods so I am curious which brands do you recommend. Thankmyou.
amzn.to/3gNTiLw
Thank you
Just fantastic thank you very much . Just ordered the 600 F4 GM
Great overview of this lovely glass. As you said the 200-600 and say an a6400 makes a great relatively low cost wildlife outfit with crazy range. I had the Nikon 400f2.8fl and the Nikon 600mm f4 vr, these latest offerings from Sony are so light virtually half the weight which as you say makes a world of difference especially if using them all day. cheers. I Guess we'd all have one of each if money wasn't an issue. cheers.
Yes, exactly
Thanks for this video. Believe it or not I find these long informative videos quite entertaining. :-)
I want to play devil's advocate, and suggest that the 200-600mm can in fact replace both the 400mm and the 600mm. My reasoning is simple, albeit possibly naive: the loss of two aperture stops is matched by the gain in low light performance of modern cameras. So let me show the numbers.
At best, almost all colour films have a maximum ISO rating of 3200. (This has been the case for decades, BTW, but that's a whole other issue.) Some would say that Kodak 5219 can go one stop more, but let's stick with 3200. The A9, which is the best sports oriented camera you can buy right now, could be safely rated at ISO 12000, or maybe a little higher. So if you're shooting ISO 3200 and f/4, that's equivalent of ISO 12000 and f/8. The 200-600 has a maximum aperture at the long end of more than f/8, so you could set the ISO a little under 12000.
Of course the conversation can go much deeper than the arguments I've presented, but I think you get what I mean.
One final word on sliding apertures. I suggested to one manufacturer that their cameras should have a manual mode that changes shutter speed as the aperture slides. Maybe suggest this to Sony? Personally, if I want to shoot manual mode with a sliding aperture zoom, I'll set it to the slower aperture at the wide end, and so it effectively becomes a constant aperture zoom. This is very, very useful for product photography.
From what I understand, the motor on the 200-600 is a single linear motor, that of the 400/2.8 n 600/4 have the dynamic twin linear motor?
We need videos like this. Mature Content.
thanks so much!!!
thanks so much!
Its not like the "mature content " videos I watch...........
Great video and really appreciate going in depth on all these great lenses. I am curious tho…I’m more of a Motorsport photographer than anything, and I noticed you said the 100-400 would be good. I am kind of torn on that and the 70-200 2.8 because I want the solid 2.8, but the extra 200mm would come in handy. What are your thoughts? Also, looking at the Gen 1 70-200 as that is more my price range…using an A7iii.
If you shoot primarily day races at short-tracks, then anything will work. But if you shoot more than just ovals, then the 100-400 is great because of all the extra reach possible. The biggest thing the 100-400GM offers you is that it will fit in a Thinktank belt lens pouch and you can carry it all day without hurting your back/shoulder. If you only shoot road courses like Talladega, then the 200-600G would be even better. For shooting in corners though, it's tough to beat the 70-200GMII. It all depends on what you shoot. If you are a dirt track guy and shoot mostly at night, then the 70-200GM is your best friend...
@@PMRTV Awesome, thank you for the feedback! Assuming I will go with the 70-200 as I shoot road courses and mostly don’t need the extra reach. Might think about adding the 200-600 to the bag sometime down the line if that extra reach is something I feel is missing. Also wanting an 85mm or 35 mm for video in the paddocks and close up work. Thanks again!
Phenomenal video, it’s missing sample shots with each lens. I’m curious to know why would someone choose the 100-400 over the 70-200 with a teleconverter? How good is the background blur on the 200-600 at 6.3? Does compression compensate for slow f-stop?
jameel pugh I own both the 70-200 and the 100-400 and use both. I also have the 1.4 and 2x teleconverters. Where to use each depends on the use case. If I’m shooting wildlife or sports outdoors I generally use the 100-400 and sometimes use the teleconverters for extra reach up to 800 (at F11 though...). Indoors or in poor light or if I’m closer to my subject or if I know I will want the 2.8 aperture I use the 70-200. I shoot a lot of wresting and the 70-200 is perfect for that.
If I could only have one I’d get the 70-200 and deal with the minor hassle of the teleconverters. The 2.8 aperture is just really useful to me sometimes. If you need 400-800mm reach regularly and don’t need the 2.8 so often then the best choice is the 100-400. Both are great lenses though. Your needs will depend on what you shoot.
Talking about the 400 and 600 and your preference for the 600, for me the advent of the a7RIV 61 megapixels definitely make me stay with the 400 due to the 1.5X cropped image giving me a 600 mm and about 21 megapixels file (a file almost as big as with he a9 not cropped). I always try to get as close as possible to the subjects and seldom use the 1.4X but if I do, it will have a 840 mm f 5.6. The a7RIV is an awesome wildlife camera although not as fast as the a9 but he AF capabilities are close; I use both.
I was just musing that I had not seen a PMR Sony video in quite a while and now there's this one! Thanks! Where can I buy a FE>EF T-shirt?
I got mine from my wife. She made it for me ;)
@@PMRTV Excellent! Let me know if/when you decide to market it!
This video helped so much, after tossing up on what to buy out of the 100-400 and 200-600, I ended up going with the 100-400, I rented the 200-600 and 80% of my shots were under 400mm so figured I may as well get the better lens if it suits me which is also smaller, more lightweight and the extra stop of light is really needed in the UK where is always cloudy when shooting pet parrots in flight. Great video.
great, glad it was helpful!
Why not sub after this crazy review! If I'm picking 400mm GM over 600mm GM it would be for night wildlife filmmaking. While you own both, and if you own an a7s III I would really love to see a review of both 400mm GM and 600mm GM at night with high ISO like 25-100K or more. A1 works well with high ISO despite the 50MP. Warm regards.
I appreciate your video, it was very helpful. I do have a question. I usually do a lot more scenery and micro photography with my A7iii but do shoot high school Lacrosse which is usually in the evening and or at night. Right now I am using an APS-C 70-350 (4.5-6.3) and it does fine but would like to purchase a better lens for doing this and be able to also use it for some wildlife. I am still torn between the 70-200 F2, the 100-400 GM and the 200-600G. Do you have any recommendations and reasons to go with one over the other. Most of the time I am allowed to be on the sideline but at away games I may have to pick a spot at one end of the field. Thank you in advance.
I might tell you to go for the new 70-200mm f/2.8GMII lens with the 1.4x teleconverter. This way you can shoot in really low light at f/2.8 or in bright light with either teleconverter...
Really great video. Appreciate you making it👍🏽