Good information - thank you, it helped to confirm that I was on the correct track. Last month, I went with the 100-400 for several reasons: 1) close focusing abilities is critical for me because I like knowing that during a walk I can get close up shot of objects close to me; 2) filters - I have a sizable collection of 77mm filters which I can continue to use with the lens hood; and 3) takes less space in the bag - much easier to carry with the 12-24 and 24-105 and/or 90. I also have the 1.4x TC which I can use on the 70-200 GM for a 280 f/4. Now if only Sony, Tamron, or Sigma would come out with a FE 180 f/2.8 macro prime. 😁
Really helped me with my choice, thank you. I went with the 100-400 version as it's a little more flexible in use, easier to take just one lens vs needing a shorter one too, easier to carry in my bag, easier to shoot handheld for the things I enjoy (eventing, wildlife) and a bit more versatile all round. Worth the extra. Lovely sharp images. So much fun to own it. I think I'd have been happy with either though! And there's definitely a plus for the 200-600 if you shoot further off. Might get a converter later for the reach, once the kidney grows back... Great channel, so helpful.
I used to shoot A7RIII with 200-600mm and now I am switching to A6700 (because of the bird eye-tracking, size and weight) and the 100-400mm. So as far as reach goes, nothing changes, as 400mm on crop is the equivalent of 600mm on full frame.
I own both. Reasons? 100400GM is light, very sharp, is 600mm equivalent on A7RIV and has faster AF motors. The 200600G is my bird only (smaller birds) lense, also very sharp but 100400GM is a hair sharper and renders a little nicer. That said both are high quality lenses that are plenty sharp. I won't part with either one.
I struggled and ended up owning both :) 100400GM is my favorite, but I also love the 200600G for its extra reach. They are vastly different in a few ways. 100400GM is slightly sharper with shorter minimum focus distance and magnification at 35x (no need for macro). Weight wise, although 100400GM extends it is still lighter and packs better into a backpack. Yes the 200600G is heavier, you might need support... but reach is the 200600G specialty. That said, if you own a A7RIV your choice is harder. Reason? A7RIV plus 100400GM gives you 600mm in APSC mode at 26mpx, with superb AF. The AF motors in the 100400GM are in fact superior to those of the 200600G, although slight the difference in AF precision is noticeable. End of the day both fit ways in work so I'm keeping both.
I have had the 100-400 lens, but If you enjoy photographing birds, then the 200-600 is a far better option ( I traded up/down 6 months ago ) .... * faster aperture when you compare a 1.4 teleconverter+100-400 with 200-600 * ( also more solid feel than using teleconvertor ) * No lens extension when you change zoom .. you can better brace the lens on a bean bag, for instance * Better reach for lens alone * Using the lens hold bottons to operate DMF mode is a doddle, with easy to reach focus ring I dont doubt the image is a tad sharper with the 100-400, but birds are notoriously difficult to get 100% sharp, and the "slightly worse" image quality is not going to impact most photos very much at all. I am not disagreeing with the video ... just for ME, its the better option...... I wish I could have had both !
I own both. The 100-400 GM has dual focus motors, it is faster with tracking subjects moving fast towards you. It does tend to stay on the subject more. The smaller glass elements appear to aid in allowing them to move around more to make the OSS better too. Zooming with it does not feel great, even with the tension ring in the looser setting. It also zoom creeps out to 400mm when hanging downwards. The 200-600 G has a much better feeling zoom function, very short and smooth. The lens collar on mine is wobbly and not smooth at all, if you like rotating in the collar, try it out before you buy yours. The feet are not interchangeable like the 70-200 GM and 100-400 GM. Some people, like myself have issues with the 200-600 G paired with the A7RIV, even at high shutter speeds. Slightly blurry. It doesn't happen all the time, and it doesn't happen to every RIV owner, but just be aware. Even some Sony Ambassadors say this combination is not the best. I only use my 200-600 G on my A7III and A9II.
After long time of debating I decided to pair my a7IV with 100-400. I'd love to do more birding but since I live quite far away from natural habitats I would not be able to use full 600mm that often. My main thing is macro so I feel like changing from my usual 90mm to 100-400 will provide new capabilities without completely disabling my usual habits. Thank you for the video!
I own both lenses and an A7R4 for about 6 months. The 100-400 is a slightly better lens for IQ and also slightly better for keeping the shutter speed up for birds, this becomes important if you shoot in early morning or late day situations.The 1.4 tele works well with the 100-400 and has almost no effect on IQ, I don't think it works as well with the 200-600 with regards to IQ. I would rather walk around with the 100-400 and would prefer to use a monopod with the 200-600, either way both will make you happy and yield good results. If I could only afford 1 it would be the 100-400, thankfully I was able to swing both.
In the end I have bought both of them. I got the 100-400 first because it is smaller, lighter, is much easier to hand hold, and it fits in my backpack. Then I got the 200-600 because it is longer and I have been shooting a lot of birds and it just made sense to have both. They both give great image quality and the 100-400 is also a great landscape lens.
I'm definitely saving for the 200-600mm. My RX10 III offers 600mm f4, but I want the long reach in aps-c for a whopping 900mm (1200mm with teleconverter).
My 100400 is in right now - the screws on the lens mount keep coming loose, but I just bought the A7RIV and this will be a great combo. I can't believe the cropping capabilities from that body.
One thing...the 200600G does not have dual linear AF motors...the 100400GM does. That's a difference that's noticeable especially considering AF precision
I went for a 200-600, then added a 70-200 GM2 with additional 2x teleconverter as I find the 200-600 too heavy carrying around. The 70-200 GM2 is my favourite and is what I use most (with and without teleconverter according to use). That is now another option not available at the time of this review. It does not extend and even with teleconverter is even lighter still than the 100-400 and still with F5.6 wide open. I also see no drop in quality with teleconverter.
Got the 100-400 G Master because I value the space. I want a (relatively) small set up, and the G Master is much smaller and lighter. It also pairs better with the rest of my Sony set up - I can carry my body (an a7c) 14-24, 24-105, and 100-400 in a messenger bag no problem. The 200-600 leaves me with a gap in focal length and takes up way more space. Combined with the super close minimum focus distance, it is FOR SURE worth the extra $500. Even with a teleconverter if I really needed the reach, it would still be smaller, lighter, and more versatile. Easy choice.
Thanks for this video. I've been struggling between these two lenses and this comparison was very helpful. I'll do some birding but that's not the only one minor purpose for wanting a super zoom. The close focusing distance of the 100-400 is perfect for some of photography I'll be doing. I've found the 100-400 used for about the same or slightly less than the 200-600. I just hope the 1.4x at 560 has decent image quality. I have read it's not near as good as the 200-600 at 600.
@@calamity333 Image quality at 560 in good light was okay. Not as sharp as the 200-600 at 600. I did recently buy the 200-600 and I love it. The image quality is very sharp.
Very nice comparison video Stefan! I have both and will be keeping both for the time being. If you add the 1.4 tc to the 100400, it's still very sharp, but in lower light situations, you're at F8 whereas the 200600 is very sharp at the long end and you're at F6.3. 100400 is shorter and lighter meaning better for travel. I'll be using it on the A7RIV. I'll use the 200600 on the A9 when I need distance although I'm prepared to lose some shots here and there as I find it's simply not as great on focusing as the 100400 (and by that, I mean you lose a few frames, but nothing terrible at all). It's just the 100400 on the A9 is pretty stellar. I've had 200+ photos bursts of snowy owls without any images out of focus. I find the 200600 takes a few frames to really lock on. It's also heavier to handhold, but a good monopod helps the day go by easier.
Exactly. Honestly, if you aren't a hard core birder, the 100-400 is probably better for most people. Its so versatile. If you're going high MP in the future, cropping is going to be a breeze.
Hi Stefan - thanks... very helpful! I shoot on the a1 and have the 200-600 (which I love) - I shoot a lot of rowing crew races, and many venues are perfect for that extra reach, but at a couple key racing venues, I'll never get beyond 400mm - so I'm thinking it's worth taking the plunge to the 100-400 for the extra sharpness in those instances. Any thoughts one way or the other, please? Thank you!
If I had to choose then the 200-600, but I will prefer primes at any time (new or old), Sony (or Sigma, Tokina, Tamron, any other brand) should make primes 300mm 4.0, 400mm 4.5 and 500mm 5.6 !
I'm still torn. We are supposed to go to Alaska this summer and I'd love to have the longer reach for the grizzlies, eagles, etc. that we will see on this trip. However, the size of it is a concern. I feel like overall the 100-400 would be a better choice long-term, as it offers more versatility. I wish I could afford both. I have an A7iii and can shoot in crop mode, thus increasing my focal length. Can you tell me if the picture quality of the 100-400 in crop mode and with a 1.4 teleconverter is still sharp? Thanks in advance.
I know this is an old video but I just recently switched to E-mount from A-mount (from a99m2/77m2 to a7rm5). Did you ever use the sal70400g2? If you did do you have video about it? I am using it along with a LA-EA5 because I can't afford to upgrade lenses at this time. However,, I'm struggling trying to decide if I should invest in the sel200600 with a sel20tc. I am primarily now a wildlife (birds and small animals mostly) and sports (college and high school) shooter. Although, I cut my teeth 3 decades ago shooting studio portraiture, wedding and events of course with film 35mm, medium format (6x9) and 70mm. Any thoughts you have about the 200-600 are appreciated. I enjoyed this video. You were concise yet thorough.
Wow I didnt even know about the 28mp on the a7riv in crop mode. Now I'll consider it. First sure the 200-600 meets my needs. Great point about size. On the Panasonic I ended up using the 8-18 over the 10-25 because of that very reason.
Will teleconverter essentially makes it 200-800? Thanks for vid I think size of 100-400 makes it choice for me. Also you find a good protective case for this lens? Thanks for vid!
Thanks so much for posting! A couple clarifying points: 1. You mention in your chart that the AF motors are the same, but I don't think that's true. Doesn't the 100-400mm have dual motors while the 200-600mm has one? 2. You also mentioned that the A7RIV is 28 megapixels in crop mode, but I think it's 26? Not very important, but just thought I'd mention it. Thanks again for the great video!
The 100400GM is sharper...and contrary to what some say the 100400GM with 1.4tc sharpness remains on par with 200600G without tc. That's still fantastic. Granted I only use a tc on 100400GM to further increase magnification at MFD. I never use it for reach...i reserve the 200600G for ultimate reach in APSC mode on A7RIV.
Hello , Between a Sony 200 - 600 mm lens And a Sony 100-400 F 4.5 - 5.6 with a multiplier of 1.4 to use on a Sony A7 IV which of the two solutions is better for sports photos at night with very good lighting?
I really enjoyed your review of these two lenses. I have an Alpha-6500 and am curious if the 100-400 is "too much" lens for this camera. I am leaning more towards this lens, with the idea of being able to photograph birds and find the size much more user friendly! Thanks for any help you can offer.
Stefan Malloch Thanks for the reply! But the 200-600 has 11 aperture blades as compare to 9 in 100-400. Could you please share us some insights as to why you think 100-400 has best bokeh.
Hi Stefan! I did find this video helpful. I bought the Sony A7RIV for its endless cropping possibilities, great dynamic range and adequate AF. Together with this body, I bought the 200-600 G lens, as I mainly (99%) shoot wildlife: lots lots of birds, mammals, reptiles, whatever it moves that is not a human with no human objects in the images, always in their habitat haha I had no issues with this combo, but then I started wondering whether the 100-400 GM lens would have been a better option in terms of sharpness, maybe lower shutter speesds and ISO values and versatility. What do you recommend? Should I make the move or stick to my first choice? Is the quality in the images of a GM lens THAT different from this G lens? Thanks in advance! Happy shooting!
I think I’d prefer the 200-600 cause of the internal zooming. It’d freak me out paying so much for the 100-400 and having it breath every time I zoom in or out.
![เปิดคำทำนาย นอสตราดามุส - บาบา วานก้า ปี 2025 คนทั่วโลกต้องเจออะไรบ้าง? | แฉ 11 ธ.ค. 67 [2/3] |GMM25](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/xmTIKWJUMPM/mqdefault.jpg)
Which one is best for you and why?
Good information - thank you, it helped to confirm that I was on the correct track.
Last month, I went with the 100-400 for several reasons: 1) close focusing abilities is critical for me because I like knowing that during a walk I can get close up shot of objects close to me; 2) filters - I have a sizable collection of 77mm filters which I can continue to use with the lens hood; and 3) takes less space in the bag - much easier to carry with the 12-24 and 24-105 and/or 90. I also have the 1.4x TC which I can use on the 70-200 GM for a 280 f/4. Now if only Sony, Tamron, or Sigma would come out with a FE 180 f/2.8 macro prime. 😁
@@Martin-nu6ym Makes sense to me! Great choice.
Really helped me with my choice, thank you. I went with the 100-400 version as it's a little more flexible in use, easier to take just one lens vs needing a shorter one too, easier to carry in my bag, easier to shoot handheld for the things I enjoy (eventing, wildlife) and a bit more versatile all round. Worth the extra.
Lovely sharp images. So much fun to own it.
I think I'd have been happy with either though! And there's definitely a plus for the 200-600 if you shoot further off.
Might get a converter later for the reach, once the kidney grows back...
Great channel, so helpful.
I used to shoot A7RIII with 200-600mm and now I am switching to A6700 (because of the bird eye-tracking, size and weight) and the 100-400mm. So as far as reach goes, nothing changes, as 400mm on crop is the equivalent of 600mm on full frame.
I went with the 100-400. Size/weight, more versatile focal length, and close focusing macro capabilities.
So versatile!
I own both. Reasons? 100400GM is light, very sharp, is 600mm equivalent on A7RIV and has faster AF motors. The 200600G is my bird only (smaller birds) lense, also very sharp but 100400GM is a hair sharper and renders a little nicer. That said both are high quality lenses that are plenty sharp. I won't part with either one.
@@njrtech this is what I exactly wanted to know
I struggled and ended up owning both :)
100400GM is my favorite, but I also love the 200600G for its extra reach. They are vastly different in a few ways. 100400GM is slightly sharper with shorter minimum focus distance and magnification at 35x (no need for macro). Weight wise, although 100400GM extends it is still lighter and packs better into a backpack. Yes the 200600G is heavier, you might need support... but reach is the 200600G specialty. That said, if you own a A7RIV your choice is harder. Reason? A7RIV plus 100400GM gives you 600mm in APSC mode at 26mpx, with superb AF. The AF motors in the 100400GM are in fact superior to those of the 200600G, although slight the difference in AF precision is noticeable. End of the day both fit ways in work so I'm keeping both.
I have had the 100-400 lens, but If you enjoy photographing birds, then the 200-600 is a far better option ( I traded up/down 6 months ago ) ....
* faster aperture when you compare a 1.4 teleconverter+100-400 with 200-600
* ( also more solid feel than using teleconvertor )
* No lens extension when you change zoom .. you can better brace the lens on a bean bag, for instance
* Better reach for lens alone
* Using the lens hold bottons to operate DMF mode is a doddle, with easy to reach focus ring
I dont doubt the image is a tad sharper with the 100-400, but birds are notoriously difficult to get 100% sharp, and the "slightly worse" image quality is not going to impact most photos very much at all. I am not disagreeing with the video ... just for ME, its the better option...... I wish I could have had both !
Great advice
That precisely ended up being my reasons for the 100-400
I own both. The 100-400 GM has dual focus motors, it is faster with tracking subjects moving fast towards you. It does tend to stay on the subject more. The smaller glass elements appear to aid in allowing them to move around more to make the OSS better too. Zooming with it does not feel great, even with the tension ring in the looser setting. It also zoom creeps out to 400mm when hanging downwards.
The 200-600 G has a much better feeling zoom function, very short and smooth. The lens collar on mine is wobbly and not smooth at all, if you like rotating in the collar, try it out before you buy yours. The feet are not interchangeable like the 70-200 GM and 100-400 GM. Some people, like myself have issues with the 200-600 G paired with the A7RIV, even at high shutter speeds. Slightly blurry. It doesn't happen all the time, and it doesn't happen to every RIV owner, but just be aware. Even some Sony Ambassadors say this combination is not the best. I only use my 200-600 G on my A7III and A9II.
After long time of debating I decided to pair my a7IV with 100-400. I'd love to do more birding but since I live quite far away from natural habitats I would not be able to use full 600mm that often. My main thing is macro so I feel like changing from my usual 90mm to 100-400 will provide new capabilities without completely disabling my usual habits. Thank you for the video!
I own both lenses and an A7R4 for about 6 months. The 100-400 is a slightly better lens for IQ and also slightly better for keeping the shutter speed up for birds, this becomes important if you shoot in early morning or late day situations.The 1.4 tele works well with the 100-400 and has almost no effect on IQ, I don't think it works as well with the 200-600 with regards to IQ. I would rather walk around with the 100-400 and would prefer to use a monopod with the 200-600, either way both will make you happy and yield good results. If I could only afford 1 it would be the 100-400, thankfully I was able to swing both.
U r soo lucky
In the end I have bought both of them. I got the 100-400 first because it is smaller, lighter, is much easier to hand hold, and it fits in my backpack. Then I got the 200-600 because it is longer and I have been shooting a lot of birds and it just made sense to have both. They both give great image quality and the 100-400 is also a great landscape lens.
If that's an option, why not!
I’m saving for the 100-400 GM. Will be my first GM lens.
I have the 100 to 400mm G lens and use it with the A7r4 .... awesome setup for nature photography.
The dream setup!
I'm definitely saving for the 200-600mm. My RX10 III offers 600mm f4, but I want the long reach in aps-c for a whopping 900mm (1200mm with teleconverter).
yep 100400GM + tc1.4 +A7R4 the perfect combo for travel would almost call it a travel lens :)
My 100400 is in right now - the screws on the lens mount keep coming loose, but I just bought the A7RIV and this will be a great combo. I can't believe the cropping capabilities from that body.
thanks for a great video, really helpful indeed. Helped me decide to go for the 100-400
Can't go wrong but great choice!
I Purchase the 200-600mm G lens and loving it.
One thing...the 200600G does not have dual linear AF motors...the 100400GM does. That's a difference that's noticeable especially considering AF precision
Best review yet...concise, no blather, and very informative.
Excellent comparison, thank you! 👊👍
Thanks Dan!
They are both amazing. Still a tough choice. Thanks for this.
just pulled the trigger and waiting... did the 70 200 gm first and then the 16 35 gm. Can't wait.
I went for a 200-600, then added a 70-200 GM2 with additional 2x teleconverter as I find the 200-600 too heavy carrying around. The 70-200 GM2 is my favourite and is what I use most (with and without teleconverter according to use). That is now another option not available at the time of this review. It does not extend and even with teleconverter is even lighter still than the 100-400 and still with F5.6 wide open. I also see no drop in quality with teleconverter.
I'm in the same situation as you and I made the same choice: super happy and satisfied, incredible combo.
Got the 100-400 G Master because I value the space. I want a (relatively) small set up, and the G Master is much smaller and lighter. It also pairs better with the rest of my Sony set up - I can carry my body (an a7c) 14-24, 24-105, and 100-400 in a messenger bag no problem. The 200-600 leaves me with a gap in focal length and takes up way more space. Combined with the super close minimum focus distance, it is FOR SURE worth the extra $500. Even with a teleconverter if I really needed the reach, it would still be smaller, lighter, and more versatile. Easy choice.
You should carefully test the focus speed at long end, GM is considerably faster
Thanks for this video. I've been struggling between these two lenses and this comparison was very helpful. I'll do some birding but that's not the only one minor purpose for wanting a super zoom. The close focusing distance of the 100-400 is perfect for some of photography I'll be doing. I've found the 100-400 used for about the same or slightly less than the 200-600. I just hope the 1.4x at 560 has decent image quality. I have read it's not near as good as the 200-600 at 600.
Thanks bud. For 99% of people, the 100-400 with TC quality will be more than adequate.
i know this is three years later but how did it go? how was the image quality at 560 ?
@@calamity333 Image quality at 560 in good light was okay. Not as sharp as the 200-600 at 600. I did recently buy the 200-600 and I love it. The image quality is very sharp.
well im most definitely buying that 200-600 with my bonus hehehehe @@rmclark339
Sony a6400 and samyang af 85 mm f1. 4 review please😫🙏🙏💓
Very nice comparison video Stefan! I have both and will be keeping both for the time being. If you add the 1.4 tc to the 100400, it's still very sharp, but in lower light situations, you're at F8 whereas the 200600 is very sharp at the long end and you're at F6.3. 100400 is shorter and lighter meaning better for travel. I'll be using it on the A7RIV. I'll use the 200600 on the A9 when I need distance although I'm prepared to lose some shots here and there as I find it's simply not as great on focusing as the 100400 (and by that, I mean you lose a few frames, but nothing terrible at all). It's just the 100400 on the A9 is pretty stellar. I've had 200+ photos bursts of snowy owls without any images out of focus. I find the 200600 takes a few frames to really lock on. It's also heavier to handhold, but a good monopod helps the day go by easier.
Oh man! This is a difficult one.
You make a very good point that if one day I upgrade from the a7iii to the a7r4 cropping is no longer a problem.
Exactly. Honestly, if you aren't a hard core birder, the 100-400 is probably better for most people. Its so versatile. If you're going high MP in the future, cropping is going to be a breeze.
what exactly is the M/O focus? Which you state to be missing on the 100-400 in pro's and cons? (don't seem to find any documantation on that one...)
Hi Stefan - thanks... very helpful! I shoot on the a1 and have the 200-600 (which I love) - I shoot a lot of rowing crew races, and many venues are perfect for that extra reach, but at a couple key racing venues, I'll never get beyond 400mm - so I'm thinking it's worth taking the plunge to the 100-400 for the extra sharpness in those instances. Any thoughts one way or the other, please? Thank you!
If I had to choose then the 200-600, but I will prefer primes at any time (new or old), Sony (or Sigma, Tokina, Tamron, any other brand) should make primes 300mm 4.0, 400mm 4.5 and 500mm 5.6 !
Now I got the 200-600 ! :D
Today sigma 500 mm 5.6
I'm still torn. We are supposed to go to Alaska this summer and I'd love to have the longer reach for the grizzlies, eagles, etc. that we will see on this trip. However, the size of it is a concern. I feel like overall the 100-400 would be a better choice long-term, as it offers more versatility. I wish I could afford both. I have an A7iii and can shoot in crop mode, thus increasing my focal length. Can you tell me if the picture quality of the 100-400 in crop mode and with a 1.4 teleconverter is still sharp? Thanks in advance.
Yes it will be fantastic! Cant beat the size.
I know this is an old video but I just recently switched to E-mount from A-mount (from a99m2/77m2 to a7rm5). Did you ever use the sal70400g2? If you did do you have video about it? I am using it along with a LA-EA5 because I can't afford to upgrade lenses at this time. However,, I'm struggling trying to decide if I should invest in the sel200600 with a sel20tc. I am primarily now a wildlife (birds and small animals mostly) and sports (college and high school) shooter. Although, I cut my teeth 3 decades ago shooting studio portraiture, wedding and events of course with film 35mm, medium format (6x9) and 70mm. Any thoughts you have about the 200-600 are appreciated. I enjoyed this video. You were concise yet thorough.
P. S. Forgot to ask what does No MO mean?
Manual Focus Override
Great video. I also went with thew 100-400 as size/weight is everything for me. I travel with my 100-400, but I would never travel with the 200-600.
Totally agree!
Really useful video Stefan. Thank you!
AWESOME review as always! The 100/400 will be my choice once I get in the market to buy one.
Thanks Earl! It will serve you well!
Hi, I have the Sony fs700r, would either of the two lenses be good to use for video production?
What is M/O Focus. I guess I missed that. Great video!
I use an a6300 body, I'm a birder, is there a better option for the body or is this the best budget:use setup for camera body for bird photography?
You have missed (Focus Motors: Only DDSSM Motors for (200-600) and 100-400 (GM) double Linear Motor + DDSSM.
True story!
i got the 200-600 and love it! :D
Great lenses, great buying guide. Thank you.
Thanks Bud!
Wow I didnt even know about the 28mp on the a7riv in crop mode. Now I'll consider it. First sure the 200-600 meets my needs. Great point about size. On the Panasonic I ended up using the 8-18 over the 10-25 because of that very reason.
Will teleconverter essentially makes it 200-800? Thanks for vid I think size of 100-400 makes it choice for me. Also you find a good protective case for this lens? Thanks for vid!
Hi, I have a Sony 200-600 and a Sony 28-70 lenses. I want compplet my lenses and do a purches another one. What Sony Lens should I buy?
Depends on your shooting style.. Ultra wide?
@@StefanMalloch which Ultra wide do you recommend? cost dosent matter.
Thanks so much for posting! A couple clarifying points:
1. You mention in your chart that the AF motors are the same, but I don't think that's true. Doesn't the 100-400mm have dual motors while the 200-600mm has one?
2. You also mentioned that the A7RIV is 28 megapixels in crop mode, but I think it's 26?
Not very important, but just thought I'd mention it. Thanks again for the great video!
The 100400GM is sharper...and contrary to what some say the 100400GM with 1.4tc sharpness remains on par with 200600G without tc. That's still fantastic. Granted I only use a tc on 100400GM to further increase magnification at MFD. I never use it for reach...i reserve the 200600G for ultimate reach in APSC mode on A7RIV.
Nailed it
@@StefanMalloch thanks. Just reporting from my experience with both lense...as I've owned both for well over 6 months now. Take care
Hello , Between a Sony 200 - 600 mm lens And a Sony 100-400 F 4.5 - 5.6 with a multiplier of 1.4 to use on a Sony A7 IV which of the two solutions is better for sports photos at night with very good lighting?
The 100-400 will be faster but both might be tricky at night
I really enjoyed your review of these two lenses. I have an Alpha-6500 and am curious if the 100-400 is "too much" lens for this camera. I am leaning more towards this lens, with the idea of being able to photograph birds and find the size much more user friendly! Thanks for any help you can offer.
It will be great on that camera and will be a 150-600mm equivalent!
@@StefanMalloch Thanks!
How is it on the A7iii?
Thanks, as usual, an amazing review
Thanks Rishi!
Which of these lenses has the best bokeh?
100-400 gm
Stefan Malloch Thanks for the reply! But the 200-600 has 11 aperture blades as compare to 9 in 100-400. Could you please share us some insights as to why you think 100-400 has best bokeh.
Hi Stefan! I did find this video helpful. I bought the Sony A7RIV for its endless cropping possibilities, great dynamic range and adequate AF. Together with this body, I bought the 200-600 G lens, as I mainly (99%) shoot wildlife: lots lots of birds, mammals, reptiles, whatever it moves that is not a human with no human objects in the images, always in their habitat haha I had no issues with this combo, but then I started wondering whether the 100-400 GM lens would have been a better option in terms of sharpness, maybe lower shutter speesds and ISO values and versatility. What do you recommend? Should I make the move or stick to my first choice? Is the quality in the images of a GM lens THAT different from this G lens? Thanks in advance! Happy shooting!
Thanks!
Both great options, great lenses, great video
Thanks! 👍
Great video!!
Thanks!
I think I’d prefer the 200-600 cause of the internal zooming. It’d freak me out paying so much for the 100-400 and having it breath every time I zoom in or out.
Nice work mate 👍
Thank you! Cheers!
You help what to buy😊
great review !
Hi, is that a third eyebrow that you have on right side of the temple?
I don't know what that means.
Go with Sony Red - always
"Vlogging"???? ... would love to see what that looks like on a selfie stick!!! Haha
Both
i hope Sony turned 100-400 into a f4 lens
Me too but no one could afford it..
200.i have sigma 150 600 I like the other one if I get it were it dont spin out words
min distance sucks on both lenses; best option is the canon 100-400mm ii w/ ef-sony adapter. and $500 cheaper then sony ops.
Accredited nature photograoher lol
❤❤
100-400 hands down
I like the 200-600mm because it's bigger and girthier, and that's going to impress women more
Neither of them should I buy
remember, always go with newer tech