I shoot almost all wildlife and I rented the new 70-200 and a 2x and found similar results as you. But I also found with the 2X and 70-200 at 400MM to be noticeable softer (at least my experience) than the 100-400 @400. I could clean some of that up with Topaz so if someone really loves a 70-200 and also wants to shoot some wildlife or needs more reach then adding the 2x is a nice option. But for me I'll stick with the 100-400 that I occasionally use with the 1.4x. Nice video, glad I found your channel.
Got a 100-400 GM a few months back and I'm absolutely in love with that lens! So I don't feel like I need this new one, but glad I get to experience it a bit through your vids 😊
This is the conclusion I reached. I have replaced my 100-400 with the new 70-200 GM2 F2.8 and 2x teleconverter when I need more reach. I also prefer the 70-200 for the internal zoom, and even with converter it is still lighter. And if even more than 400 reach is required, I use the 200-600. Everyone’s use is different, but this suits my use
Makes perfect sense. Did you make some direct comparisons between the two options (70-200 GM2 + TC vs. 100-400 GM), and if so, do you agree threre's not much difference in image quality and autofocus performance?
I'd love to get a 100-400mm GM lens but after getting 70-200mm GM II, I'm a bit strapped for cash. I'm going to get 2x TC and glad to see it worked well for you. I'm looking to get that extra reach on hikes.
I'm waiting now for an a1 2 with 8k 60 19 bit raw internally and a 20 megapixel a7s4 with 6k 60p same internally 10 bit raw, and off course a floppy screen for a1 mk2 and would love and external extending 70-200 2.8 mk2s in black with black teleconverter. :)
I have the 100-400 and have always loved it. That being said, I use that lens mostly for my daughter who sings and dances, so sometimes I have to shoot her from far away. I just bought the 70-200ii, and OMG…It is now my favorite lens in the world! The tracking, autofocus, sharpness, and new macro capability just blew me away!!! One thing that I love about the new 70-200ii is just how buttery smooth the zoom & focus rings are now, this is a big game changer for me when I take 4K videos of my daughter. The zoom & focus ring on the 100-400 is not really good for video, too stiff. I’m thinking of ordering a 2x converter and see if the 70-200ii keeps all of its new capabilities(focus, image quality, tracking…). If so, I might sell my 100-400 and buy 50mm 1.2 or rumored 85mm 1.2 that Sony is releasing.
But you can also put the teleconverters on the 100-400. So you can get two lenses in one with that as well. I’d say they both have very different uses.
@@Roysphotos8 converters work fine with all Sony cameras if they made it after 2019...... 2 times converter after f/8 .....auto focus is not so perfect works lot of frustration there... if 2 times converter on your camera you have to work all times with f/8 and you need sunny days so not so ideal but works the profi photograph work with 1.4 converter and 70-200mm I know some profi..... like Sony ambassadors ! if you need real solution rent a Sony a6000 and Sony 100-400mm try that camera has 1.6 asp.c crop factor (140-640mm) and no aperture problems 24mp camera and really sharp lens ! another Sony ambassador from Australian say that
@@firstsoldier4257 i own an a7Riv and the 70-200 gm vii ive also used all the gear u stated. It depends how u want to define “fine” for your professional work.
Thanks! My mk1 70-200 was my most used lens (indoor volleyball); I upgraded to the MKII for the improvements in clarity and autofocus. It hadn't occurred to me that it would make a big improvement with my 2.0x TC. I'm excited to try that out - and happy to have another bullet item when justifying the upgrade cost to my wife.
how was the new gm ii with your 2x TC? looking to buy the TC myself and if af/sharpness is anything less than negligible im not sure it would be worth it for me
@@kimmyp3407 I am probably more influenced by the reviews than my own eye, but it does appear clearer, the autofocus is very good with the 2x teleconverter as is the clarity (it did seem softer with the original). The lighter weight is definitely noticeable and welcome.
I’ve been shooting wildlife on and off for over 7 years and I find with wildlife photography, wide aperture lenses make a huge difference to the quality of photos, due to their ability to isolate the subject from distracting background and capture movement using low ISOs. That said, I’ve used a Canon 100-400L, Sony 200-600 G, Canon 70-200 f/4L and Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8, and my best shots were from the sigma. My shots from my f/2.8 lens were able to isolate the subject in such a way that the background became beautiful and less distracting. I was able to print and sell them to friends and family, and most of the time, the best photos were when the subject was somewhat close to the car, at approximately 135-180mm. I’m currently shooting with a Sony A7R III and rented a Sony 200-600mm which was great but it lacked a certain quality of an f/2.8 lens. Firstly, at f/6.3 or 5.6 there isn’t enough light to get a clean shot to capture movement during golden hour or overcast days. I understand that cameras have improved in ISO performance, but nothing beats a shot taken at iso 800 or less. Secondly, if most of my interesting subject matter was closer, the shots taken at 200mm at f/5 would have rather distracting backgrounds, say of an ugly car or poorly lit bush or thorn tree. At f/2.8, the background becomes far less prominent and you’re able to get away with shots taken in undesirable shooting scenarios. But that said, 400mm is a great to have and more often or not you’ll wish you had that reach. If I were looking between the two, I’d buy a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens as my main wildlife lens (the 70-200mm is more versatile and can be used for portraiture and landscapes) and rent the 100-400 GM or even the 400mm f/2.8 GM and a 1.4x teleconverter for those shots that require a bit more reach.
If you are a hobbyist, i would recommend the Sony 70 200 f4. It is lighter, cheaper and has good enough image quality. For wildlife i use the 200-600 lens and this outperforms the 100-400 for that, because it has simply more focal length. Longer is better some would say for this purpose.
I was literally there a week ago shooting with my 70-200 f/4. Lens had a lil bit of trouble with auto focus and zooming at the same time. I thought it was just me!!. Btw you met my friend at a techno event about a month ago
Thanks Lizzie, I have been looking at this setup as it seemed the best option. Great that you have confirmed this in the video. Thanks. Will be interesting to see if a new 100-400 is released soon. But I do like the 70-200m+ TC option, makes a lot of sense.
The sportphotos seems to be quite noisy. For me loosing 2 stops is a very big deal because otherwise I have to crank up the ISO or get more motion blur
If you don't own a 70-200 GMii already and think you need to by a new 70-200 GMII + a 2x teleconverter for your photography, you might as well buy the 100-400 GM and 1.4x teleconverter. Because that gives you more options and reach.
I really love my 100-400 GM w/ 1.4x Tele (the loss is 1 stop getting me to 560mm F/8.0). I do own the 70-180mm F/2.8 Tamron which is a terrific value and light weight compared to the 70-200 GM
Hmmm... I feel like I need to try the 100-400 and the new 70-200 w/ TC side by side. The 100-400 is amazingly fast for sports, and I can't imagine, the 70-200 w/ TC could keep up with it. I'd love to be wrong!
At the low end the difference between both lenses is 30mm while at the top end is 200mm but to get that extra reach with the 70-200mm I need to pay how much $$ for the 2x teleconverter? Buying the 100-400mm makes sense; buying the 70-200mm + 2x tele...to get the reach of the 400mm...doesn't.
So do you think the 70-200 GMII with the 2x Teleconvertor kept up in a aports situation? This is what I mostly use my 70-200 GMII for and the extra reach would be great but of the autofocus is faster with the 100-400 then that would be worth the extra $. So is the focus speed/accuracy of the 70-200 GMII+Teleconvertor a similar or lesser experience to that of the 100-400?
Ah, you have answered my prayers with this comparison. This new 70-200 is breaking all the old rules; and it’s taking names and numbers while do’in it . Hooray Sony !😊
She didn't really say anything about sharpness. The 2x TC tends to butcher image quality, so I really doubt it's worth it. Not to mention that you're removing the wide end of the lens by using it. The 100-400 has a completely different use case than a 70-200, so I wouldn't think too much about it. You can always slap a 1.4 on the 100-400 to get extra reach without sacrificing too much.
I'm looking for a zoom lens and I borrowed the 70/200mm from someone but was kind of disappointed with the distance you can reach, I really want to be able to zoom even further for sports and concert photography, might consider the 100/400 :)
@kulmmii many reviews say the 2x converter causes images to be less sharp, softer. Loosing about 2 stops. The 1.4x teleconverter or a crop sensor is preferred.
Hi, For the sport shots at night wasn’t the 2stops of light loss an issue ? I want to do dog agility, it’s similar to the sports, dogs are faster than humans and go through tight obstacles in this sport. I have a 7iii. Thanks
yes, it does. on 24mpix sensor you can ignore these differences. on 42/60 mpix sensor you could see that when zooming into 100% I'm more wondering about AF and tracking differences ...
Sony 70-200 f2.8 lens with 2.0 converter 140-400 f4 ...... sony 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 with Sony 2.0 converterufter that the range 200-800 and the .........f/ 8-11 so you need definite sunny days for photo shooting Sony say 2 times converter is not so ideal with this two lens 70-200 and 100-400 you can go 1.4 converter that's not so drama there and I know a Profi has 1,4 converter with 70-200 all photos really dark but excellent photos another idea .....you don't buy a converter ......... you buy a Sony a6000 second hand asp-c camera is cheap and with Sony 100-400mm you have 140-640mm range f74.5-5.6 like full frame cameras ...... 24megapixel camera every shoot with those camera perfect you can rent and see the result !
@@firstsoldier4257 Just two corrections to your comment: 70-200 2.8 with x2 is 140-400 5.6 not 4.0 100-400 on a6000 gives you eq. of 150-600 (it is 1.5 crop not 1.4 crop)
My situation: I’ve already got both the 28-75mm/f2.8 Tammy & the 85mm/f1.8 Sony, so I feel I’m kind of already covered in the sub-100mm, midrange focal length. Therefore, the verdict for me is the 100-400mm, for both the added weight and picture degradation that a teleconverter would bring, *even if* the auto-focus is 100% as good, about which I’d still be skeptical. Meanwhile, let’s work together. Your first step, move to Austin. I just did. 😎
Very nice video, thanks a lot for it! Thumb up and subscribed :) I could see that you were using 70-200 GM II on sony a7r4 which is not really a sport/action camera. How would you compare 100-400 to new 70-200 on a7r4 in terms of AF and tracking? Additionally, it is quite interesting time if you want do buy some lenses for Sony system. Two bellow sets are giving you similar results with the same (almost) price tag: 1) Sony 100-400 GM + Sony 135 GM, you have reach and low light capabilities at 1.8 135mm (+ superior quality) 2) Sony 70-200 GM II + x2, you have reach and low light zoom at 2.8, and all with one lens (and all of it with single lens) Option 2. seems to be better for sport/action in general :) Any thoughts? Best regards!
So for filming sports in your opinion especially if you decide to film sports at night do you recommend the 70-200 Gm with a Tele converter since it has good low light capabilities ??
@@mynameistrd6841 for sport I’m still using “old” and trusty original a9. I’m very happy with the result and prefer to invest into glass over replacing body every other year.
Hello there Lizzie ! I'm kinda new here ... and somewhat new even to this photo-shooting business, BUT : is it technically possible to get the Tamron 35-150 mm f/2-2,8 Di III VXD and combine it with the Sony FE 2x teleconverter? Just an idea ...
asking and answering it myself : no, you cannot combine those two together, you need to get the Tamron 2x teleconverter (Model TC-X20). Tamron lens will not work with Sony teleconverter ...
Liked your video :) Your city/landscape photo with telezoom lenses are really good. But you zoo and sports photos need some practice ;) No criticism, I enjoyed that you showed several example photos
i love my 70-200mm 2.8 mk3 with my 1dx ii its sharp,so nice bokha, and the af is so fast never miss fokus on a formala f1 boat, 400mm 2.8 is my dream lens.
2 lenses in 1…..you get a 70-400 focal range but you need to fart around with a teleconverter to get it.Sounds like a pain the butt to me.Just get the 100-400….or both as I did 😂😂😂
Hey Lizzie! If you’re looking to do some wildlife, hit me up! I’m looking to do a Wyoming trip from Texas to catch some photos of the wildlife up that way. I was rocking the 200-600 for my trip to Alaska for bears and Boston for whales (video coming this week). I’ve been dying to see some more love for wildlife from the Dope Squad and if I could help, I’d love to!
The thing is the 100 to 400 is not that sharp of a lens amd putting a 2x will further decreased the sharpness and quality even more The new 70 to 200 in the other hand has a lot of sharpeness for the 2x to eat
![Eminem - Fuel (Shady Edition) feat. Westside Boogie & GRIP [Official Audio]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/k1OquBida9s/mqdefault.jpg)
I shoot almost all wildlife and I rented the new 70-200 and a 2x and found similar results as you. But I also found with the 2X and 70-200 at 400MM to be noticeable softer (at least my experience) than the 100-400 @400. I could clean some of that up with Topaz so if someone really loves a 70-200 and also wants to shoot some wildlife or needs more reach then adding the 2x is a nice option. But for me I'll stick with the 100-400 that I occasionally use with the 1.4x. Nice video, glad I found your channel.
Got a 100-400 GM a few months back and I'm absolutely in love with that lens! So I don't feel like I need this new one, but glad I get to experience it a bit through your vids 😊
This is the conclusion I reached. I have replaced my 100-400 with the new 70-200 GM2 F2.8 and 2x teleconverter when I need more reach. I also prefer the 70-200 for the internal zoom, and even with converter it is still lighter. And if even more than 400 reach is required, I use the 200-600. Everyone’s use is different, but this suits my use
Makes perfect sense. Did you make some direct comparisons between the two options (70-200 GM2 + TC vs. 100-400 GM), and if so, do you agree threre's not much difference in image quality and autofocus performance?
@@ispeedy2417 yes I did make comparison and to my surprise found the 70-200 GM2 even with 2x teleconverter to be sharper than the 100-400.
@@ispeedy2417 PS Tracking of BIF I have found works well with the teleconverter
@@Jonathantuba That's promising!! I'm waiting for the 2x TC to be available. I just got the 70-200 GM II last week!
@@Jonathantuba Is it? I always saw the x2 teleconvertor lost quality. Intresting I have the 100-400 and just ordered the new 70-200
eating my words that the 100-400 is my fav lens
Can you use both the 1.4 and 2x telesonvereters atteched together on the 70-200, to use it like the 100-400 with 1.4 teleconverter?
I'd love to get a 100-400mm GM lens but after getting 70-200mm GM II, I'm a bit strapped for cash. I'm going to get 2x TC and glad to see it worked well for you. I'm looking to get that extra reach on hikes.
Have you ever find 140 too close vs 100 day to day?
I'm waiting now for an a1 2 with 8k 60 19 bit raw internally and a 20 megapixel a7s4 with 6k 60p same internally 10 bit raw, and off course a floppy screen for a1 mk2 and would love and external extending 70-200 2.8 mk2s in black with black teleconverter. :)
@@puyattravels5961im in the same situation as you were, cN you tell me your conclusion?, did you buy the x2 tele , how is that?
I really like using the 24-105 and the 200-600 lenses; low light performance isn't great but for the majority of stuff that I shoot it works perfect.
I have the 100-400 and have always loved it. That being said, I use that lens mostly for my daughter who sings and dances, so sometimes I have to shoot her from far away. I just bought the 70-200ii, and OMG…It is now my favorite lens in the world! The tracking, autofocus, sharpness, and new macro capability just blew me away!!! One thing that I love about the new 70-200ii is just how buttery smooth the zoom & focus rings are now, this is a big game changer for me when I take 4K videos of my daughter. The zoom & focus ring on the 100-400 is not really good for video, too stiff. I’m thinking of ordering a 2x converter and see if the 70-200ii keeps all of its new capabilities(focus, image quality, tracking…). If so, I might sell my 100-400 and buy 50mm 1.2 or rumored 85mm 1.2 that Sony is releasing.
Here I am after being recommended the 100-400 on Chris’s video from 10 months ago. You are both so great with your cameras!
But you can also put the teleconverters on the 100-400. So you can get two lenses in one with that as well. I’d say they both have very different uses.
I believe she said that the 100-400 has terrible autofocus with the teleconverter, unlike the new 70-200
@@MS-pq3he nah it works great with the 1.4x and still fairly good with the 2x. But the 2x reduces a lot of sharpness on both.
@@Eli-lb1lc it reduces sharpness but works great LOL smh
@@Roysphotos8 converters work fine with all Sony cameras if they made it after 2019......
2 times converter after f/8 .....auto focus is not so perfect works lot of frustration there...
if 2 times converter on your camera you have to work all times with f/8 and you need sunny days
so
not so ideal but works
the profi photograph work with 1.4 converter and 70-200mm
I know some profi..... like Sony ambassadors !
if you need real solution rent a Sony a6000 and Sony 100-400mm try that
camera has 1.6 asp.c crop factor (140-640mm)
and no aperture problems
24mp camera and really sharp lens !
another Sony ambassador from Australian say that
@@firstsoldier4257 i own an a7Riv and the 70-200 gm vii ive also used all the gear u stated. It depends how u want to define “fine” for your professional work.
Thanks! My mk1 70-200 was my most used lens (indoor volleyball); I upgraded to the MKII for the improvements in clarity and autofocus. It hadn't occurred to me that it would make a big improvement with my 2.0x TC. I'm excited to try that out - and happy to have another bullet item when justifying the upgrade cost to my wife.
how was the new gm ii with your 2x TC? looking to buy the TC myself and if af/sharpness is anything less than negligible im not sure it would be worth it for me
@@kimmyp3407 I am probably more influenced by the reviews than my own eye, but it does appear clearer, the autofocus is very good with the 2x teleconverter as is the clarity (it did seem softer with the original). The lighter weight is definitely noticeable and welcome.
@@jeffmartin-g8r you da man jeff ty
I already have the 100-400mm GM which I use for wildlife and landscapes. If I shot weddings or portraits I would choose the 70-200mm GM.
This helps me decide to take 70-200 over 100-400. Thank you so much 💓
I’ve been shooting wildlife on and off for over 7 years and I find with wildlife photography, wide aperture lenses make a huge difference to the quality of photos, due to their ability to isolate the subject from distracting background and capture movement using low ISOs. That said, I’ve used a Canon 100-400L, Sony 200-600 G, Canon 70-200 f/4L and Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8, and my best shots were from the sigma. My shots from my f/2.8 lens were able to isolate the subject in such a way that the background became beautiful and less distracting. I was able to print and sell them to friends and family, and most of the time, the best photos were when the subject was somewhat close to the car, at approximately 135-180mm. I’m currently shooting with a Sony A7R III and rented a Sony 200-600mm which was great but it lacked a certain quality of an f/2.8 lens.
Firstly, at f/6.3 or 5.6 there isn’t enough light to get a clean shot to capture movement during golden hour or overcast days. I understand that cameras have improved in ISO performance, but nothing beats a shot taken at iso 800 or less.
Secondly, if most of my interesting subject matter was closer, the shots taken at 200mm at f/5 would have rather distracting backgrounds, say of an ugly car or poorly lit bush or thorn tree. At f/2.8, the background becomes far less prominent and you’re able to get away with shots taken in undesirable shooting scenarios.
But that said, 400mm is a great to have and more often or not you’ll wish you had that reach. If I were looking between the two, I’d buy a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens as my main wildlife lens (the 70-200mm is more versatile and can be used for portraiture and landscapes) and rent the 100-400 GM or even the 400mm f/2.8 GM and a 1.4x teleconverter for those shots that require a bit more reach.
Love my Sigma 100-400. I’m a hobbyist and $1000 was a great bargain for a surprisingly sharp lens.
If you are a hobbyist, i would recommend the Sony 70 200 f4. It is lighter, cheaper and has good enough image quality. For wildlife i use the 200-600 lens and this outperforms the 100-400 for that, because it has simply more focal length. Longer is better some would say for this purpose.
100-400 the best
I was literally there a week ago shooting with my 70-200 f/4. Lens had a lil bit of trouble with auto focus and zooming at the same time. I thought it was just me!!. Btw you met my friend at a techno event about a month ago
Thanks Lizzie, I have been looking at this setup as it seemed the best option. Great that you have confirmed this in the video. Thanks. Will be interesting to see if a new 100-400 is released soon. But I do like the 70-200m+ TC option, makes a lot of sense.
What a wonderful video! But I am still confused as many of the users mentioned the 70-200 being soft at 400mm. What you think?
Great little video Lizzie. Straight forward and to the point. 😊👍🏻❤️
The sportphotos seems to be quite noisy. For me loosing 2 stops is a very big deal because otherwise I have to crank up the ISO or get more motion blur
Hi Lizzie, just came across your video as I am considering the options you discussed here and thank you so much for this very informative post 😊
Lizzie, the first video I saw from you. I enjoyed it for two reasons. 🥰
If you don't own a 70-200 GMii already and think you need to by a new 70-200 GMII + a 2x teleconverter for your photography, you might as well buy the 100-400 GM and 1.4x teleconverter. Because that gives you more options and reach.
Thanks for the sharing ! Keep the great job going
The 100 - 400 is at around 2300 €. The 70 - 200 II is at 3000 € plus 500 € for the Teleconvertor. Quite a difference.
Highly enjoyed this Video ! Thank you Lizz !
I like both but why not go for the 100 - 400 it's one less piece of glass and its cheaper with an extra f stop
going to new york and defiantly have to pick up the 70-200m before i go! thanks lizzie
I really love my 100-400 GM w/ 1.4x Tele (the loss is 1 stop getting me to 560mm F/8.0). I do own the 70-180mm F/2.8 Tamron which is a terrific value and light weight compared to the 70-200 GM
Hmmm... I feel like I need to try the 100-400 and the new 70-200 w/ TC side by side. The 100-400 is amazingly fast for sports, and I can't imagine, the 70-200 w/ TC could keep up with it. I'd love to be wrong!
I, too, think you need to make that comparison and share the results with us!
70 200 ii and 200 -600
At the low end the difference between both lenses is 30mm while at the top end is 200mm but to get that extra reach with the 70-200mm I need to pay how much $$ for the 2x teleconverter? Buying the 100-400mm makes sense; buying the 70-200mm + 2x tele...to get the reach of the 400mm...doesn't.
The solar ne issue is that the 100-400 will never get down to 2.8. Using the 70-200 with a tc is like having two lenses.
So do you think the 70-200 GMII with the 2x Teleconvertor kept up in a aports situation? This is what I mostly use my 70-200 GMII for and the extra reach would be great but of the autofocus is faster with the 100-400 then that would be worth the extra $. So is the focus speed/accuracy of the 70-200 GMII+Teleconvertor a similar or lesser experience to that of the 100-400?
6:36 "the fact that I can get a 400mm focal length with this 24-70..." Lol I wish 😂
i was just about to comment that...hahah
Oh good, I thought it was just me, I had to rewind it like 20x to figure out what she was talking about.
Thank you for the advice!!
Ah, you have answered my prayers with this comparison. This new 70-200 is breaking all the old rules; and it’s taking names and numbers while do’in it . Hooray Sony !😊
I love my 100-400mm so this is definitely making me rethink that.
She didn't really say anything about sharpness. The 2x TC tends to butcher image quality, so I really doubt it's worth it. Not to mention that you're removing the wide end of the lens by using it. The 100-400 has a completely different use case than a 70-200, so I wouldn't think too much about it. You can always slap a 1.4 on the 100-400 to get extra reach without sacrificing too much.
great video Lizzie!
Great video Liz much ❤️
I'm subscribing and liking because you're photographing Ultimate! Plus, nice video! Quite interested in getting this lens
Awesome video 💛💛💛
Lovely animal subjects :) Happy to share your review!
Which camera did you use in this video?
Not a zoom Lens ! I only want prime Lenses, I wish Sony will make a 1.4x extender for the 135mm 1.8 GM and 300mm 4.0, 400mm 4.5 and 500mm 5.6.
I’m wondering how this lens will preform with the A7R3..
Appreciate your videos Lizzie :)
I'm looking for a zoom lens and I borrowed the 70/200mm from someone but was kind of disappointed with the distance you can reach, I really want to be able to zoom even further for sports and concert photography, might consider the 100/400 :)
Nice video,and amazing lenses,u convinced me to take it
if low light capability and top-notch AF speed is important for you then new 70-200
I love the animal shots! cool
Didnt mention the IQ loss by using the 2x converter
@kulmmii many reviews say the 2x converter causes images to be less sharp, softer. Loosing about 2 stops. The 1.4x teleconverter or a crop sensor is preferred.
By 0:02 seconds in this video I knew you were in Toronto 😅😅 sick video btw! 🤙
BEEEN LOOKING FOR THIS COMPARISON
I’m sold on this one
Nice review.
Hi, For the sport shots at night wasn’t the 2stops of light loss an issue ? I want to do dog agility, it’s similar to the sports, dogs are faster than humans and go through tight obstacles in this sport. I have a 7iii. Thanks
Question… Does the teleconverter affect the overall quality and sharpness of images? That could be a big factor to consider.
yes, it does.
on 24mpix sensor you can ignore these differences.
on 42/60 mpix sensor you could see that when zooming into 100%
I'm more wondering about AF and tracking differences ...
Sony 70-200 f2.8 lens
with
2.0 converter 140-400 f4 ......
sony 100-400 f/4.5-5.6
with Sony 2.0 converterufter that the
range 200-800 and the .........f/ 8-11 so you need definite sunny days for photo shooting
Sony say 2 times converter is not so ideal with this two lens 70-200 and 100-400 you can go 1.4 converter that's not so drama there
and I know a Profi has 1,4 converter with 70-200 all photos really dark but excellent photos
another idea .....you don't buy a converter .........
you buy a Sony a6000 second hand asp-c camera
is cheap
and
with Sony 100-400mm you have 140-640mm range
f74.5-5.6 like full frame cameras ......
24megapixel camera
every shoot with those camera perfect you can rent and see the result !
@@firstsoldier4257
Just two corrections to your comment:
70-200 2.8 with x2 is 140-400 5.6 not 4.0
100-400 on a6000 gives you eq. of 150-600 (it is 1.5 crop not 1.4 crop)
Great video
My situation: I’ve already got both the 28-75mm/f2.8 Tammy & the 85mm/f1.8 Sony, so I feel I’m kind of already covered in the sub-100mm, midrange focal length. Therefore, the verdict for me is the 100-400mm, for both the added weight and picture degradation that a teleconverter would bring, *even if* the auto-focus is 100% as good, about which I’d still be skeptical.
Meanwhile, let’s work together. Your first step, move to Austin. I just did. 😎
Nice one!
Wait so 70-200mm with the converter or the 100-400??
You guys should come down to High Park and shoot some glorious Hawks, we've got Coopers and Redtails all over the place.
Hey, where is High Park?
I like 100-400 too.
Your really inspirational
$3000 + $550 for the teleconverter. Ouch.
BUT if you have 100-400, you can get to 600m... just sayingggg :)
Very nice video, thanks a lot for it!
Thumb up and subscribed :)
I could see that you were using 70-200 GM II on sony a7r4 which is not really a sport/action camera.
How would you compare 100-400 to new 70-200 on a7r4 in terms of AF and tracking?
Additionally, it is quite interesting time if you want do buy some lenses for Sony system. Two bellow sets are giving you similar results with the same (almost) price tag:
1) Sony 100-400 GM + Sony 135 GM, you have reach and low light capabilities at 1.8 135mm (+ superior quality)
2) Sony 70-200 GM II + x2, you have reach and low light zoom at 2.8, and all with one lens (and all of it with single lens)
Option 2. seems to be better for sport/action in general :)
Any thoughts?
Best regards!
So for filming sports in your opinion especially if you decide to film sports at night do you recommend the 70-200 Gm with a Tele converter since it has good low light capabilities ??
I just realized that, so which one do you recommend as sports camera other than A1?
@@mynameistrd6841 for sport I’m still using “old” and trusty original a9. I’m very happy with the result and prefer to invest into glass over replacing body every other year.
What about the 100-400 with the 2x?
Hello there Lizzie ! I'm kinda new here ... and somewhat new even to this photo-shooting business, BUT : is it technically possible to get the Tamron 35-150 mm f/2-2,8 Di III VXD and combine it with the Sony FE 2x teleconverter? Just an idea ...
asking and answering it myself : no, you cannot combine those two together, you need to get the Tamron 2x teleconverter (Model TC-X20). Tamron lens will not work with Sony teleconverter ...
Whenever I use 70-200 I feel zooming is not enough
Liked your video :) Your city/landscape photo with telezoom lenses are really good. But you zoo and sports photos need some practice ;) No criticism, I enjoyed that you showed several example photos
Interesting video
those test photos blew my mind, I was almost ready to dump my money into trash than buying any lenses, omg....
We need to hold out for the 600-3000 mm F2.8.
you need to have two strong legs on your shoulders
@@orthoctopus You are not a real man if you can't sling a 600-3000 mm F2.8 around.
Here in the uk the 70-200 is 450£ more expensive, ie 20% more expensive
wow..... sony is best .
i like sony camera,
love from Bangladesh
Great video! But who goes to the zoo in 2021 😔
its short compare to what?
i love my 70-200mm 2.8 mk3 with my 1dx ii its sharp,so nice bokha, and the af is so fast never miss fokus on a formala f1 boat, 400mm 2.8 is my dream lens.
What camera were the photos shot with?
it looks to me like a7r4
2 lenses in 1…..you get a 70-400 focal range but you need to fart around with a teleconverter to get it.Sounds like a pain the butt to me.Just get the 100-400….or both as I did 😂😂😂
Only
This could be a macro lens for you? It's maximum magnification is 0.3x, how is that even close to offering a macro option?
Yes a motivation to work harder ! HAHAHA
How much is that?🥴
Giraffe ☺️
here comes the 70 200 f4 g2 macro , consider...
Why your videos always looks glitch on Chrome/PC :(
😱😱😱😱😱😱😱🎉
Use your lens hood. 😅
I hope the tap tap before the squarespace was added in post, if not MAD CRINGE at tapping the lens lol
Damnit Lizzie… Now I want to sell my 70-200mm… that af seem so much sweeter
You should have Taken the photos with MAGGIE 😂
I love u 😍
Hey Lizzie! If you’re looking to do some wildlife, hit me up! I’m looking to do a Wyoming trip from Texas to catch some photos of the wildlife up that way. I was rocking the 200-600 for my trip to Alaska for bears and Boston for whales (video coming this week).
I’ve been dying to see some more love for wildlife from the Dope Squad and if I could help, I’d love to!
up close and personal.....
Aj19a
👍🏾 Great review. You are beautiful lady with perfect skin and beautiful hands and nails. 👏🏾💐
Tf…
Weirdo
The thing is the 100 to 400 is not that sharp of a lens amd putting a 2x will further decreased the sharpness and quality even more
The new 70 to 200 in the other hand has a lot of sharpeness for the 2x to eat
So effing expensive. I wish sigma would come out with a 70-200 for Sony
If Taylor Swift was a photographer 😄