I've seen 10+ reviews of 70-200, 100-400, 200-600 for those types of use cases and I can only honestly say that your review stands out. Truly insightful and convinced me that 100-400 is the most versatile choice. A superb job Stan!
Currently using the 100-400 to take pictures of my kids' soccer and I've been super happy so far. You can really jump across the field if you pop into APSC mode as well.
70-200 GMII + TC is a great alternative. The issue is that 70-200 is not very versatile. I sold my 70-200 after getting my Tamron 35-150 because I found that having a 35 f2 was wayyyyyy more beneficial than having that 150-200 focal range (Which isn't much difference at all.) But if you're only shooting sports, or more into nature photography, I can see where the 70-200 + TC would be nice. As for me, I like to shoot wide AND long. So I carry a Sigma 14-24 f2.8, Tamron 35-150 f2-2.8, and now the Sony 100-400!
I use a Sony 70-200 F/2.8 and a Sony 2x converter. The big advantage is that from 70 to 200 mm, you're at F/2.8, unlike the 100-400. And with the converter, you cover the 200-400 at 5.6, so it's identical.
For maximum reach I use the 200-600mm and thought about this lens too but the price made me go for the Sigma 100-400mm and I have to say for me it was the right one. 400mm is a bit too short for Birds/wildlife in fact I still end up using the 1x4 on the 200-600mm. However the Sigma 100-400mm is great for hiking being so much lighter and is pretty sharp too. Shame Sony doesn't allow the teleconverters for it. They do fit but there is no electronics to get an exposure. Oh yes and the Sigma is a third of the price of the Sony..Nice review.
I own the 100-400 GM and use it most for birds (with a 1.4 TC). I have also ordered the new 70-200 G2 (sold my Tamron 70-180). The new 70-200 G2 is excellent for macro especially with teleconverters.
I have both and use both regularly (70-200 and 100-400). The lighter weight of the 200 makes for a better experience. When I’m out looking for wildlife I often use the 200 on a full frame A7cr and use the 400 on an apsc a6700 for that super reach.
After purchasing the 100-400GM, I stopped using the Sony 70-200. The 10-400GM stays on my camera all the time and I only switch it out if I need to take a wide shot. I find the 100-400 to be very flexible and am having fun exploring more creative shots.
stunning images and thanks for the reminder that landscape photography deserves a quality 100-400mm lens in your arsenal! I have the 200-600mm but that's purposely my wildlife/birding lens
70-200 F2.8 GMii all day, The low light capabilities of this lens is insane. I also have the 200-600 Wish it had a lower F number but for the price you cant beat it.
Attach a Sony A7R3/4/5 and you will get unbelievable photos you can crop to your heart's delight. I shoot my 200-600mm zoom on the A7R3 and get great images, like hummingbirds, yet I can crop where a 24mp image will start to fuzz out. That 100-400 range is a nice range as it fits in nicely between a 70-200 and a longer zoom lens that is too heavy for certain trips. Love your hummingbird photos, beautiful. I only have two hummingbirds in my area.
Yep a higher MP camera combined with this zoom range is magic! Unfortunately there are no hummingbirds where I live (Europe). These photos were all taken when I was travelling in Peru.
telephoto lenses do not cause compression, they only crop. compression is an optical illusion that occurs when objects are far away from you. it can easily be seen when two cars speed past you. the further away they get from you, the closer to each other they appear.
Great review Stan. I have the 100-400 GM, been shooting with it over 2 years and love it, I also ahve the 2x converter for those situations that require that little bit extra, I used to own the 70-200 but traded up to the 100-400. I do mostly landscape and wildlife photography, on a recent trip to Alaska, the 100-400 produced some awesome photos.
I like my 100-400 GM a lot. I often seek out reasons to shoot with it. My only gripe is the long and tight zoom throw. Other than that, it's a good lens. It requires a little more forethought and work to get great shots because I have to be more careful of the background. f/5.6 isn't f/2.8....and that shows. Every once in a while, I'd grab a short telephoto shot with my 135mm GM (I barely use it) and it kind of blows my 100-400 away lol. I guess I'm just a sucker for images that are easy on the eyes.
@@nerothe I have. It requires less torque but the zoom travel is still long. Long enough that I can’t accomplish it (going from 100 to 400 or back) in one single motion without having to start or finish with my left arm in an extreme position.
I have the 100-400 and it's an mazing lens. I love it and feel very creative when using it. Something special about it and I love the unique look it creates. Very good for macro shots too. I don't like how when carrying it the lens creeps out by itself when zoom in fully. That's annoying. I've the x2 teleconverter but felt the quality of the images wasn't great when using it.
I have that combo and although I have some great shots, the x2 tc is limited at f11. I subsequently bought the x1.4 tc. A much better combo for bird photography. Much lighter than the 200-600 to carry around on a hike for four hours. Standalone the 100-400 can do Astro, pseudo macro and great for wildlife. I don’t shoot other genres but maybe great for them too. 👍🏻
Great review...I am a Sony 200-600/5.4-6.3 fan but your review is excellent. Something also...I am not a fan of telescoping focus/zoom lenses...Damage from falls/banging... moisture...dirt...cost etc...and I own close up extension tubes as well as the Sony FE 70-200/4...close up has never been a problem...Cheers
great 2023 review of that old lens. A pity you didn't mention TC1.4x and a7rv 1.5 crop extending capability. in fact I would like to start bird and wildlife photo in garden, walking in forest, in a zoo with my a7rv and hesitate between that old external zoom 2600 euros 100-400mm and heavy, huge but amazing sony 200-600mm at 2000 euros. No regret not having considered the 200-600 ?
The 200-600 would definitely be a cool lens to try out. That one is however even heavier and bigger... It's also not a G Master, which explains the price difference. Let me know if you end up trying it 😉
i would use and buy the 70-200 f2.8 OSS II with a 2x teleconverter that way you have a lot of good lenses and really small too and after using this kit i can say its very nice
Tamron did well to get twice the low end width, yet 200 gm lighter than Sony’s 100-400. Shame Sony locks all third party lenses out of teleconverters - and that TP don’t make their own!
I love my Sigma 100-400 although it’s quite heavy and I had to buy a lens collar separately (it slowly dipped when I mounted my Sony A7iii on a tripod). I use it in a variety of places, from landscapes to gigs. At the latter, the light is usually pretty bad so I have to use Auto ISO and then Denoise if necessary.
Im also a sigma owner but thinking about selling it and buying a sony lens due to its stabilisation capabilities + a better separation bitween the object (animal) and the background. What do you think about it, is it worth it?)
@@xchillyvidsx My Sigma has IS and was considerably less expensive than the equivalent Sony. I’ve got some belting shots from it, even when handheld in a dark venue. But my Sony 24-105 never lets me down either.
Have both the 100-400 GM and now the 70-200 GM II. Got the 100-400 when it first came out several years ago. Now I want to find a really good revue of the 70-200 GM II + 2X TC to see how the compete at 400mm to see if I can save some money and only keep the 70-200 + TC. Anyone have a link to a really good comparison? Take care.
I have 70-200 GM II and am wanting to get both 1.4 and 2x TC. I really am tempted to get this lens but holding on chance they update to GM II version as they have done with their other zoom lenses.
@@TheTensecondz I’ve taken photos with both lenses at 400mm and compared them at 100%… center of the frame on the Sony 100-400mm is definitely noticeably sharper/crisper. Also, from my testing the optical stabilization on the Sony is noticeably better than on the Tamron. That being said, I still prefer the Tamron 50-400mm overall.
I still have both for the fast FPS option with the Sony native lenses. In real world shooting, there is really no difference in image quality but 50mm wide zoom and no lens creeping liberate and make the shooting so much enjoyable and productive. @@tsizzle
No unfortunately I have not had the pleasure of trying that out, but it would be pretty nice I guess! However, a 2x teleconverter loses 2 stops of light so not sure how that would be then...
I've seen 10+ reviews of 70-200, 100-400, 200-600 for those types of use cases and I can only honestly say that your review stands out. Truly insightful and convinced me that 100-400 is the most versatile choice. A superb job Stan!
I appreciate that! Glad you enjoyed it 👍
Currently using the 100-400 to take pictures of my kids' soccer and I've been super happy so far. You can really jump across the field if you pop into APSC mode as well.
70-200 GMII + TC is a great alternative. The issue is that 70-200 is not very versatile. I sold my 70-200 after getting my Tamron 35-150 because I found that having a 35 f2 was wayyyyyy more beneficial than having that 150-200 focal range (Which isn't much difference at all.) But if you're only shooting sports, or more into nature photography, I can see where the 70-200 + TC would be nice.
As for me, I like to shoot wide AND long. So I carry a Sigma 14-24 f2.8, Tamron 35-150 f2-2.8, and now the Sony 100-400!
I use a Sony 70-200 F/2.8 and a Sony 2x converter. The big advantage is that from 70 to 200 mm, you're at F/2.8, unlike the 100-400. And with the converter, you cover the 200-400 at 5.6, so it's identical.
For maximum reach I use the 200-600mm and thought about this lens too but the price made me go for the Sigma 100-400mm and I have to say for me it was the right one. 400mm is a bit too short for Birds/wildlife in fact I still end up using the 1x4 on the 200-600mm. However the Sigma 100-400mm is great for hiking being so much lighter and is pretty sharp too. Shame Sony doesn't allow the teleconverters for it. They do fit but there is no electronics to get an exposure. Oh yes and the Sigma is a third of the price of the Sony..Nice review.
I own the 100-400 GM and use it most for birds (with a 1.4 TC).
I have also ordered the new 70-200 G2 (sold my Tamron 70-180). The new 70-200 G2 is excellent for macro especially with teleconverters.
I also have the 70-200 gm2
And im debating between 100-400 and 200-600
I have both and use both regularly (70-200 and 100-400). The lighter weight of the 200 makes for a better experience. When I’m out looking for wildlife I often use the 200 on a full frame A7cr and use the 400 on an apsc a6700 for that super reach.
400mm on crop sensor must be pretty sweet 👍
After purchasing the 100-400GM, I stopped using the Sony 70-200. The 10-400GM stays on my camera all the time and I only switch it out if I need to take a wide shot. I find the 100-400 to be very flexible and am having fun exploring more creative shots.
stunning images and thanks for the reminder that landscape photography deserves a quality 100-400mm lens in your arsenal! I have the 200-600mm but that's purposely my wildlife/birding lens
Glad you enjoyed it! Thanks for watching ☺️
4:18 beautiful shot. Wow.
70-200 F2.8 GMii all day, The low light capabilities of this lens is insane. I also have the 200-600 Wish it had a lower F number but for the price you cant beat it.
Attach a Sony A7R3/4/5 and you will get unbelievable photos you can crop to your heart's delight. I shoot my 200-600mm zoom on the A7R3 and get great images, like hummingbirds, yet I can crop where a 24mp image will start to fuzz out. That 100-400 range is a nice range as it fits in nicely between a 70-200 and a longer zoom lens that is too heavy for certain trips. Love your hummingbird photos, beautiful. I only have two hummingbirds in my area.
Yep a higher MP camera combined with this zoom range is magic!
Unfortunately there are no hummingbirds where I live (Europe). These photos were all taken when I was travelling in Peru.
telephoto lenses do not cause compression, they only crop. compression is an optical illusion that occurs when objects are far away from you. it can easily be seen when two cars speed past you. the further away they get from you, the closer to each other they appear.
Great review Stan. I have the 100-400 GM, been shooting with it over 2 years and love it, I also ahve the 2x converter for those situations that require that little bit extra, I used to own the 70-200 but traded up to the 100-400. I do mostly landscape and wildlife photography, on a recent trip to Alaska, the 100-400 produced some awesome photos.
Glad to hear you liked the video! Oh I bet you were able to shoot some amazing stuff up there! 👍👍
I like my 100-400 GM a lot. I often seek out reasons to shoot with it. My only gripe is the long and tight zoom throw. Other than that, it's a good lens. It requires a little more forethought and work to get great shots because I have to be more careful of the background. f/5.6 isn't f/2.8....and that shows. Every once in a while, I'd grab a short telephoto shot with my 135mm GM (I barely use it) and it kind of blows my 100-400 away lol. I guess I'm just a sucker for images that are easy on the eyes.
Have you tried both zoom throw settings? You can choose tight or loose, and the loose is loose enough for it to move by itself if you angle it down.
@@nerothe I have. It requires less torque but the zoom travel is still long. Long enough that I can’t accomplish it (going from 100 to 400 or back) in one single motion without having to start or finish with my left arm in an extreme position.
Love The 200-600! Would Not Do without it!
@200-600: Totally agree. An underrated lens, great for BIF paired with a A7RV.
great stuff for sure but I since I own the Tamron 35-150 2-2.8 I prefer the Sony 200-600 due to its longer reach, internal zoom and cheaper price
Bought mine in Oregon last year whilst on vacation, love it. My favourite lens. Barely off my camera.
I have the 100-400 and it's an mazing lens. I love it and feel very creative when using it. Something special about it and I love the unique look it creates. Very good for macro shots too. I don't like how when carrying it the lens creeps out by itself when zoom in fully. That's annoying. I've the x2 teleconverter but felt the quality of the images wasn't great when using it.
I have that combo and although I have some great shots, the x2 tc is limited at f11. I subsequently bought the x1.4 tc. A much better combo for bird photography. Much lighter than the 200-600 to carry around on a hike for four hours. Standalone the 100-400 can do Astro, pseudo macro and great for wildlife. I don’t shoot other genres but maybe great for them too. 👍🏻
Great review...I am a Sony 200-600/5.4-6.3 fan but your review is excellent. Something also...I am not a fan of telescoping focus/zoom lenses...Damage from falls/banging... moisture...dirt...cost etc...and I own close up extension tubes as well as the Sony FE 70-200/4...close up has never been a problem...Cheers
I appreciate that!
great 2023 review of that old lens. A pity you didn't mention TC1.4x and a7rv 1.5 crop extending capability.
in fact I would like to start bird and wildlife photo in garden, walking in forest, in a zoo with my a7rv and hesitate between that old external zoom 2600 euros 100-400mm and heavy, huge but amazing sony 200-600mm at 2000 euros. No regret not having considered the 200-600 ?
The 200-600 would definitely be a cool lens to try out. That one is however even heavier and bigger... It's also not a G Master, which explains the price difference. Let me know if you end up trying it 😉
I'm very much looking forward to the release new Sony super-zoom GM with 200-600mm/f.5.6 and internal zoom!
Great review! You convinced me to buy this lens. Subscribed!
Thank you! You'll love this lens! Thanks for subbing!
My only worry is that it’ll be too bulky and heavy to bring around for hikes and travel
Well, yes you will notice this lens in your bag 😅
i would use and buy the 70-200 f2.8 OSS II with a 2x teleconverter that way you have a lot of good lenses and really small too and after using this kit i can say its very nice
I prefer Tamron 50-400 for travel. I expect 100-400 GM2 to come out soon to be under 1kg.
That would be awesome!
Tamron did well to get twice the low end width, yet 200 gm lighter than Sony’s 100-400.
Shame Sony locks all third party lenses out of teleconverters - and that TP don’t make their own!
Have you heard a rumour about a new 100-400?
@@richardgrant418a ‘’shame’’? Wtf dude, Sony is killing it with the e mount compatibility in general compared to all the other manufacturers.
Which is better 100-400 vs 70-200 + teleconverter?
Got lots of dust in my 1-4 due to the design. But this lens is very sharp and AF super fast.
I love my Sigma 100-400 although it’s quite heavy and I had to buy a lens collar separately (it slowly dipped when I mounted my Sony A7iii on a tripod). I use it in a variety of places, from landscapes to gigs. At the latter, the light is usually pretty bad so I have to use Auto ISO and then Denoise if necessary.
Yep, I'm sure the Sigma is a great telephoto option!👍
Im also a sigma owner but thinking about selling it and buying a sony lens due to its stabilisation capabilities + a better separation bitween the object (animal) and the background. What do you think about it, is it worth it?)
@@xchillyvidsx My Sigma has IS and was considerably less expensive than the equivalent Sony. I’ve got some belting shots from it, even when handheld in a dark venue. But my Sony 24-105 never lets me down either.
@@heathersheldrick9751Sony 24-105 in a dark venue? Really?
@@jordanbabcock9349 Absolutely. The Sony A7iii copes quite well along with post productions tweaks.
Waiting for comparison video, Sony 100-400 vs Tamron 50-400 or Sony 70-200 f2.8 G II with tele converter.
Have both the 100-400 GM and now the 70-200 GM II. Got the 100-400 when it first came out several years ago. Now I want to find a really good revue of the 70-200 GM II + 2X TC to see how the compete at 400mm to see if I can save some money and only keep the 70-200 + TC. Anyone have a link to a really good comparison? Take care.
I have 70-200 GM II and am wanting to get both 1.4 and 2x TC. I really am tempted to get this lens but holding on chance they update to GM II version as they have done with their other zoom lenses.
Great video. Thanks. I have been looking at this lens although I own a Sony G 70-350 mm & Sony A7 II. Decisions ,desicions.
Nice to hear you like the vid! Yea tough call haha 😅
Great video! Have you used this lens with an aps-c body? if so, does it work well? Thanks!
Thank you! No I have not, but it would work of course. It would then be a 160-640mm due to the crop factor
Zoom creeping of this lens is extremely annoying. Since I picked up Tamron 50-400, I haven't used my 100-400 and I don't miss it at all.
Do you miss not having the f5.6 at 400mm?
I still have Sony 100-400 GM and really don't see the difference between f5.6 and f6.5 at 400mm.
@@TheTensecondz I’ve taken photos with both lenses at 400mm and compared them at 100%… center of the frame on the Sony 100-400mm is definitely noticeably sharper/crisper. Also, from my testing the optical stabilization on the Sony is noticeably better than on the Tamron. That being said, I still prefer the Tamron 50-400mm overall.
I still have both for the fast FPS option with the Sony native lenses. In real world shooting, there is really no difference in image quality but 50mm wide zoom and no lens creeping liberate and make the shooting so much enjoyable and productive. @@tsizzle
I wonder if the ability to use a teleconverter might make the Sony more desirable?
I'm hoping the second generation version of this lens is coming in the next 1-2yrs.
good lens! but I am used to install kase filters on my camera for better color of my work.
Amazing 😮 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
Glad you liked it 👍
0:09 like, that's how it's supposed to be normally.
Would the Sigma 60-600mm DG DN OS Sport be a good alternative?
Better. If you don’t mind its weight, c 2.6 kg
Yes great lens
awesome photos!
Appreciate it 👍
i dropped and broke mine :( Took $850 to fix but I got it fixed after 3 yrs haha. Amazing lens
Awesome lens, not heavy suck it up carry the lens! 😅
Hahaha 😄👍
Were you able to use this lens with teleconverter to reach 800mm?
No unfortunately I have not had the pleasure of trying that out, but it would be pretty nice I guess! However, a 2x teleconverter loses 2 stops of light so not sure how that would be then...
@@SightseeingStan just sunny days is needed ;)
@@jedrulakw Haha yep 😄
is a little expensive for me. :) thanks
The weight makes me rather use 70-200
Different PLANET!!!! 🌎 😅😮😊😊😊😊😃😅😂🤣
Sir,Please gift me a camera.I live in Bangladesh.please sir🙏🥺
My dream is to do photography but I don't have a camera and can't afford to buy one..🙁🙁Please gift me a camera,in my home in Bangladesh😔🙏🙏