I bet you love the internal zooming, too. I hate lenses that grow as you zoom. Why? Why? They have the tech to make internal zooming lenses, not these ever-extending monster lenses. I have the 200-600mm zoom by Sony. It has internal zooming and it is a dream to use.
Thanks! I may do a video like this at some point but it's not high on my list I'm afraid. I have the 200-600 and 2x and rarely use them together due to the hit on AF performance and image quality. Adding the 2x to the 200-600 also drops you down to a maximum aperture of f/13, so you'll really need a nice sunny day to use it. Some older Sony cameras only support focal plane phase detection up to a maximum aperture of f/9 or f/11 depending on the model, at f/13 on these cameras you'll be using the slower contrast detection and only the first image of a burst will be in focus.
From my experience, the autofocus works, however mine back focuses and I have to adjust with the focus ring. This is not something I would ever pair with the 2-6 but since I had the tele for my 70-200 I figured why not? It’s best used in single shot mode and not continuous. You can still get great results for still subjects and BIF depending on the direction and distance of flight.
Thank you. I don't have a video with the sharpness, it's covered in my complete comparison article here: www.alphashooters.com/compare/sony-100-400-vs-70-200-ii-with-2x/ - It's difficult to show the difference in sharpness on TH-cam, especially when it's so close between them.
Hi Tim I'm new to Sony and the A7RIII so your videos have been great. Is it possible to set the EVF / monitor to B&W whilst catching full colour RAW files?
Bonjour. Comment pouvez-vous essayer deux objectifs et supposer chaque fois « C'est peut-être la faute du boîtier » ? Il fallait tester les objectifs avec un autre boîtier. Là, on n'est sûr de rien.
Waiting for a video like this. I have the a9ii and the 70-200 ii and the 200600. Going to take photos of osprey in a few weeks and I’ve been wondering whether the 200600 is the lens to use or if the x2 teleconverter added to the 70-200 would be a good choice. Even with the penalties of adding a teleconverter I was wondering if the 70-200 image quality and autofocus speed was superior enough to still be a better choice.
If you have both lenses just take them both :) I'd probably lean towards the 200-600 for the extra reach, guess it just depends how close you will be to the action. But I don't think you will be disappointed if you do add the 2x to your 70-200 Mk II.
@@AlphaShooters ta. One final question (sorry). You did a really good video a while back comparing the 200600 with the 100400 plus the 1.4 converter. Do you feel the autofocus in the 70200 with the 2x would still be acceptable for BIF compared to the 200600? :)
Well I don't own the a1 or a9II. However in hindsight I could have tested 20fps with my a9. I hope to add the a1 to my bag later this year so I'll create another short video to test at 30fps then.
Any movement on this test with the a9/a1? More in hope than expectation 😂 I’m primarily a dog photographer so the test you did was great for me - if only it was an a9! Also great taste in dogs, I also have a GSD
You should compare the 70-200 + 2x TC versus the 70-200 with 2x crop in post. Do one shot in bright sun and one in the shade, only adjust ISO. IMO teleconverters are not worth the price and loss of 2 stops, your much better off cropping in post.
Thanks for the suggestion! I guess it depends how many megapixels you have to play with and if you can afford a 2x crop or not. If the lighting conditions are good then two stops of light loss doesn't really hurt.
That's bullshit. A crop is not the same like if you use a different focal length. You can't compare apples with pears and say it is the same fruit. If I photograph anything with 600mm it will look different then if I photograph it with 400mm and do a crop.
Awesome video!! Thank you! I just got the 70-200 GM II and was looking for this comparison. This is the best yet and currently waiting for 2x converter to be available.
A fantastic test! On a prosumer camera like the A74, the results are negligible. Would love to see this test on the A7r5 or A1. Overall, amazing test and information!
Thank you for this comparison video and article. I actually own both plus the 200-600 but I’ve given some thought to reducing the herd to get some money back to use on another lens. Originally bought the 100-400 when it was the only longer zoom and have even used a teleconverter on it. Later added the 200-600 and then eventually upgraded my version 1 GM 70-200/2.8 to the GM II. Currently only own the 1.4X converter but have given thought to adding the 2X since it means only having to travel with it and 70-200/2.8 GM II which I use for both indoors and outdoors. Take care.
My full in-depth comparison including sharpness: www.alphashooters.com/compare/sony-100-400-vs-70-200-ii-with-2x/ Our Alpha Shooters Community Forum: www.alphashooters.com/community/
Ok that article is the closest to a real scientific test ive seen so far. Im subscribing. One question do you think the chromatic abberation issue from the 70-200mm+2.0 tele setup is actually native to the lens itself and the teleconverter has nothing to do with it? Or it has?
You must take the AF issues of A7IV and make a series. Sony need to know about this and fix it. Animal Eye AF is just awfull. Can you make a comparison between Eye AF (Human, Animal) between A7IV and A7III, A7RIII, A7RIV or any that you have (a6400?)
Eye AF on the a7IV works well for both animals and humans when the subject is slow moving, for faster moving subjects it works much better for human eyes than animals. It works well for perched birds but forget about it locking onto the eyes of birds in flight, although that doesn't really bother me since the depth of field is usually great enough that the entire bird is in focus anyway unless they are very close to you. I will do some comparison videos between the a7III and the a7IV on this subject soon.
Hi Tim, how's going? I bumped into your channel by chance, and it's great!!! Unfortunately I'm pretty busy lately and I can't post anything in the forum. See you. Bye!!! PS. you got a new subs 😉
All well thank you Giuseppe! Although we have just had another little boy so I'm also pretty busy! I hope you are well and thank you for subscribing! :)
But what's about the Image Quality? Thats my main concern and not the Autofocus. I use both lenes and I do also Landscape Photography. How much worse is the image quality of the 70-200mm with Teleconverter in comparison to the 100-400. I own both lenses but no 2.0x Teleconverter.
Like I mentioned in the video, I'm only covering AF performance here. For my sharpness and other lens characteristics comparison you'll find full details in my article here: www.alphashooters.com/compare/sony-100-400-vs-70-200-ii-with-2x/ - It's difficult to show the difference in sharpness on TH-cam, especially when it's so close between them.
@@AlphaShooters thanks I will check it out. I was waiting for the image quality comparison since long time. I will not sell my 100-400 until Sony will bring a gmaster 150-600. Especially 100mm I need a lot for landscape and the 1.4 teleconverter gives me the opportunity to increase the range to 560mm for sunset and moon shots of photo pills style.
Great video...but...Its the Sony 200-600/5.6-6.3 for me...Bit of a price price difference and I already have the Sony fe 70-200/4..(both used with A7C bodies)..Cheers
So have you compared the 400 2.8 1.4 converter=600 4.0 compared with the 600 4.0. With today Sharping softwares would it make them equal. Weight and size mm ain issues
I'm afraid I haven't Richard but this would certainly make an interesting comparison. Although adding the 1.4x to the 400 2.8 would only give you 560mm. I'd imagine there would be little in it, especially if you sharpen later as well.
Yes. It's so close between these two it's difficult to display this on TH-cam which is why I link to my comparison article: www.alphashooters.com/compare/sony-100-400-vs-70-200-ii-with-2x/
Thanks for the video, very intesting and informative. I've (evacguy) been thinking about the 1.4x and 2.0x TC for sometime now. Still can't make up my mind, pluse I've heard rumors that sony are bringin out newer versions of both these, this could be just hot air, but would be worth waiting for if true. I've also just joined AlphaShooters after seeing this video. Many thanks Tim.
Hi Tim, I shoot both macro (90mm) and birds (200-600) in each several hour photo walk with a single A7iii, and really wanting to nail BIF. Should I go for a new A7iv or a slightly more expensive used A9ii for birds and more BIF and use the A7iii as a second body for macro and video? Would the A9ii be good in the coming 5 years? Or should I wait for the A7Rv? Ha ha. Would love the extra reach and MPs with super35 on the R series, as teleconverters are USD 800 upwards here. Whenever I don't use my camera, my teenage kids will use it as their vlogging or performance video recording device. So another camera addition to the family will be a blessing. Appreciate the inputs mate and wishing your new baby to stay healthy. Cheers!
I am a beginner and want to start wildlife photography. Should I get A9i or A7riii or save more to get A7ivwith 70-200gm and 200-600g please give me a recommendation?
So nice that you show lenses that the intermediate and beginner photographers can really never afford due to there cost. These lenses are more for the advanced higher income photographers.
There are a lot of photographers who are fortunate to be able to afford these lenses which is why I made the video. I will also be comparing the Sony FE 70-200 F4 G lens and the FE 70-200 F2.8 GM II with the Tamron 70-180 in an upcoming video. Both the Sony 70-200 F4 and the Tamron 70-180 are more reasonably priced and can also be purchased used to save a little more.
Wow. I love all of your videos, but this one is a particular jewel. It's short and to the point, but loaded with the most critical info. Thanks!!
Thank you very much Mike and Happy New Year to you!
I think you need more footage showing how you change focus from front to back in different modes
This video, and your articles, are extremely helpful, thank you so much for making them!
I love the bee/fly at 2:50
I sold my 100-400gm and bought my 70-200mm 2.8 mkii with a teleconverter because of this video. Thanks
are you happy with is so far?
I bet you love the internal zooming, too. I hate lenses that grow as you zoom. Why? Why? They have the tech to make internal zooming lenses, not these ever-extending monster lenses. I have the 200-600mm zoom by Sony. It has internal zooming and it is a dream to use.
My 70-200gmii with 2x tele was terribly soft. Without the tele on it was the most amazing lens. But not with it attached. 100-400 is on the way
@@mactheknife74really? I was considering on buying both.
How’s the auto focus and sharpness?
Nice informative video. Whats the difference between the sharpness with the teleconverter.
Thx
Thank you very much for this subject.
Excellent review….thanks very much!
Thank you Dennis! I’m glad that you liked it.
Hi Tim . Thanks for the video comparison. How does the AF with the 70-200 without the 2x ? Thanks
Great video! Can you please make a video with the sony 200-600mm pairing the 2xTC and without it? For animals, birds etc please. Thanks!!
Thanks! I may do a video like this at some point but it's not high on my list I'm afraid. I have the 200-600 and 2x and rarely use them together due to the hit on AF performance and image quality. Adding the 2x to the 200-600 also drops you down to a maximum aperture of f/13, so you'll really need a nice sunny day to use it. Some older Sony cameras only support focal plane phase detection up to a maximum aperture of f/9 or f/11 depending on the model, at f/13 on these cameras you'll be using the slower contrast detection and only the first image of a burst will be in focus.
From my experience, the autofocus works, however mine back focuses and I have to adjust with the focus ring. This is not something I would ever pair with the 2-6 but since I had the tele for my 70-200 I figured why not? It’s best used in single shot mode and not continuous. You can still get great results for still subjects and BIF depending on the direction and distance of flight.
Great video, where can I find the link for the other video (sharpness comparison) you mentioned? I can't seem to find it in the description.
Thank you. I don't have a video with the sharpness, it's covered in my complete comparison article here: www.alphashooters.com/compare/sony-100-400-vs-70-200-ii-with-2x/ - It's difficult to show the difference in sharpness on TH-cam, especially when it's so close between them.
Great video! Can u make keeper test of those 2 lenses but without 2x tele?
Hi Tim I'm new to Sony and the A7RIII so your videos have been great. Is it possible to set the EVF / monitor to B&W whilst catching full colour RAW files?
Yes, just add the effect. RAWs are always full color. JPGs on the other hand will bake the picture settings.
I have a A7s ll Out of the 2 lens would u recommend best for this camera?
Bonjour. Comment pouvez-vous essayer deux objectifs et supposer chaque fois « C'est peut-être la faute du boîtier » ? Il fallait tester les objectifs avec un autre boîtier. Là, on n'est sûr de rien.
Waiting for a video like this. I have the a9ii and the 70-200 ii and the 200600. Going to take photos of osprey in a few weeks and I’ve been wondering whether the 200600 is the lens to use or if the x2 teleconverter added to the 70-200 would be a good choice. Even with the penalties of adding a teleconverter I was wondering if the 70-200 image quality and autofocus speed was superior enough to still be a better choice.
If you have both lenses just take them both :) I'd probably lean towards the 200-600 for the extra reach, guess it just depends how close you will be to the action. But I don't think you will be disappointed if you do add the 2x to your 70-200 Mk II.
@@AlphaShooters thanks Tim. :) I’ve booked two days of shooting so I’ll think I’ll allocate a day to each one and see what happens.
@@MrJPP23 Sounds like a good plan! Enjoy!
@@AlphaShooters ta. One final question (sorry). You did a really good video a while back comparing the 200600 with the 100400 plus the 1.4 converter. Do you feel the autofocus in the 70200 with the 2x would still be acceptable for BIF compared to the 200600? :)
nice video, keep it up
Why didn't you do the test with an A1 or A9II at least instead this slow A7IV with only 10 fps?
Well I don't own the a1 or a9II. However in hindsight I could have tested 20fps with my a9. I hope to add the a1 to my bag later this year so I'll create another short video to test at 30fps then.
Any movement on this test with the a9/a1? More in hope than expectation 😂 I’m primarily a dog photographer so the test you did was great for me - if only it was an a9! Also great taste in dogs, I also have a GSD
I'm sea sick with all that up and down and back and forth lol ...
You should compare the 70-200 + 2x TC versus the 70-200 with 2x crop in post. Do one shot in bright sun and one in the shade, only adjust ISO. IMO teleconverters are not worth the price and loss of 2 stops, your much better off cropping in post.
Thanks for the suggestion! I guess it depends how many megapixels you have to play with and if you can afford a 2x crop or not. If the lighting conditions are good then two stops of light loss doesn't really hurt.
That's bullshit. A crop is not the same like if you use a different focal length. You can't compare apples with pears and say it is the same fruit. If I photograph anything with 600mm it will look different then if I photograph it with 400mm and do a crop.
This channel fell off. 😢
Awesome video!! Thank you! I just got the 70-200 GM II and was looking for this comparison. This is the best yet and currently waiting for 2x converter to be available.
Thanks Puyat! Glad you liked the comparison! :) I did notice that the 2x is out of stock at many places, hopefully it will be back in again soon!
I just ordered one from Amazon for delivery 13th. Only place I could find it.
@@MrJPP23 on Amazon? Was it brand new? Looks like what's on right now are used and upelling to 638.00 when they retail at 538.00 new.
A fantastic test! On a prosumer camera like the A74, the results are negligible. Would love to see this test on the A7r5 or A1. Overall, amazing test and information!
Thank you for this comparison video and article. I actually own both plus the 200-600 but I’ve given some thought to reducing the herd to get some money back to use on another lens. Originally bought the 100-400 when it was the only longer zoom and have even used a teleconverter on it. Later added the 200-600 and then eventually upgraded my version 1 GM 70-200/2.8 to the GM II. Currently only own the 1.4X converter but have given thought to adding the 2X since it means only having to travel with it and 70-200/2.8 GM II which I use for both indoors and outdoors. Take care.
My full in-depth comparison including sharpness: www.alphashooters.com/compare/sony-100-400-vs-70-200-ii-with-2x/
Our Alpha Shooters Community Forum: www.alphashooters.com/community/
Tim please Best lens for Sony A6700 ???
Memory cart???
Ok that article is the closest to a real scientific test ive seen so far. Im subscribing.
One question do you think the chromatic abberation issue from the 70-200mm+2.0 tele setup is actually native to the lens itself and the teleconverter has nothing to do with it? Or it has?
Brilliant video. Frank and you perform the most informative, reliable, and entertaining reviews on the internet.
Thank you very much Dean! :)
You must take the AF issues of A7IV and make a series. Sony need to know about this and fix it. Animal Eye AF is just awfull. Can you make a comparison between Eye AF (Human, Animal) between A7IV and A7III, A7RIII, A7RIV or any that you have (a6400?)
Eye AF on the a7IV works well for both animals and humans when the subject is slow moving, for faster moving subjects it works much better for human eyes than animals. It works well for perched birds but forget about it locking onto the eyes of birds in flight, although that doesn't really bother me since the depth of field is usually great enough that the entire bird is in focus anyway unless they are very close to you. I will do some comparison videos between the a7III and the a7IV on this subject soon.
Hi Tim, how's going? I bumped into your channel by chance, and it's great!!! Unfortunately I'm pretty busy lately and I can't post anything in the forum. See you. Bye!!! PS. you got a new subs 😉
All well thank you Giuseppe! Although we have just had another little boy so I'm also pretty busy! I hope you are well and thank you for subscribing! :)
@@AlphaShooters Wow, congratulations Tim!!
Dude.. is it suitable to use a 2x teleconverter on the 70-200 F2.8 GM OSS II lens on the Sony A1 camera ? thx before..
Sure, one of the best Sony cameras to pair it with! I've recently added it to my bag so I will be including it with future comparisons.
Great comparison video, helped me to choose. Thanks
Cool!
Very helpful. Thanks !
Glad it helped Dan! :)
Fantastic review. Thanks for taking the time to share
But what's about the Image Quality? Thats my main concern and not the Autofocus. I use both lenes and I do also Landscape Photography. How much worse is the image quality of the 70-200mm with Teleconverter in comparison to the 100-400. I own both lenses but no 2.0x Teleconverter.
Like I mentioned in the video, I'm only covering AF performance here. For my sharpness and other lens characteristics comparison you'll find full details in my article here: www.alphashooters.com/compare/sony-100-400-vs-70-200-ii-with-2x/ - It's difficult to show the difference in sharpness on TH-cam, especially when it's so close between them.
@@AlphaShooters thanks I will check it out. I was waiting for the image quality comparison since long time. I will not sell my 100-400 until Sony will bring a gmaster 150-600. Especially 100mm I need a lot for landscape and the 1.4 teleconverter gives me the opportunity to increase the range to 560mm for sunset and moon shots of photo pills style.
Thank you
Great video...but...Its the Sony 200-600/5.6-6.3 for me...Bit of a price price difference and I already have the Sony fe 70-200/4..(both used with A7C bodies)..Cheers
Not a focal length I use much these days ! Interesting comparison though ! 👍
Glad that you liked it! 400mm is a little short for birding unless they are in your back garden and you can get very close like I was in the video.
what this shows is that they are both very similar.
I think i would rather 70-200 + Teleconverter as I have more versatile combo
As usual the video was informative, but this one was missing a large portion--how do the quality compare.
can you compare AF-C of Sigma 150-600 C and Sony 200-600mm with Sony A7iii
Very nice comparison! Thank you!!!👍👍👍
Thank you Marvin!
Grazie mille. Sempre molto interessanti e utili i tuoi video !
Thanks for a great video.
So have you compared the 400 2.8 1.4 converter=600 4.0 compared with the 600 4.0. With today Sharping softwares would it make them equal. Weight and size mm ain issues
I'm afraid I haven't Richard but this would certainly make an interesting comparison. Although adding the 1.4x to the 400 2.8 would only give you 560mm. I'd imagine there would be little in it, especially if you sharpen later as well.
Thank you very much, very helpful
a comparision video without image quality comparision?
Yes. It's so close between these two it's difficult to display this on TH-cam which is why I link to my comparison article: www.alphashooters.com/compare/sony-100-400-vs-70-200-ii-with-2x/
Thanks and How is it for video ?
Sorry I can't say since I don't shoot a great deal of video myself, I might do more in the future though.
Thanks for the video, very intesting and informative. I've (evacguy) been thinking about the 1.4x and 2.0x TC for sometime now. Still can't make up my mind, pluse I've heard rumors that sony are bringin out newer versions of both these, this could be just hot air, but would be worth waiting for if true. I've also just joined AlphaShooters after seeing this video. Many thanks Tim.
Hi Tim, I shoot both macro (90mm) and birds (200-600) in each several hour photo walk with a single A7iii, and really wanting to nail BIF.
Should I go for a new A7iv or a slightly more expensive used A9ii for birds and more BIF and use the A7iii as a second body for macro and video? Would the A9ii be good in the coming 5 years? Or should I wait for the A7Rv? Ha ha. Would love the extra reach and MPs with super35 on the R series, as teleconverters are USD 800 upwards here. Whenever I don't use my camera, my teenage kids will use it as their vlogging or performance video recording device. So another camera addition to the family will be a blessing.
Appreciate the inputs mate and wishing your new baby to stay healthy. Cheers!
I am a beginner and want to start wildlife photography. Should I get A9i or A7riii or save more to get A7ivwith 70-200gm and 200-600g please give me a recommendation?
definitely 200-600 as you want as much reach as possible !
So nice that you show lenses that the intermediate and beginner photographers can really never afford due to there cost. These lenses are more for the advanced higher income photographers.
There are a lot of photographers who are fortunate to be able to afford these lenses which is why I made the video. I will also be comparing the Sony FE 70-200 F4 G lens and the FE 70-200 F2.8 GM II with the Tamron 70-180 in an upcoming video. Both the Sony 70-200 F4 and the Tamron 70-180 are more reasonably priced and can also be purchased used to save a little more.
To be fair, it is not like most intermediate and beginner photographers are buying Sony full frame cameras either.
If you can't afford these lenses then move along Karen. There are plenty of us that appreciate these comparisons.