For wildlife and sports photography the main thing with this kind of lenses is the AF performance. The sharpness or bokeh quality doesn't matter if you can't track the subject and get the shot in perfect focus. That's why many prefer native glass when it comes to this type of lenses.
Also the ability to use the teleconvertors. Not to mention that the linear autofocus motors in Sony lenses are way more quick and silent compared to step motors that's why they can focus 30fps so well.
@@networm64 Yes, and even if the 3rd party lens is compatible with teleconverters the focusing speed (and picture quality) difference compared to native glass+TC usually gets even bigger. I do like 3rd party lenses (like Sigma DG DN line and Venus Optics Laowa macros) with shorter focal lengths for other than fast action shooting. For these uses they provide really nice price-performance.
Your reviewa are definitely my favourite! Great demonstration of features, sharpness, distortion and vignetting! Whenever I think about buying a lens I look for one of your reviews first!
@@christopherfrost Wow that's a great news Chris can't wait to see it's result. Hopefully you test that one on apsc too😉. Big thanks to you and your friend!
I agree, i own both this lens and the 200-600 and consider both excellent. The close focusing of the 100-400 makes it a super versatile walk around wildlife/pseudo macro lens.
One other key difference from the Sigma - no teleconverters. The ability to use converters with the Sony gives you more field flexibility, and letting you get out to 600 or even 800mm without lugging those bigger lenses. For birding work, that is a significant advantage.
And that there is buttons on the lens which is customisable which are not on the sigma. The movement to get from 100-400 is also relatively short you can do it with one hand. Is my far my favourite long lens, the smaller size and lighter weight make it my choice over the 200-600 unless I really need the length
Using TELECONVERTERS - So I checked out multiple comparisons using the teleconverters on the sony 100-400. It's actually better to crop the image than using a teleconverter. Cause the sharpness is better without the tele. At 400mm paired with a A7iii/A7Riv, a cropped image to match 560mm(f5.6) is way better than using a 1.4x teleconverter 560mm(f8). It also shows how bad the image turns out when used with a tele compared to sony 200-600mm, where the 200-600 is sharper at 600mm f6.3 vs the 100-400 at f8 540mm with tele. Also cropping the image of the 100-400 to 600mm >/=(greater or equal) to the 200-600 at 600mm in quality. Cropping messes up the image when an APSC cam is used with a 200-600, cause the lens is not as sharp as the 100-400 and the 200-600's entire frame is not used. So if you have an APSC, buy the sigma 100-400 much cheaper, or the sony 100-400 (better autofocus, better for macro photography, much sharper, premium build quality)
@@nivethofficial I went down that same path of youtube "research", and decided not to get a teleconverter due to the factors you mentioned. Also the only time I need that reach is for fast moving subjects, so I would have to shoot at a stupid high ISO.
Amazing review as always. Had both, Sigma and Sony. IQ wise both are superb. I thought the size and weight on the Sigma would be much more noticable, it isnt really. Both feel large and heavy lol. However, I found the AF on the Sigma pretty lame, slow and unsure. It was the first time I couldn't really predict or rely on the AF to perform. This was especially a problem when doing any sort of action photography, and sometimes even landscape. Not the case on the GM, which I now enjoy shooting on.
Same here. Just ordered sony, because sigmas autofocus for sports photography just doesn't work for me. For more still subjects sigma is good enough although i find sonys photos more alive too.
@@vads4683 update: ended up selling the GM. Never really got used to it, too heavy, not that much reach, pretty limited in low light, extremely expensive and not shockingly sharp. I’m enjoying the Tamron 70-300 much more, who has pretty much the same limitations, but on a much lighter and cheaper package.
Bought it on your review Chris, and will confirm the sony 100-400 is one magnificent lens - The AF is unbelievable on my Sony A7c - it does very well deserve its red G master badge Thank you for your expert reviews and views
Great review. There is only one important fact missing. If you want to use Sony's fastest cameras, the GM has an advantage. You can get 20fps with A9 or 30fps in with A1 (in the case of Sigma the maximum is 12 or 14, I'm not sure). For potential buyers of such lenses, this can be an important aspect in choosing.
I have been personally able and lucky enough to shoot both of these - sigma and sony. One thing i have noticed righaway is that sigma suffers a lot more from color fringing and loss of contrast is also way more noticable. As much as i would love to stick to Sigma for weight/size/price purposes, at the moment, there is no competitor to this GM. Let's see if the Tamron 150-500 can bring something to the table...
Thank you for all your reviews. They are put together in a truly helpful way and have helped me make several informed decisions. Have you ever considered making a video of your "top recommendations" for a host of focal lengths? For instance; top portrait lens. Top landscape lens. Top travel lens. Top zoom etc. Or maybe a sort of suggested "kit" for if you were a portrait photographer then I'd recommend *insert here* zooms plus *insert here * primes for my kit. It'd be interesting to here. Also would be interesting to here what lenses have actually made you part with cash following a test.
One more difference between Sigma and Sony is maximum number of frames per second. Sigma as a 3rd party lens supports "only" 15fps while Sony supports 30fps. I know that there are only 3 bodies that are supporting more than 15fps but that could be important factor for some. A9 and A9II supports 20fps and A1 30fps. Most probably there will be more high-fps bodies in the future...
Excellent review as always Chris! I completely agree with you in regards to your comparison to the Sigma dgdn lens and I purchased it as well and I just couldn't justify selling it to get this lens. It checks all the boxes.
As always a great review from you! This is still an amazing lens in 2024 I think. But is true the minimum aperture of f/5.6 already kicks in at even below 200mm? Do you know at which focus length the f/5 and the f/5.6 start?
Somehow I missed this review. I rented this for the Great American Eclipse back in 2017. I paired it with my APS-C a6300 and the lens was just as sharp on the crop sensor.
I'll be upgrading to an a7R III soon. I'm sticking to a 42mp sensor because that's a happy medium between Sony's 24mp cameras and the new higher resolution ones. And 42mp is nice and comparable to the 45mp test shots I get with my Canon and Nikon cameras
One more thing.. in comparison for the sigma vs this lens- other tests have shown the AF on this lens is much faster and accurate. You also get more controls. It also has slightly faster maximum aperture. BUT You’re gonna have to pay for it big time 🥴
Hi Christopher, thank you for all your helpfull and consistent reviews. Most of my buying decisions are based on your reviews. Is it possible for you to already review and compare the tamron 150-500?
Maybe because it wouldn't make any sense to put this lens on an APS-C camera. If you're spending so much on this lens you should put it on a FF camera to extract its full potential. The Sigma was tested on APS-C and it could make more sense there without the Sony 70-350 is better for APS-C.
@@brunofalcone9979 I disagree. If money no object, I would buy GM for apsc without hesitation. The reason is mainly reach and also good magnification of GM. I use Sony 70-350, but GM would be upgrade for me due to slightly better image quality, reach, aperture and magnification. Yes, it's a little bit stretch, but not a nonsense. If I put it on FF camera, it's 400mm is too short for wildlife.
@@MrMartinek99 If money is no object, you should get one of the A7R cameras, that in APS-C mode have the same resolution as APS-C cameras, so you then get the best of both worlds. Full Frame quality and APS-C reach when needed. Buying GM FF lenses for an APS-C camera is a very inefficient way of getting image quality, you can get higher with the same or less money.
@@brunofalcone9979 We are thinking about this topic from different perspective. I have apsc camera and don't want to switch to FF as I don't need it. But I want more reach for wildlife. What should I do? Fortunately today is more options than in the past, so I can choose from Sony 100-400 and 200-600, Sigma 100-400 and new Tamron 150-500. Each have its own set of qualities and features. If wildlife shooting would be really important to me, I can imagine, that I will ruin the bank and choose the 100-400GM because of above mentioned reasons. Other reason can be eg. ability to use extender for nice FF eq. 840mm, or better AF over non-Sony options.
@@MrMartinek99 For APS-C is either the Sony 70-350 or the Sigma 100-400. I don't think the Sigma is worth it (heavier, larger, more expensive) for just 75mm extra, so I think for APS-C the clear option is the Sony. If you're thinking of getting the GM 100-400 you should also move to FF, doesn't make any sense to have that lens for APS-C. That's my opinion.
Nice review Christopher. Thanks . I wish you would have also tested this GM lens on your Sony apsc camera as lots of birders use crop cameras and would like to see how this lens would perform. 🙂🌈
It would have been nice if you could have tested it's sharpness with the 1.4x tele converter. Personally, the ability to use a tele converter is the only reason I am considering the Sony over the Sigma. I'm stumped as to why Sigma does not release a teleconverter for the E mount version as they do have one for the same lens in the L mount. Curious.
The actual reason is that Sony made Sigma sign a contract forbidding the creation of TC's. In return, they get to produce lenses with complete access to AF systems blueprints by the Sony Team. I have not, however, been able to determine if TC are better than cropping an image, especially on one of Sony's R cameras.
On a 24MP body you will definitely be better served by using the (excellent) Sony TCs rather than cropping, while on a higher Rez body the difference becomes less and less noticeable (but it’s still there if you really look for it). One thing that is worth pointing out is that you pay a hefty premium for the GM mostly for the AF, which according to all recounts I’ve read, it’s much faster and precise than the Sigma one, which is paramount if you plan to shoot wildlife in general and birds in particular.
I wish there was a lens that goes from 8-600mm that is f2.8 and under 1000grams and only 6 inches long, it’s definitely not possible with current technology but maybe one day in the future when sensors become curved and lenses become less complex
Hi Chris, and thanks for all your videos. Very off topic, but have you ever considered comparing IBIS systems from different size cameras? At low shutter speeds I seem to get better (sharper) photos from larger cameras, so I think that the mass of the camera and lens has a significant effect. I'm sure you can do a much better job at testing this out than I could!
not sure about that, it seems to be lens dependant as the lens has priority over stabilisation. you also need to adjust crop factor (1.5-6x) for your reciprocal rule calcs. in my experience sony 90mm macro has the best image stabilisation on same body over other lenses
Had my eyes on the sony 400 mm for ages (cool lens and thanks for reviewing Christopher ), In Australia the RRP is around the $ 3500.00 mark(have seen it listed as higher) , occasionally see it a tad cheaper on sale , i have been tossing up whether to get the sony 200/600 F5.6 as it is surprisingly usually a good $ 500 (give or take a 100 ) cheaper than the 100/400 sony . But i kinda like the 400 being a tad shorter to just leave on the camera most of the time for my use, and the thought of being able to use the converter for a bit more range makes it sorta handy too , would buy both if i had a money tree :) .. Cheers .
The Sigma is very good, if you don´t care much about the Autofocus. The Sony is superfast and and more often accurate. What is annoying about the Sony is, that the Position "Tight" doesn´t lock the Position. It will move, when you hold the Lens down.
I recently bought a new 100-400 GM and when mounted on my A7IV and A7RV there is a slight rotational wobble (clockwise-counterclockwise) which I never experienced in another lens. Also tried it on my good old A7III and on that it does not wobble. I notice the wobble when holding the lens and the body handheld and rotating the zoom ring (smoothest setting) Anyone else noticed this? Is it normal?
You are getting what you pay for. My copy of the Sigma 24-70 and 100-400 DG DN both had massive dust ingress issue from delicate (urban) use near my home, thanks to COVID lockdowns and travel restrictions. While a few specks won't show up in images immediately, over time it will degrade the IQ. Far too often reviews focus on how favourable Sigma compare against Sony optically; weather sealing and AF is equally important.
Following on from my last comment. Have you ever considered making a "most special" list of lenses that you have tested? Lenses that blew you away for one reason or another?
Awesome and informative like always. I would like to see your infamous review of the sony 70-200 f2.8 GM lens please. I'm about to pull the trigger on 70-200 GM and searched on RUclips for your review on it but I couldn't found one but i hope soon I'll. Cheers mate.
The Sony has native AF and dual motors, the sigma does not, so for moving subjects sigma is no go. same goes for weather sealing, sigma only has 1 rubber gasket near mounting ring.
What I find really interesting about this lens. Is that it's about on a par with the Sigma 100-400 for sharpness. Yet is a much larger lens and while it is F4.5-F5.6 vs F5-F6.3 in the real world that is 1/3 of a light stop difference. Which really is not much with a fairly modern FF Sony body. The Sigma lens is more than £1000 cheaper and other than the focus perhaps being slightly slower than the Sony, the 1/3 light stop. About the only other reason I can see to go for the Sony is it is a very well weather sealed lens and the Sigma just makes a vague claim about weather sealing at the mount. For the average user, I think the Sigma is the clear winner. I honestly thought this Sony Gmaster would be razor sharp at all focal lengths for the price.
The gmaster is sharper than the sigma, better built, has faster focusing, has a much closer minimum focus distance, and let's in more light. These factors may or may not matter for you but they do for me, so I'll likely end up with the sony
@@burritobrosvideos8060 Not to be contrary but CF test of both shows there's nothing in it sharpness wise. Look for yourself. If that's worth more than double the price for the other things. Absolutely won't hear any disagreement from me. I've bought lenses that are way overkill for my use because I wanted the best. So I'm with you on that. Buy what suites you. Plus the Sony looks cooler with the white body.
@@thegeneral123 you may want to check on a larger higher quality monitor but the 400mm between the two is pretty different. The sony is much sharper and has better contrast. I'm a professional so I need to get the max fps and best ahtofocus available to me while shooting sports. The minimal focus also allows me to take pictures you just can't take with the sigma. If the sigma is enough for you that fine, but in professional work these differences mean money. The cost doesn't make much of a difference because ill cover that in one shoot.
if you like the focal length, i'd suggest the 70/180 2.8 Tamron. If you want more reach and some portraiture, i'd get the 100/400 Sigma and the 85 1.8 Sony.
I use the 70-200 mainly for landscapephotography and o would like a little more reach. As i have the 24-105 a lens from 100 would be perfect combo. The optical quality of the 70-200f4 didn't satisfy me. For portraits i already have the sigma 85mmf1.4 dgdn:) I don't like the look and the builtquality of the tamrons.
with the sigma version out, I suppose the used market must be on fire. buy the sony if you need teleconvter support as sigma TC is banned on e mount. BTW the sigma price in pounds is a total rip off.
For wildlife and sports photography the main thing with this kind of lenses is the AF performance. The sharpness or bokeh quality doesn't matter if you can't track the subject and get the shot in perfect focus. That's why many prefer native glass when it comes to this type of lenses.
Also the ability to use the teleconvertors. Not to mention that the linear autofocus motors in Sony lenses are way more quick and silent compared to step motors that's why they can focus 30fps so well.
@@networm64 Yes, and even if the 3rd party lens is compatible with teleconverters the focusing speed (and picture quality) difference compared to native glass+TC usually gets even bigger.
I do like 3rd party lenses (like Sigma DG DN line and Venus Optics Laowa macros) with shorter focal lengths for other than fast action shooting. For these uses they provide really nice price-performance.
30 fps? Spray and pray!! @@networm64
This is by far the best Channel for Lens Reviews
Your reviewa are definitely my favourite! Great demonstration of features, sharpness, distortion and vignetting! Whenever I think about buying a lens I look for one of your reviews first!
I would love to see your review of the sony 200-600 :)
Yes and this new Tamron 150-500 too!
A friend of mine has just bought a Sony 200-600 so I'll try to borrow it sometime for testing :-)
@@christopherfrost Wow that's a great news Chris can't wait to see it's result. Hopefully you test that one on apsc too😉. Big thanks to you and your friend!
The 200600 is AMAZING just go and buy it you won't be disappointed!!
I agree, i own both this lens and the 200-600 and consider both excellent. The close focusing of the 100-400 makes it a super versatile walk around wildlife/pseudo macro lens.
This by far my favorite lens. Love it, and use it often.
One other key difference from the Sigma - no teleconverters. The ability to use converters with the Sony gives you more field flexibility, and letting you get out to 600 or even 800mm without lugging those bigger lenses. For birding work, that is a significant advantage.
And that there is buttons on the lens which is customisable which are not on the sigma. The movement to get from 100-400 is also relatively short you can do it with one hand. Is my far my favourite long lens, the smaller size and lighter weight make it my choice over the 200-600 unless I really need the length
Using TELECONVERTERS - So I checked out multiple comparisons using the teleconverters on the sony 100-400. It's actually better to crop the image than using a teleconverter. Cause the sharpness is better without the tele. At 400mm paired with a A7iii/A7Riv, a cropped image to match 560mm(f5.6) is way better than using a 1.4x teleconverter 560mm(f8). It also shows how bad the image turns out when used with a tele compared to sony 200-600mm, where the 200-600 is sharper at 600mm f6.3 vs the 100-400 at f8 540mm with tele. Also cropping the image of the 100-400 to 600mm >/=(greater or equal) to the 200-600 at 600mm in quality.
Cropping messes up the image when an APSC cam is used with a 200-600, cause the lens is not as sharp as the 100-400 and the 200-600's entire frame is not used. So if you have an APSC, buy the sigma 100-400 much cheaper, or the sony 100-400 (better autofocus, better for macro photography, much sharper, premium build quality)
@@nivethofficial I went down that same path of youtube "research", and decided not to get a teleconverter due to the factors you mentioned. Also the only time I need that reach is for fast moving subjects, so I would have to shoot at a stupid high ISO.
very true ! I love the performance with 1.4x teleconverter
You are Invaluable for us amateurs on a budget looking for quality. Thank you!!!
Just love Your consistence in Your lens reviews, Thank You!
Amazing review as always. Had both, Sigma and Sony. IQ wise both are superb. I thought the size and weight on the Sigma would be much more noticable, it isnt really. Both feel large and heavy lol. However, I found the AF on the Sigma pretty lame, slow and unsure. It was the first time I couldn't really predict or rely on the AF to perform. This was especially a problem when doing any sort of action photography, and sometimes even landscape. Not the case on the GM, which I now enjoy shooting on.
Same here. Just ordered sony, because sigmas autofocus for sports photography just doesn't work for me. For more still subjects sigma is good enough although i find sonys photos more alive too.
@@vads4683 update: ended up selling the GM. Never really got used to it, too heavy, not that much reach, pretty limited in low light, extremely expensive and not shockingly sharp. I’m enjoying the Tamron 70-300 much more, who has pretty much the same limitations, but on a much lighter and cheaper package.
@@Francisco_Otero i have a hope i find the gm also sharper than sigma on a7riv :).
Bought it on your review Chris, and will confirm the sony 100-400 is one magnificent lens - The AF is unbelievable on my Sony A7c - it does very well deserve its red G master badge
Thank you for your expert reviews and views
Great review and great lens deserving of the GM moniker, thank you for publishing this review Christopher. Greatly appreciated.
One of my favourite lenses at the moment.
6:28 "noticeably a bit sharper but not by that much" perfect😄
Amazing review, Chris. Glad that you enjoyed the lens. Gutted I didn't know about the Sigma though, could have saved some pennies there.
Coming from a person that purchased the Sigma you made the right choice
Great review. There is only one important fact missing. If you want to use Sony's fastest cameras, the GM has an advantage. You can get 20fps with A9 or 30fps in with A1 (in the case of Sigma the maximum is 12 or 14, I'm not sure). For potential buyers of such lenses, this can be an important aspect in choosing.
Finally this lens. I’m thinking about buying it
This is one awesome lens. rented a couple of times for a airshow. it's AF is as fast as you get with your camera. sharpness is awesome.
I have been personally able and lucky enough to shoot both of these - sigma and sony. One thing i have noticed righaway is that sigma suffers a lot more from color fringing and loss of contrast is also way more noticable. As much as i would love to stick to Sigma for weight/size/price purposes, at the moment, there is no competitor to this GM. Let's see if the Tamron 150-500 can bring something to the table...
Thank you for all your reviews. They are put together in a truly helpful way and have helped me make several informed decisions.
Have you ever considered making a video of your "top recommendations" for a host of focal lengths?
For instance; top portrait lens. Top landscape lens. Top travel lens. Top zoom etc. Or maybe a sort of suggested "kit" for if you were a portrait photographer then I'd recommend *insert here* zooms plus *insert here * primes for my kit.
It'd be interesting to here. Also would be interesting to here what lenses have actually made you part with cash following a test.
Congratulations for ur new beginning ❤️
One more difference between Sigma and Sony is maximum number of frames per second. Sigma as a 3rd party lens supports "only" 15fps while Sony supports 30fps.
I know that there are only 3 bodies that are supporting more than 15fps but that could be important factor for some. A9 and A9II supports 20fps and A1 30fps. Most probably there will be more high-fps bodies in the future...
Excellent review as always Chris! I completely agree with you in regards to your comparison to the Sigma dgdn lens and I purchased it as well and I just couldn't justify selling it to get this lens. It checks all the boxes.
Almost all the boxes, but the teleconvertors!
Hi. Is this the Sigma lens you are referring to? Sigma Contemporary 100-400mm f/5-6.3 DG DN OS? Thanks.
As always a great review from you! This is still an amazing lens in 2024 I think. But is true the minimum aperture of f/5.6 already kicks in at even below 200mm? Do you know at which focus length the f/5 and the f/5.6 start?
Somehow I missed this review. I rented this for the Great American Eclipse back in 2017. I paired it with my APS-C a6300 and the lens was just as sharp on the crop sensor.
I got the GM, because of the minimum focus distance, aswell as AF performance.
I heard the focusing is much better on the sony
Great review! I'm hoping to hire this lens out for a shoot this weekend.
Compare to the Sigma, the price gap is huge, almost 100% more expensive, but the image quality gap is so slim, barely noticeable.
Hi thanks for the review!
just wonder if your a7r2 42MP is still ‘demanding’ and ‘challenging’ nowadays when big brother a7r4 is there!
I'll be upgrading to an a7R III soon. I'm sticking to a 42mp sensor because that's a happy medium between Sony's 24mp cameras and the new higher resolution ones. And 42mp is nice and comparable to the 45mp test shots I get with my Canon and Nikon cameras
@@christopherfrost Fantastic camera!
One more thing.. in comparison for the sigma vs this lens- other tests have shown the AF on this lens is much faster and accurate. You also get more controls. It also has slightly faster maximum aperture.
BUT
You’re gonna have to pay for it big time 🥴
Huge diminishing returns for buying the Sony, no doubt.
@@thegrayyernaut it is what it is
I had huge AF issues with the Sigma, missed several once-in-a-life shots sadly. Traded the Sigma for the Sony as soon as I got back home.
@@Francisco_Otero I’m only disliking your comment because I feel for you! Sorry to hear. And that’s good feedback!
Hi Christopher, thank you for all your helpfull and consistent reviews. Most of my buying decisions are based on your reviews. Is it possible for you to already review and compare the tamron 150-500?
No APSC sharpness images? :-( I really like that you usually test FF lenses also on crop sensor body.
Maybe because it wouldn't make any sense to put this lens on an APS-C camera. If you're spending so much on this lens you should put it on a FF camera to extract its full potential. The Sigma was tested on APS-C and it could make more sense there without the Sony 70-350 is better for APS-C.
@@brunofalcone9979 I disagree. If money no object, I would buy GM for apsc without hesitation. The reason is mainly reach and also good magnification of GM. I use Sony 70-350, but GM would be upgrade for me due to slightly better image quality, reach, aperture and magnification. Yes, it's a little bit stretch, but not a nonsense. If I put it on FF camera, it's 400mm is too short for wildlife.
@@MrMartinek99 If money is no object, you should get one of the A7R cameras, that in APS-C mode have the same resolution as APS-C cameras, so you then get the best of both worlds. Full Frame quality and APS-C reach when needed. Buying GM FF lenses for an APS-C camera is a very inefficient way of getting image quality, you can get higher with the same or less money.
@@brunofalcone9979 We are thinking about this topic from different perspective. I have apsc camera and don't want to switch to FF as I don't need it. But I want more reach for wildlife. What should I do? Fortunately today is more options than in the past, so I can choose from Sony 100-400 and 200-600, Sigma 100-400 and new Tamron 150-500. Each have its own set of qualities and features. If wildlife shooting would be really important to me, I can imagine, that I will ruin the bank and choose the 100-400GM because of above mentioned reasons. Other reason can be eg. ability to use extender for nice FF eq. 840mm, or better AF over non-Sony options.
@@MrMartinek99 For APS-C is either the Sony 70-350 or the Sigma 100-400. I don't think the Sigma is worth it (heavier, larger, more expensive) for just 75mm extra, so I think for APS-C the clear option is the Sony. If you're thinking of getting the GM 100-400 you should also move to FF, doesn't make any sense to have that lens for APS-C. That's my opinion.
Nice review Christopher. Thanks . I wish you would have also tested this GM lens on your Sony apsc camera as lots of birders use crop cameras and would like to see how this lens would perform. 🙂🌈
How can we convince you to retest this on APSC?
There's a major reason to choose the GM over the Sigma.... support for teleconverters... that's the reason why I might choose the Sony.
I think you can use the teleconverters on the Sigma as well.
@@jeroenvdw Can't
Is this lens weather sealing? How does it perform under negative temperatures?
Very good review like always. But where is the crop camera???
I bought the Sigma lens and regret it it doesn’t produce sharp images Now I’m trying to sell the sigma and upgrade to this lens
I had the opportunity to rent this lens for a few days, and I'm now spoiled. It's stupid good.
It would have been nice if you could have tested it's sharpness with the 1.4x tele converter. Personally, the ability to use a tele converter is the only reason I am considering the Sony over the Sigma. I'm stumped as to why Sigma does not release a teleconverter for the E mount version as they do have one for the same lens in the L mount. Curious.
The actual reason is that Sony made Sigma sign a contract forbidding the creation of TC's. In return, they get to produce lenses with complete access to AF systems blueprints by the Sony Team. I have not, however, been able to determine if TC are better than cropping an image, especially on one of Sony's R cameras.
@@Francisco_Otero they are better than cropping
On a 24MP body you will definitely be better served by using the (excellent) Sony TCs rather than cropping, while on a higher Rez body the difference becomes less and less noticeable (but it’s still there if you really look for it). One thing that is worth pointing out is that you pay a hefty premium for the GM mostly for the AF, which according to all recounts I’ve read, it’s much faster and precise than the Sigma one, which is paramount if you plan to shoot wildlife in general and birds in particular.
Hey I saw perhaps another GM lens on your little apsc Sony camera during the autofocus test… if I’m not wrong, im looking forward to that!
Hmm I thought it was the viltrox badge
@@summonedfist you might be right, but I hope it’s the GM
I wish there was a lens that goes from 8-600mm that is f2.8 and under 1000grams and only 6 inches long, it’s definitely not possible with current technology but maybe one day in the future when sensors become curved and lenses become less complex
Would that ever be possible? With physics and all... Could be theoretically impossible, not sure though
Hi Chris, and thanks for all your videos. Very off topic, but have you ever considered comparing IBIS systems from different size cameras? At low shutter speeds I seem to get better (sharper) photos from larger cameras, so I think that the mass of the camera and lens has a significant effect. I'm sure you can do a much better job at testing this out than I could!
not sure about that, it seems to be lens dependant as the lens has priority over stabilisation.
you also need to adjust crop factor (1.5-6x) for your reciprocal rule calcs.
in my experience sony 90mm macro has the best image stabilisation on same body over other lenses
buy this or the sony 70-200 f/2.8?
Sony A7 IV and this lens? What do you reckon? Thanks
Please review the tamron 150-500 when it comes out 🙏🏻
danke für den tollen test!
I believe minimum focus distance at 400 is another place where the Sony beats the Sigma
The focusing speed and accuracy as well
Had my eyes on the sony 400 mm for ages (cool lens and thanks for reviewing Christopher ), In Australia the RRP is around the $ 3500.00 mark(have seen it listed as higher) , occasionally see it a tad cheaper on sale , i have been tossing up whether to get the sony 200/600 F5.6 as it is surprisingly usually a good $ 500 (give or take a 100 ) cheaper than the 100/400 sony .
But i kinda like the 400 being a tad shorter to just leave on the camera most of the time for my use, and the thought of being able to use the converter for a bit more range makes it sorta handy too , would buy both if i had a money tree :) ..
Cheers .
Under $3,000 at Georges in Sydney
was 2750 after cashback.
the 200-600 draws a lot of attention. they say its the lens you own and not take outside.
Hi ! What do you think about most popular in video 28-135mm f/4 PZ?
The Sigma is very good, if you don´t care much about the Autofocus. The Sony is superfast and and more often accurate. What is annoying about the Sony is, that the Position "Tight" doesn´t lock the Position. It will move, when you hold the Lens down.
oh! i wait you for review 100-400 many time. thx
How does it compare with the Canon equivalent?
I recently bought a new 100-400 GM and when mounted on my A7IV and A7RV there is a slight rotational wobble (clockwise-counterclockwise) which I never experienced in another lens. Also tried it on my good old A7III and on that it does not wobble.
I notice the wobble when holding the lens and the body handheld and rotating the zoom ring (smoothest setting)
Anyone else noticed this? Is it normal?
Waiting for your review for Fujifilm XF 100-400 and compare with this lens.
You did not compare focussing speed and acuracy on moving objects with the Sigma and Sony
Hi ! Do you have a paypal account to donate beside the patreon page ? Thanks again for your review :-)
Thanks!
I am struggling with this one, my 400 focal images not sharp.
You are getting what you pay for. My copy of the Sigma 24-70 and 100-400 DG DN both had massive dust ingress issue from delicate (urban) use near my home, thanks to COVID lockdowns and travel restrictions. While a few specks won't show up in images immediately, over time it will degrade the IQ. Far too often reviews focus on how favourable Sigma compare against Sony optically; weather sealing and AF is equally important.
Following on from my last comment. Have you ever considered making a "most special" list of lenses that you have tested? Lenses that blew you away for one reason or another?
Actually yes, I'm working on something like that for my Patreon supporters :-)
The Sigma is a third of a stop darker in aperture, though.
Also the Sony has teleconverters.
I can't believe that the Tamron 28-200mm hasn't been reviewed yet....
Spoke too soon!
thank you
Please review latest Tamron 150-500 lens for Sony.
Could you do the new Tamron 150-500?
Awesome and informative like always. I would like to see your infamous review of the sony 70-200 f2.8 GM lens please. I'm about to pull the trigger on 70-200 GM and searched on RUclips for your review on it but I couldn't found one but i hope soon I'll. Cheers mate.
I had this lens on A6400, perfect sharpness, AF and colors. OSS was kinda poor.
the main advantage of this lens over the Sigma is the blazing fast and reliable autofocusing.
I kid you not I squealed when I saw this (so did my wallet)
One more advantage the Sony has is the compatibility with teleconverters.
I'd still get the sigma.
I believe the Sony also has a much better minimum focus distance than the Sigma.
Say hello from South Korea. :)
Thank you for this review. It made chosing the sigma over the sony more easy.
Sony 200 600 next
The GM lens is compatible with the Sony 1.4x TC. The Sigma is not. Last time I checked.
The Sony has native AF and dual motors, the sigma does not, so for moving subjects sigma is no go. same goes for weather sealing, sigma only has 1 rubber gasket near mounting ring.
3:44 in the background i see Sony A5100 Camera.
05:56 - 🤔😂😂😂 what happened?😂😂😂
A moment of silence for the longstanding yellow drop shadow text.
This helped me decide on getting the Ligma 100-400
These kind of lenses mostly used for wild life and sport were you need Fast and reliable AF .. Unfortunately you didn’t test that.
I’ve given up on this channel. These days autofocus and tracking are such important factors, and it’s almost not considered.
Do you have instagram page ?
What I find really interesting about this lens. Is that it's about on a par with the Sigma 100-400 for sharpness. Yet is a much larger lens and while it is F4.5-F5.6 vs F5-F6.3 in the real world that is 1/3 of a light stop difference. Which really is not much with a fairly modern FF Sony body.
The Sigma lens is more than £1000 cheaper and other than the focus perhaps being slightly slower than the Sony, the 1/3 light stop. About the only other reason I can see to go for the Sony is it is a very well weather sealed lens and the Sigma just makes a vague claim about weather sealing at the mount.
For the average user, I think the Sigma is the clear winner.
I honestly thought this Sony Gmaster would be razor sharp at all focal lengths for the price.
The gmaster is sharper than the sigma, better built, has faster focusing, has a much closer minimum focus distance, and let's in more light.
These factors may or may not matter for you but they do for me, so I'll likely end up with the sony
@@burritobrosvideos8060 Not to be contrary but CF test of both shows there's nothing in it sharpness wise. Look for yourself. If that's worth more than double the price for the other things. Absolutely won't hear any disagreement from me. I've bought lenses that are way overkill for my use because I wanted the best. So I'm with you on that. Buy what suites you. Plus the Sony looks cooler with the white body.
@@thegeneral123 you may want to check on a larger higher quality monitor but the 400mm between the two is pretty different. The sony is much sharper and has better contrast.
I'm a professional so I need to get the max fps and best ahtofocus available to me while shooting sports. The minimal focus also allows me to take pictures you just can't take with the sigma.
If the sigma is enough for you that fine, but in professional work these differences mean money. The cost doesn't make much of a difference because ill cover that in one shoot.
@@burritobrosvideos8060 I run a 4k 32" Acer Predator monitor lol. As I said, what works for you works for you.
@@thegeneral123 I'm just trying to help you out bud.
This lens dramatically outperforms the sigma by a mile.
Do sony 35mm 1.4f GM and 24mm 1.4f GM
Yeah I hope we finally see that 24mm lens review as Chris has already admitted it's in the lab long time ago it I'm not mistaken
You just made me dream again. Want to sell my 70-200f4 now
Haha, I did grab this 100-400gm than sold my 70-200 f4 last year, very satisfied with gm lens.
if you like the focal length, i'd suggest the 70/180 2.8 Tamron. If you want more reach and some portraiture, i'd get the 100/400 Sigma and the 85 1.8 Sony.
I use the 70-200 mainly for landscapephotography and o would like a little more reach. As i have the 24-105 a lens from 100 would be perfect combo. The optical quality of the 70-200f4 didn't satisfy me. For portraits i already have the sigma 85mmf1.4 dgdn:) I don't like the look and the builtquality of the tamrons.
Love my Sigma 100-400.
IQ doesn’t suffer for half the price.
will you finally stop advertising sigma lenses
First!
with the sigma version out, I suppose the used market must be on fire.
buy the sony if you need teleconvter support as sigma TC is banned on e mount.
BTW the sigma price in pounds is a total rip off.
Do you have family in Poland, they also love Sigma lenses, even the average ones