I'm a photographer who never did any bird photography or animals, I simply don't have the money to spend on such big lenses: I absolutely love watching your videos. I don't think I'll ever get into bird photography but it's such a joy to watch your passion and you seem like such a nice guy. Really fantastic channel and fantastic pictures. I wish there were more youtubers like this and less of the "I'm so cool and witty and let me manipulate you to buy these garbage products" kind of youtubers. Just honest people showing what they are passionate about. Bravo.
Hey Everyone, hope you enjoyed the video, there’s a couple things I’d like to add/mention: 1. I’ve recently updated to Adobe Premiere 2020 and it took me 3 days of constantly trying to export this video to get a final version without glitches. So if you notice anything weird in the video, let me know! I’m working on getting a new laptop. So, bear with me for a bit haha. 2. One thing I forgot to mention: I think the 100-400 is more consistent at getting critically sharp results. For general uses (social media, small prints) it’s not a huge difference, but if you’re someone who likes to pixel peep and create very large prints, I think the quality and critical sharpness of the 100-400 is what you’ll be after.
OMG premiere 2020 has been such a mess. It's so buggy. The update they just released like a week ago fixes alot of the essential graphics and export errors but it's still a bloated program. I feel like they rebuilt alot of stuff from the ground up but they neglected efficiency of the software. Unlike super streamlined resolve...
@Bryce Thoman Hey! I wouldn't say the 100-400 is significantly sharper. When I look through my Ecuador photos, I can't tell which lens I used unless I look at the metadata (or remember using a specific lens for that shot). You can get critically sharp results with both lenses. Like I mentioned in the above comment, I do believe you will get consistently better results with the 100-400. I only tested the lens for 3 weeks, and mostly in overcast conditions. But if I used both lenses equally for say, a few months in different conditions, I do think I'd have more keepers with the 100-400. I'd check the metadata of the photos taken with your 200-500. If the bulk of your images are taken at 500mm, and then you're cropping in post, you may want to lean towards the 200-600. Since I do a lot of songbird photography, the problem is usually I'm not close enough, which is why I went with the 200-600. But if I was doing a lot of larger shorebirds/raptors, especially in flight, I would have likely went with the 100-400. I seriously don't think you can go wrong with either lens, unless you get a bad copy of one, of course. Let me know if you have any other questions!
@Bryce Thoman Hey Bryce! Sorry I didn't answer your last comment. TH-cam doesn't always notify me when there's a reply on a comment thread 🤦♂️ I wouldn't say the majority of my images are critically sharp. However, I think my situation is a little different. I do a lot of jungle/forest birding, where my shutter speed is often 1/30th - 1/250th. Most people recommend your shutter speed be double your focal range to be safe. So I'd have to be at 1/1000th, at least. The reason I'm so low is the f/6.3 aperture and the fact I don't want to push my ISO too high on the A7RIV. But when I'm out in a field/wetland/forest edge where I can use normal shutter speeds, even say 1/500th, my critically sharp images significantly increase. From what I've seen from my images, I do give a slight edge to the 100-400 when you hit critical sharpness, but it's so very minimal. The reason I give the edge to the 100-400 is because when I hit critical sharpness, I was able to crop the image more % wise than critically sharp 200-600 images. There also seems to be more variance in the 200-600 from user to user. Some reporting issues, some are extremely pleased. To be honest if I had to choose one that fits my personal needs, I'd go with the 100-400. However, I'm also considering my future plans. Sometime in the distant future I'd love to invest in a 300 or 400 f/2.8 for larger birds/mammals/low light photography. Which is one of the reasons I chose the 200-600 because it covers a different focal length and will serve a different purpose. I actually just had a great few days doing BIF tests at a beach and wetland. I tested a bunch of different shutter speeds. Anything above 1/1000th handheld while using good technique was amazing. Pretty much all bang on, except for a few that were dropped because the AF would grab onto the wing for a few frames or user error (I was half submerged in the ocean for some of the sequences, so waves rocking me back and forth caused some issues haha). The decision between both telephoto lenses is tough. Even after testing them, it didn't really solve anything for me. Both are great, both have very strong pros with few minor cons. You don't notice a difference in sharpness between crop mode/full frame, since it's simply a crop of the full frame image. Not sure if I mentioned this to you, but I'd definitely go to your local camera store and try to rent them, even for a day or two. IMO, both lenses are so similar, you'll definitely benefit from trying both and see which matches your style/needs the best. To date, it's hands down the hardest decision I've had to make between 2 lenses.
@Bryce Thoman I've never had to do an "official" sensor cleaning (with the swabs and liquids). So far all I've had to do is rocket blow a few small pieces of dust here and there. But I know what you're talking about. Some people reported an abnormal amount of sensor dust. Haven't experienced that yet!
Most important difference so many forget to mention in reviews is the fact that the 100400GM has DUAL linear AF motors. The 200600G has a single motor to move all those elements. This is why the 100400GM is faster to focus on moving subjects, with more precision
Is there anywhere I can find this data? I'm planning to upgrade to from my kit telephoto lens, and the only sources for autofocus speed, accuracy are youtube reviews, which may be subjective.
@@sahilmeena8018I mean I own the 200-600 and the 35mm 1.4 gm (which has dual linear motors). The af in the 35 is slightly faster than the 200-600mm (which has much heavier glass). Basically what I’m saying is that it’s pretty hard to notice the difference between 1, 2 and 4 linear motors. I wouldn’t base your buying decision on the factor as it’s just to fluff up spec sheets (unless it’s the 85mm 1.4 gm which is actually slow at af). Even my 55mm 1.8 is insanely fast and it’s about 10 years old. The 200-600mm focuses very very fast.
Not necessarily. The weight that matters is the moving elements within the lens, and the wider aperture lens probably has heavier elements to move around.
Another advantage of the 200-600mm over the 100-400mm is that the barrel doesn't extend. The balance on my hand or the tripod doesn't change when zooming. Besides it's less likely to get dirt on the elements when the barrel is fixed.
200-600 for me is dead on sharp at either extreme. Tracking birds in flight is superb at 600mm. You’re right about macro use of 100-400. One other observation. You can put 200-600 on a gimbal since length doesn’t change. Also no internal dust problems.
Yeah that's what I've noticed too. It's definitely sharper in those middle zoom ranges (like pretty much all telephoto lenses) but definitely sharp at 600, as well. I really appreciated the internal zoom, especially after using the 100-400. So handy! I'm trying to find some areas around me to do BIF so I can better test it, can't wait 😁 Thanks for commenting!
Own both of these lenses. No dust problem with either. 100400GM is a bit sharper,lighter and focuses closer. The 200600G is great for smaller birds....larger birds or general Wildlife tye 100400 is superior...and has faster AF. The MFD is another reason to own 100400. End of day was a tough choice so I now own both :)
I watched this video earlier this year when I was trying to decide which of these 2 lenses to buy. I finally decided on the 200-600 with a 2x converter in order to shoot an annular eclipse that occurred here a few months ago. Recently, I've been re-watching reviews to learn a little more about the 200-600 and to get some ideas for other uses of the lens outside of nature/bird photography. I live in a very urban area and my only mode of transportation is a scooter. Anyway, you said you were in low light most of the time because you were in the jungle. The a7III, the camera I use, has a great reputation in low light. I find that my a7III when paired the 200-600 is great when I'm in the jungles/forests here in Taiwan, or when night shooting the people on the street below my apartment. I don't have the 100-400, but your comments have made me rethink my reasons for not considering it as part of my arsenal. I have always loved super-zoom "macro" photography. Back in my film days, I used a 70-300 with a 2x converter with my Minolta 7000i to do "macro" photography of insects, spiders and humming birds. I needed a lot of light, back then, because I always shot with either ISO 100 or 400 film. I appreciated your review of both lenses and why it could be possible to own both of them because of their unique shooting qualities, compared one to the other, that don't overlap. I have all the G zoom lenses from the 12-24 thru the 200-600 and have recently been saving up to replace them the their GM counterparts, well, maybe not the $3000 12-24 GM lens. I haven't been considering ever buying the 100-400 GM, until now. Thanks for your review.
12:15 - Tightness and quality. This raises a question on different options to consider, but we’d need all the pieces to test and find out for sure. As you mentioned, the 100-400GM has better quality/sharpness overall, but if you’re cropping in, the 200-600 will suit you better. What if you get the Sony 1.4x/2x teleconverter and slap that onto the GM lens? Light transmission aside, does the toll on sharpness drop it below the 200-600?
I love my 100-400mm. It is just so flexible. I also have a 1.4 teleconverter for if I really need to get closer (but of course it won't be as good as the 200-600 in low light and shallow DOF). I think if you are primarily a wildlife photographer though - the 200-600mm would be a better choice.
Yeah, not being close enough is certainly a more common issue in Wildlife Photography, than being too close. So I can see the 200-600 being overall more appealing to buyers. That and the fact they've made it very similar in performance/IQ to the 100-400!
I used the 200-600 for a college football game in the US. Rented it. Glad I did. It was too heavy for me. I shoot with the a9. I think I’ll give the 100-400 a shot. It is lighter and easier to hand hold, isn’t it?
Great review and thanks for posting. Loved your photographs. You certainly helped to cement my decision and I'm heading for the 100-400. The portability and the close range ability were the deciders for me. I often cart the camera along on my dog walks and take my chances with the wildlife but I like the sound of being able to capture the flora and occasional fungi. The 200-600 is just not portable enough for my typical situation.
I'm a Photographer and used both 200-600 and 100-400. Overall, there's a very sharp edge with 100-400 over 200-600 however some Photographers still prefer the 200-600 for a couple of reasons- 1. extra 200mm 2. internal zoom (not much rotate from 200 to 600 Both lenses are sharp. I've tried small and big birds and both lenses are outstanding in terms of clear sharp images.
After 2 weeks of researching and YouTubing among the Sigma 100-400mm, SONY 70-200mm GM, Sony 100-400mm GM, and the Sony 200-600mm G over and over again, I finally made a decision and ordered the 100-400 mm GM. Can't wait for the lens to come tomorrow.
Hoping to get the 100-400 for landscape. I have the a7iii and want to venture a little into wildlife since I'm relatively close to Yellowstone and had planned to go to Switzerland which has been postponed for a year. The compactness of the 100-400 appeals to me the most. In crop mode I can get up to 640mm plus I really like the short focus distance as I think I'll use it more. Thanks for the great explanation on the differences.
I'm glad you enjoyed! And that's awesome that you live near Yellowstone. Hopefully the parks reopen soon. Although I'm sure the wildlife is getting a nice break.
Love the video! I've compared the two back to back as well. My results were similar to yours. The 100-400 is definitely a little bit sharper. In conjunction with an A7R3, I actually liked images slightly better shooting with the 100-400 in crop mode at 400mm @5.6 than the 200-600 at 600mm @6.3 without crop mode. Add to that the smaller size and lighter weight and the 100-400 was the clear winner for me.
Thank you! And that seems like a good choice! Especially if you prefer the results of the 100-400. I would be curious to try both on their crop sensor cameras too!
If you put the tension of the zoom ring of the 100-400 to smooth, it would be as easy to zoom as the 200-600. I own them both and find the 100-400 more versatile (usually)
Your arguments regarding the 100-400 macro capabilities pushed me to finally pull the trigger to purchase the lens. Yes, I’m a generalist with subject matter. Thank you.
I'm coming from Micro Four Thirds, with an Olympus E-M1 Mark I and the Panasonic Leica 50-200mm f 2.8-4, and I am looking to replace them for a better AF capable camera for wildlife. From what I have seen I like the Sony 100-400mm f 4.5-5.6 because it's smaller size and lighter weight if I'm not taking the lens with me I'm not using it and the Sony 200-600mm doesn't even fit in my backpack, don't think I would take it with me on my work commute (which brings me every day close to wildlife at the edge of the town) and I am not doing any long, far or special trips for wildlife, only what I can walk to from where I live (for the foreseeable future). I love everything about wildlife, from big mammals to small birds to birds of prey, insects, rodents, etc. It will be hard to give up on Micro Four Thirds for the crazy good Sony AF and better ISO performance and DR of the Full Frame.
From what you've said, it does seem like the 100-400 is a better choice! I really enjoyed using micro four thirds (GH5) for video. In terms of photos though, you'll definitely see a jump in quality and performance. Let me know how it goes 🙂
I've been looking to buying the 100-400GM for a while, but one day there was suddenly a great offer for the 90mm macro, and I went ahead with it. Then Sony came up with the 200-600G, and now I think that having the 90mm in my collection is an extra argument in favour of the latter. I can imagine that if I get the 100-400GM, then my macro lens will see much less use, as I'll always be tempted to leave it at home and take only 100-400GM with me. Even having both of them in the bag, I'll be too lazy to swap sometimes. 200-600G, on the other hand, will make very distinctive use cases for both. The only issue, is that I've always believed in compact setups, and compactness was what made me buy the first Sony mirrorless as it came out. 200-600G seems to require quite some dedication, you won't take it with you "just in case". This also means, that you might miss some unexpected photo opportunities...
Yeah that makes a lot of sense! With the 200-600/90mm, I tend to do specific macro days and wildlife days. Especially since I use an external flash and wireless trigger for my macro work. By not having both lenses with me, I do miss some opportunities, but I also like the idea of focusing on one subject matter. Sometimes when I try to photograph everything, I come out with nothing.
@@StefanoIaniro Thank you Stefano, I'm ordering the 200200-600G 🙂 I'm glad to have found this channel. Will be checking your wildlife photography tips now in a hope to be able to produce photos that are half as good as yours one day!
Another telephoto lens has been released for the Sony E-Mount: the *Sigma 100-400*. Checkout my first day with this lens here -> th-cam.com/video/lEc5kVlE_uc/w-d-xo.html
Great comparison video. For those who have cropped censor camera like A6400 or A6600, Sel70350mm (525mm on cropped censor) is also a good choice considering it is much much cheaper than both 100-400 or 200-600 and also ultra light (625g), you can carry it whole day on your hand without any issue.
You mentioned you use APS-C mode to gain focus on the bird's eye first and even pop back. How do you do that on a Sony A7 camera since the APS-C mode is only available in the menu not on a custom key. Could you give a little big of a guide?
I’ve been considering both lenses and have tried both (briefly). You absolutely nailed the difference between the two in regards to usability. The zoom ring on the 200-600mm is so buttery smooth and quick compared to the 100-400mm. But I was absolutely shocked at the sharpness of the 100-400mm. I didn’t think a lens that isn’t internal zoom would be so sharp. I think for size, weight, sharpness and macro ability, I’m leaning toward the 100-400mm even though I enjoyed the handling of the 200-600mm considerably more. Thanks for such a good video!
Thank you! This was definitely the hardest decision to choose between both lenses. So many benefits to both, but I agree the slight edge goes to the 100-400 for majority of shooters
Thank you so much! The profile I use is Cine4. But it would only be visible in the videos and JPEGs, since they don't really alter the RAW images. I didn't change any other setting within that profile.
If you can handle the weight, then getting the 70-200 f/4 macro + 200-600 is a killer combo. PS. Your honesty is something pretty refreshing on TH-cam, which has become a bit of a sewer of biased (and paid) opinions
I like using the 200-600 with the 1.4x TC. Most of the time I have them together. Of course, I'm usually shooting in good light. I finally broke down and got the Sony 2x TC. Yes, it needs more light, but generally, that's not a problem for me. It will focus slower with less light...again, not a problem. In testing, not much difference between using the 1.4x and cropping vs the 2x when the subject is within 50'. It's at longer distances that the 2x TC beats the 1.4x with cropping. Comparing the 1.4x to the bare lens with cropping....the 1.4x wins. Another issue is focus breathing. Unfortunately, the 200-600mm has a serious issue with focus breathing at close distances. Apparently, internal focusing often results in focus breathing where the 600mm is maybe closer to 450mm at close range...or even less. So...compare that to the 100-400. Not internal focusing. I'll do comparisons when I get my new 100-400mm, but it may well be that there is very little difference in the size of the object at close range between these two lenses. The 100-400 is an honest 400mm at 8', but the 200-600 is more like the low 400's at 8'. And, of course, the 100-400 will focus much closer than the 200-600. Now, with the TC or extension tubes, you once again get 600mm at 8' out of the 200-600, but you've just give up a stop of light...and it was already slower than the 100-400mm which is 5.6 at 400mm. Obviously, if you're always shooting at greater distances, you won't care about focus breathing of the 200-600, but I'm often shooting butterfly's at close range. Shot a morning cloak butterfly today. Bright sunshine, so used the 2x TC on the 200-600. The shots came out fine.
If you only had the budget for 1 lens (this year) to do animal portraits (parrots that are inside) and start experimenting with wildlife in general, would you invest in the Sony 70-200 GM or get the 100-400 GM? I'm using the a7 III and having a hard time deciding between the two. I rented the 70-200 to try and loved it. I'm also interested in the 90mm macro from Sony so the fact that focusing is so close with the 100-400 is really leaning me towards that lens. I'm in Canada too.
Like you said at the end, I would lean toward the 100-400, as well. If you were only doing indoor work I would have leaned towards the 70-200. But it seems you'll want more of an all around lens, which is where the 100-400 shines. Especially since it can tide you over as macro lens, and down the road you can decide if you want a 90mm lens for your kit. Not sure how comfortable the parrots are with being photographed, but being able to use the 100-400 as a macro lens means you don't have to get as close to them as you would with a 90mm, which is certainly beneficial for more timid subjects.
I love your honest comparison and pros and cons of each lens. I love my 100-400 but want to get more reach, as I am always having to crop so much for songbirds. I have A73...if I upgraded my camera to an R version, which is best for birds? Then I could use the crop feature. I am in nova Scotia so low light is often an issue.
Thank you so much, very glad you enjoyed! I actually lived in Nova Scotia for a couple months this summer, it was a lot of fun! I still think for smaller songbirds I would lean towards the 200-600. With that being said it also depends on your style. If I was mostly doing backyard birds and work from a hide, I would likely lean towards the 100-400, especially if you already own it. But for general walk around photography, I prefer the 200-600
So helpful! As I look to my first 14day Safari across Africa, I’m on the fence when it comes to the right lens for game drives (wildlife). I’m really looking to get shots of eyelashes on the wildlife. Thoughts? Just picked up the 100-400, then saw this (is a teleconverter a viable option?) Thanks!
I wouldn't use a tele on these zooms, but that's just a personal preference. I know people who use them and enjoy them. I would suggest renting one first to actually try it out beforehand (unless you already own one). I've only been on a couple of safaris back in the day before I was really into photography. At the time I had a 300mm and was able to get decently close to a lot of the wildlife. But every safari is different, so kinda difficult for me to say. I'd be more than happy bringing the 100-400. I think having the close minimum focus distance could be an added benefit. Since sometimes you can't really move too much when you're in the vehicle. From what I remember, there were a few instances where we had wildlife walk right up to the truck!
A very good and fair review. I do want to add another option regarding the reviewers love for the 100-400 as a dual purpose, macro lens . I own both Canon and Sony gear. My cleanest lens I have in my Canon gear is my 100mm macro (clarity and color). I noticed some really high rated e mount macro lens in the $450 to $600 range. For me, even if preferring the 100-400, I would be inclined to have the 200-600mm, then carry a second camera, let's say like my A6300 and put a macro on it. Knowing the excellence of my Canon 100mm macro, I highly don't the 100-400 lens can compete with a prime 80, 90, or 100mm macro, especially with close up photos of insect eyes etc. I am a surf photographer, the 200-600mm suits my needs better so no brainer for my needs but do understand not everyone has my same needs or other gear.
Great video. Your channel has made me want to travel to Ecuador. I currently have an A7Riii and looking to get a second body. Trying to decide whether to get an A9ii or A7R iv. Also want either a 200-600 or 100 -400. What two lenses would you take if you were going to Ecuador again? Also any opinions on the A9 against the A7R iv. Did you crop much? Thanks
Thank you! Ecuador is incredible, you'll love it. If I was going back, I'd take my 200-600 and the 90mm macro. I do have 2 bodies so it's easy to keep the macro lens on one and the telephoto on the other. I haven't used the a9 a whole lot. I photograph a lot of smaller songbirds, and on occasion do BIF/faster action photography. For that reason, the a7r4 makes more sense for me. I did use the crop mode quite a bit. I found it especially helpful for focusing in busier situations and for better composing my shot in the field. It's like having an aps-c camera and full frame camera built into one. Although I wouldn't recommend it for higher ISO work.
Excellent review. I have both lenses and I'm thinking about selling the 100-400 GM and keeping the 200-600 G. I also have a 70-200 f4 G lens which I love. There's just too much overlap to keep the 100-400.
Great video! Keep your reviews like this. Real world use, unbiased, pros and cons of both. Love it! No one cares about shooting brick walls and pixel peeping at 400%. The results are in the images... Real images! Those humming birds and the shutter speeds you were using tells a lot about image stabilization too! A++
Thank you so much! This is my first real review video so it's nice to hear that. I would love to get my hands on some gear from different companies to compare. Especially with all these new mirrorless cameras and lenses coming out, would be a lot of fun to see the differences. Thanks for watching 🙂
Excellent overview, thanks. Love your work too. I own the Sony 200-600mm G, and after watching this, I wonder if it isn't worth getting the 100-400mm too? I love shooting insects and flowers, as well as birds. That said, I use the 24-105mm G or the Sigma 14-24mm for those closer items at the moment. I have the A7iii and A7rii bodies so far. As an oldie, the weight of the 200-600mm is a factor, I get neck ache after a while holding it, and a monopod is useless, I find. Hence thinking about the lighter 100-400mm.
I have the 200-600mm with the A7RIV and everything you said is 100% accurate. The zoom ring is...AMAZING. I also have the Alpha 70-400mm with the latest adapter and it is just as sharp as the native E mount 100-400mm. Yes, the zoom ring does inhibit being able to pull out and back in without losing the subject. You have to 'work' the zoom ring as opposed to the 200-600mm. I use the 70-400mm just like you...for getting the small wildlife close by. I gain a bit more being able to crank it down to 70mm. The only drawback in using both...is carrying both...but it is worth it.
Great review. I’m really enjoying your channel. I just picked up the A7RIV. My next purchase is more than likely going to be the 200 to 400 to shoot in the marsh while kayaking.
Thank you so much! Hope you're enjoying the A7RIV. That'll be a fun lens to use in the kayak. Especially if you're targeting egrets and herons! A lot of cool shots to be had of them catching prey.
I enjoy your videos. I am a fuji xt3 100-400 shooter, and looking to move over to Sony for the 200-600. The fuji is a nice package, but I am looking for more reach with native lens. I am on the fence with the A7111, and A7R4. You have both so, what's your opinion for best body? I also love shooting birds, wildlife. The crop mode on R4 looks incredible. Although, I am concerned with file size.Thanks!
Thank you! I'm hoping Fuji releases some more wildlife lenses, I'd love to try out their cameras. For myself, the a7iii is a great choice if you do a lot of video, or do a mix of both photos/videos. And also if you shoot in a lot of low light scenarios. It noticeably outcompeted the A7RIV in low light. The A7RIV has amazing AF performance and image quality wrapped into 1 camera body... so long as you don't push your ISO too much. The biggest benefit in my opinion is with such high res photos, since I can crop more, it means I don't always have to get so close to my subject. I think if you're strictly talking about taking photos, the A7RIV is the better choice overall. If you're on the fence but not looking to buy right now, maybe wait until they announce the a7IV. That might be a better comparison to the a7RIV.
@@StefanoIaniro Thank you for the quick reply. I don't do video at all. I also wish Fuji would add additional lenses. The 100-400 is really the only option. It's an excellent lens. Take care...
Fantastic review! I currently have the a7r4 and 100-400 as well, but am thinking of getting the 200-600. My concerns are that 6.3 might be a little too dark for me, as I already have some problems with 5.6 on my 100-400. I'm working on songbirds in generally overcast or canopied areas and often have to resort to tripods at 400mm wide open so I can shoot at up to 1/15s. In your opinion would I benefit from the 200-600 under these conditions?
Thank you! If that's your usual shooting conditions, I would likely stick with the 100-400. Although you'd certainly benefit from the longer focal length for songbirds, I think if you're at f5.6, 1/15s already, with the 200-600 you'd pretty much have to bump your ISO up quite high. And although I don't mind using higher ISOs every so often on the a7r4, I wouldn't want to make it a regular occurence. Since it's not the best at handling noise. Hope that helps!
Hi, Great video on the 100-400and 200-600. I've got an A7iii and plan to buy the 100-400 in the near future. I have one questions. I'm a little surprised that you did not mention using clear image zoom to get more reach from the 100-400. I've used it on the 70-300 and didn't think it degraded image quality but I'd like your opinion. Would that be a useful option on the 100-400? Thank you.
Thank you! And I didn't mention it because (unless there's a new firmware changing this) - clear image zoom only works for JPEGs. I shoot RAW, so for myself it really isn't an option. I do however love the feature and use it quite a bit when it comes to filming wildlife in 4K.
REALLY HELPFUL! I'm looking for my first zoom/superzoom for my A7iii and you covered a number of comparisons between these two that I've not seen elsewhere. Thanks!
Just got the A7RIV and immediately want to shoot my son’s HS soccer games usually at night under lights. Later I want to get into wildlife including BiF so really considered the 200-600, but a camera store employee told me the low light performance of the R IV combined with smaller iris of the bigger lens may not work for me. He suggested the 2.8 70-200 for this reason. What do you think would work for low light sports AND wildlife out of these 3 lenses with the R IVa?
My husband surfs, so I love getting shots of him. Which lens would you prefer? I’m assuming the 100-400 would be best for portability and he’s not that far away when he’s surfing. My current lens is the tamron 70-180 and I’m always pushing 180. Thank you for any input!
Excellent images Stefano. Thanks for sharing your interesting ideas on flexibility of composing and shooting creativity. Your shots on the old Sigma are stellar too, so at the end of the day, I think any tool will work in the hands of a magician!
En primer lugar Stefano, darte la enhorabuena por los tres reportajes. La calidad de las imágenes son increíbles y los resultados con las dos ópticas insuperables. Hace poco que estoy trabajando con la sony A9 y el 200-600 G y me parecen un tanden formidable y con calidad óptica fabulosa. Las primeras pruebas fueron con los inquietos correlimos oscuros y la verdad que la velocidad de la A9 para estos casos es formidable. Me gusta el equipo y creo que voy a disfrutar bastante con el.
That's amazing to hear! The a9 is definitely appealing to pair up with the 200-600, especially for birds in flight. Hope it treats you well and you get some great shots 😀
I had a 100-400, but returned because the images were not as sharp as my 200-600 - but seeing other people’s comments, I think I must have had a poor example. Maybe I will try another one?
I have just got my hands on another 100-400 and my assumption was correct. This lens is even sharper than the 200-600, so I had a poor lens before. Never knew before, that lenses of one model can vary so much.
Good review and comparison, I own the 100-400GM and I do shoot at 400 90% of the time and have to crop so that’s why I have been interested in the 200-600 or a 1.4 x teleconverter but then I’m at f8 560mm instead of 6.3 at 600
Thank you so much! Yeah that's my reasoning too for not using teleconvertors with these zoom lenses. Definitely try out the 200-600 if you have the chance! Would love to hear your thoughts on the two.
I am curious about your use, or non-use, of a tripod. My 200-600mm lens on the A9II with the battery grip is pretty heavy to be handholding for extended periods. I come from a Canon 80D (crop sensor) with the Canon 100-400mm, which is overall considerably lighter than my new Sony rig. Just wondering if you use a tripod or monopod, say, with a gimbel head to both stabilize your shooting at low shutter speeds and also to relieve you of the shakes after shooting for long periods. Maybe the disadvantages of lugging an extra piece of gear and reduced reaction time discourages its use?
Hey, I use a tripod a lot nowadays, but mostly because I'm filming videos for TH-cam and I like to take a mix of stills/video of wildlife. My preferred style is still handheld with a Peak Design shoulder strap. That way I can rest my arms while I hike. I have been able to make sharp images at 1/50th handheld, but certainly not consistently enough to fully ditch a tripod on days/situations with minimal light.
Great video! I know exactly what you mean that the 100-400 makes you look around. I’ve had the 100-400 for a few months and I never really realized that it is a decent near-macro. I found myself on an autumn hike covering every range from tiny insects to tight compositions on the trees. You nailed it. I can see birders wanting the 600, and that’s cool. But I like that the 100-400 packs smaller. Total agreement!
I have the 200-600mm and mine is very sharp at 600mm. If yours is soft at 600mm, it could be due to sample variation and/or user error. Just to be clear, I also have a 600mm f4 lens and I have been photographing birds for over 20years. The biggest handicap for me with this lens is the f-stop. In low light situations, I wished it was an f4 lens :-)
I agree! Mine is definitely sharp at 600, as well. I also agree with the f-stop, especially for jungle/forest birds. It's manageable but an f/4 or f/2.8 would be great
Really good breakdown between the two lenses. I purchased the 100-400 earlier this year after weighing it against pre-ordering the 200-600, and I'm glad I did. I'm still only shooting with the RII, but it performs nicely with it. The external zoom really doesn't matter to me at all, and makes it easier to fit in my bag. I'm also a landscape photographer first and wildlife photographer second (or third) so I find the 100-400 was more versatile for what I shoot, such as compressed telephoto landscapes. I got to try out the 200-600 over Thanksgiving (my uncle owns it with the RIV) because I wanted to be sure, and after trying it out, I'm still happy with the 100-400. The question for me is whether or not it's worth it to get the 1.4 or shoot in crop mode when I do need the extra reach.
Thank you! I definitely agree, if wildlife isn't your main target, you certainly benefit from having the 100-400 instead. Personally I've never been a huge fan of TCs on zoom lenses. I tried them out back when I was shooting Canon. Never got into it. For prime lenses however, the 1.4TC is definitely more appealing.
Thanks, yours has been the best of tens of videos I've seen on this comparison. You answered so many questions I had about whether to sell my 100-400 and go for the 200-600.
Don't sell your 100400GM. Two different lenses... the MFD of the 100400GM alone makes it worth having for general purpose nature closeups and wildlife. My 200600 is my smaller birding lense. By owning both I have a lot of flexibility and do not need a dedicated macro. Lastly, the 100400GM has Slightly faster AF on R4 at this time, and you do get a 600mm equivalent in APSC mode. For many thats plenty of reach .
@@njrtech It's already sold, I couldn't afford both it and the 200-600. I totally get what you're saying though, the 100-400 is a fantastic lens, but I hated the extending barrel zoom, and found it too "sticky" for quick adjustments. I do miss that MFD though, and it's smaller size / portability...
Hey 2 years later do you feel the same way. I have the 200-600 put it is so heavy at least for me. So what I use now is the 70-200 gm 2 with the converters 1.4 and 2x and the a9ii. This makes a400 5.6. Very light and very sharp. What do you think? Thanks ric
Beautiful shots and great video. Would you mind sharing the focus area and focus modes you use, along with any focus tips? I just bought the A7III and am working to learn everything about it. Also curious how you push all the way in to get a focus and then re frame your shot without the camera auto focusing again when you push the shutter button. Really appreciate your guidance. Thank you.
Thanks a lot! My 'walk-around' focus area is usually set to Zone. It works great for a variety of situations. I've stopped using Wide, as I generally don't frame my subjects in the outermost area of the frame. Wide also allows for a larger margin of error, since the AF might jump to leaves or branches towards the outside of the frame. If my subject is in dense brush or foliage and I think Zone AF will have trouble acquiring focus, I'll switch to Flexible Spot Small. The easiest way to think about it is: The trickier the AF situation, the smaller your AF point should be. The way I'm able to reframe my shot without the AF re-engaging is by shooting back button focus. I have focus coupled to my AF-ON button, and I've set my shutter button to only take photos. Once I acquire focus, I'll release the AF-ON button, and so long as my subject and/or I don't move forwards/backwards, I can keep shooting, zoom in and out, use S35 crop mode, and I know it'll be in focus. It's one of the benefits of back button focus. Hope this helped!
I use the Lowepro BP AW II 450 camera backpack. It's pretty comfortable and the exterior is more firm than a regular backpack. There's removable velcro dividers so you can make sure everything is snug in there and doesn't move around too much. I haven't tried a ton of camera bags but I've been really happy with this one. It also fits in the overhead compartment of every plane I've been on!
@@JKPhotoNZ Yes, I checked the 350, but ultimately decided on the 450 since I usually carry around extra gear for filmmaking. The 350 would be great as a day pack, but when needing to carry all my gear on a flight or to a shoot, it would definitely be too small for what I need.
I haven't been on the west side, I only went to Mindo. But when I was researching, there is a decent amount of different species that like to hang out on the Western slope. Next time I go to Ecuador I'll definitely do both slopes to see more species.
@@ivan11cast You're going to love it! If you have a field guide, you can skim through the range maps for the species. There's quite a few that are only found on the east or only found on the western slopes. Or you can use ebird to scout different hotspots/areas 🙂
Good, informative video. I sold my 100 - 400mm and purchased a 200 - 600mm, then Sony announced the A7R4. So, I will be purchasing a secondhand 100 - 400mm to compliment my 90mm for my "dedicated" macro days. It will be a better option than the 200 - 600mm for butterflies and dragonflies which are too far away for my 90mm macro lens. I do prefer the 200 - 600mm for wildlife in general, though.
Yes, especially for birds I felt more comfortable with the 200-600. I'm definitely looking into doing more dedicated macro days so I think the 200-600 with the 90mm should be a good all around combo 🙂
@@StefanoIaniro. I do use auto extension tubes with my 200 - 600mm in order to reduce the minimum focusing distance to about 2m. Here's the problem, though. If you suddenly see a bird in flight that you simply must capture, you are prevented from doing so by the extension tubes. The 100 - 400mm, however, will allow you to take the shot.
Exactly! Like I mentioned, you won't miss a shot with the 100-400. You can photograph everything and anything. How do you find the 200-600 with extension tubes?
@@StefanoIaniro. They work brilliantly well. I actually own two sets, one attached to my 90mm lens and the other set on my 200 - 600mm during my dedicated macro days. As you well know, though, as a wildlife photographer it is very difficult to ignore everything else, even when you are determined to do so. Hence my reason for purchasing a 100 - 400mm.
That's one of the biggest reasons I'm missing having the 100-400! I'll look into extensions tubes for macro in the future. I had some in the past for my DSLRs but haven't gotten around to buying any for my Sony cameras.
I am doing a trip to Ecuador next year for birding, I have both the 100-400 and 200-600 with the A7R4. I am not sure that taking both lens is the best idea as bag space might be at an issue, so if you had to do your trip over again and only bring one of those lens which would it be?
If I did this trip exactly the same I would take the 200-600. However, this wasn't really a conventional trip for me. Since I was filming content and testing lenses, I didn't do as many long hikes and backpacking like I normally do. I do plan to return to Ecuador and tour around a bunch of different habitats in the future. When I do that, I will likely lean towards the 100-400, since it's smaller and can double as a "macro" lens. I think it really depends the type of trip you're on and what you intend to photograph. Do you have some of that planned already?
@@StefanoIaniro It is a guided tour trip specifically for birding. Leaning toward the 200-600 because there will not be many days of long hikes and I believe having too much reach is better than not enough. My feeling is that I just don't know how often I would be at the longer range of the 200-600. Thanks
@@StefanoIaniro it comes in on the 19th and ill have it until the 30th. Luckily my office is closed during that time so i can take full advantage of it. Pretty much the only thing i have to go against it is my ancient Canon 80-200 L that i adapt to my a7iii.
@@RamusJamus Perfect timing! Haha. Not sure which adapter you're using, but I'm pretty sure you'll see a noticeable increase in autofocus speed with the 200-600🤓
@@StefanoIaniro I use the MC11, my copy is decent but i notice from time to time i have to remove the adapter from my camera and reattach it to start working because the AF starts to fail mid way through a shoot. I've been looking into long telephoto zooms all year like the sigma 100-400 or 150-600 but because of that issue i mentioned im so glad i waited until the 200-600 come out!
@@RamusJamus Yeah that has happened to me in the past while using the MC-11 and 150-600. Since ditching the adapter I've had fewer headaches lol. Definitely let me know what you think after testing the 200-600!
Just found your channel, I have seen many lens reviews for many lenses this past year and none are as passionate as you nor have a real point of point, like usability and how it feels, you went beyond by just the simple specs, great video ! For me it's tough to pick a telephoto because I want to photograph a lot of different scenes, besides birds I also want to get into dog photography a sport called dog agility, really tough to photograph because they go fast through obstacles and most competitions are undercover or indoors making it harder to have a clean image for action.
Lovely, lovely images, you have a very nice aesthetic style. thanks for sharing! I have both these lenses and totally agree - the 200600 makes me look out and wide, the 100400 makes me look close around. It's a fun combo!
Great review. I have both the lenses and use them on an A7RIV, and your review is right-on. I like and use them both. One point, for me, is that I’m good taking handheld pictures with the 200-600 for about 2 1/2 hours after which my wrist is extremely sore, and my armies get tired and shaky. I’m pushing 70, so the weight is an issue for me. How do you “punch-in, get focus points, then punch-out to frame the shot?” You obviously use OSS At those shutter speed. Which mode do you use for small birds?
For me the 100-400 is my all a round go to.Light weight/versatile and sharper than the 12K GM telephoto.Would highly. Recommend it.My other favorite is the 24mm GM (wow)Just my preferences.
I would love to know how you pack up a camera bag for carry on for flights. Looking at going to Alaska for bears in August, and I’d like to appropriately pack bags.
@@StefanoIaniro Thanks for the reply. I shoot a lot of macro and use a dual flash ring light. I assume your flash set up would be different when shooting close-ups with the 100-400?
Sorry for the late reply, I never got a notification for this! I use the same lighting setup for the 100-400 "macro" shots as I do for my regular macro shots with the 90mm. One off-camera flash with a diffuser that is wirelessly triggered. For my shooting style, I find it really beneficial to be able to move the light source in any direction. I can spend a minute or two with a subject and get 4 or 5 different lighting angles/styles.
@@StefanoIaniro No worries at all. Glad that you replied! Right because I always have my flash attached to my hot shoe when I shoot macro with me 90mm. I have been using the 100-400 lately and have not thought about using an off-camera flash. That said, I will probably need to get a transmitter. Do you usually locate a subject then slowly creep up or around it and place the off-camera flash near it, or do you just hand-hold the off-camera flash with one hand and the 100-400 on the other?
Great vid man. I've wanted the 100-400 for a few years now and this video really helped to solidify that choice. I like the internal zoom of the longer lens but I would prefer being able to dabble in the world of macro, also if I'm being totally honest the extreme long end of the scale is cool but not really what I do on a regular basis. I currently have a 24-70 gm and I think this will be a great addition. Cheers
For portraits and event photography, I would love to skip the 70-200gm and get the 100-400gm instead. So I can do macro as well as wildlife if I want to. Would that be a good choice? What do you think? And thanks for making the video.
100-400 with the macro uses and being able to use a 1.4 teleconverter to still get sharp images, good focus and 560mm, I think the 100-400 wins, but I have never used either, just been researching and just bought the 100-400 which should be here next week. Great video btw, good comparison.
Hola Stefano. Me gustaría preguntarte por que modelo de cámara Sony utilizas con el 200-600 mm, soy usuario de Nikon (d500) y el tamron 150-600 g11 y estoy pensando cambiar a Sony por el objetivo 200-600 que me parece una opción muy buena para fotografía de naturaleza. Gracias y un saludo.
Thanks for the video. I bought he 100-400 GM in Dec 2017 and I have loved it. I have started transitioning into doing more bird and wildlife (I primarily am a portrait photographer). I am waiting on my 1.4TC and hoping it will bring my GM closer in for the birds. I appreciate your positive take on both. I have watched a ton of 200-600 vids and most were done when it came out and with GAS and Latest Shiney, the videos kind of trash the GM. I love doing flowers as well so at this point I think I am going to keep the GM and maybe when I open back up my studio I can swing the 200-600. Thanks man.
So glad you enjoyed, thank you! It really is such a tough decision between the two. Although I decided to stick with the 200-600, I sometimes find myself in situations where having the 100-400 would have been beneficial. Just last week I found a bunch of Garter Snakes while birding and would have loved to have the minimum focusing distance of the 100-400... especially since I left my macro lens at home haha. Hope you get some good results with the 1.4TC when it gets in!
Not sure how close they'll be. But if they vary from close up to really far out, I would likely choose the 200-600. Just so I'd have both ranges covered. Also, using the crop mode plus clear image zoom for video can get you a lot tighter.
Try the 70-300 as your second, it is close focus, cheaper, and lighter. I go with the 70-300 on my a7 and the 200-600 on my a6500. Gives me everything from 70 to 900 with close focus.
I know the video is about the lenses but how did you find the A7RIV as a camera for bird shots, including birds in flight? Other reviews have suggested viewfinder lag was a problem. On paper, this and the 200-600 would be a great setup for me, I currently use a M43 setup giving me 800mm equivalent and yet I still need to crop - therefore the sensor on the A7RIV would give me more to work with if it could keep up? This would be my absolute maximum speed, I know the A1 would be better still but that’s out of the question. Anyway, great video, thanks.
Hey man, great video, quick question. Do you know at what focal length the 100-400 switches from f/4.5 to 5.6? Also I’m more of a sports videographer that also photographs. So deciding between these two have been difficult. Right now I have a 18-200 and I definitely know I need some more distance, I’m just not sure how far and at the difference in aperture
I'm a photographer who never did any bird photography or animals, I simply don't have the money to spend on such big lenses: I absolutely love watching your videos. I don't think I'll ever get into bird photography but it's such a joy to watch your passion and you seem like such a nice guy. Really fantastic channel and fantastic pictures. I wish there were more youtubers like this and less of the "I'm so cool and witty and let me manipulate you to buy these garbage products" kind of youtubers. Just honest people showing what they are passionate about. Bravo.
That means so much! Thank you!
See if you can use a 1.4x or 2x teleconverter with some of the limited Sony lenses
@Manny F What for? They would just degrade IQ. If you can't get your shot at 600mm, 1200mm is not going to make it any better.
Hey Everyone, hope you enjoyed the video, there’s a couple things I’d like to add/mention:
1. I’ve recently updated to Adobe Premiere 2020 and it took me 3 days of constantly trying to export this video to get a final version without glitches. So if you notice anything weird in the video, let me know! I’m working on getting a new laptop. So, bear with me for a bit haha.
2. One thing I forgot to mention: I think the 100-400 is more consistent at getting critically sharp results. For general uses (social media, small prints) it’s not a huge difference, but if you’re someone who likes to pixel peep and create very large prints, I think the quality and critical sharpness of the 100-400 is what you’ll be after.
I've been hearing 100-400 is better too.
OMG premiere 2020 has been such a mess. It's so buggy. The update they just released like a week ago fixes alot of the essential graphics and export errors but it's still a bloated program. I feel like they rebuilt alot of stuff from the ground up but they neglected efficiency of the software. Unlike super streamlined resolve...
@Bryce Thoman Hey! I wouldn't say the 100-400 is significantly sharper. When I look through my Ecuador photos, I can't tell which lens I used unless I look at the metadata (or remember using a specific lens for that shot). You can get critically sharp results with both lenses. Like I mentioned in the above comment, I do believe you will get consistently better results with the 100-400. I only tested the lens for 3 weeks, and mostly in overcast conditions. But if I used both lenses equally for say, a few months in different conditions, I do think I'd have more keepers with the 100-400. I'd check the metadata of the photos taken with your 200-500. If the bulk of your images are taken at 500mm, and then you're cropping in post, you may want to lean towards the 200-600. Since I do a lot of songbird photography, the problem is usually I'm not close enough, which is why I went with the 200-600. But if I was doing a lot of larger shorebirds/raptors, especially in flight, I would have likely went with the 100-400. I seriously don't think you can go wrong with either lens, unless you get a bad copy of one, of course. Let me know if you have any other questions!
@Bryce Thoman Hey Bryce! Sorry I didn't answer your last comment. TH-cam doesn't always notify me when there's a reply on a comment thread 🤦♂️ I wouldn't say the majority of my images are critically sharp. However, I think my situation is a little different. I do a lot of jungle/forest birding, where my shutter speed is often 1/30th - 1/250th. Most people recommend your shutter speed be double your focal range to be safe. So I'd have to be at 1/1000th, at least. The reason I'm so low is the f/6.3 aperture and the fact I don't want to push my ISO too high on the A7RIV. But when I'm out in a field/wetland/forest edge where I can use normal shutter speeds, even say 1/500th, my critically sharp images significantly increase. From what I've seen from my images, I do give a slight edge to the 100-400 when you hit critical sharpness, but it's so very minimal. The reason I give the edge to the 100-400 is because when I hit critical sharpness, I was able to crop the image more % wise than critically sharp 200-600 images. There also seems to be more variance in the 200-600 from user to user. Some reporting issues, some are extremely pleased. To be honest if I had to choose one that fits my personal needs, I'd go with the 100-400. However, I'm also considering my future plans. Sometime in the distant future I'd love to invest in a 300 or 400 f/2.8 for larger birds/mammals/low light photography. Which is one of the reasons I chose the 200-600 because it covers a different focal length and will serve a different purpose. I actually just had a great few days doing BIF tests at a beach and wetland. I tested a bunch of different shutter speeds. Anything above 1/1000th handheld while using good technique was amazing. Pretty much all bang on, except for a few that were dropped because the AF would grab onto the wing for a few frames or user error (I was half submerged in the ocean for some of the sequences, so waves rocking me back and forth caused some issues haha). The decision between both telephoto lenses is tough. Even after testing them, it didn't really solve anything for me. Both are great, both have very strong pros with few minor cons. You don't notice a difference in sharpness between crop mode/full frame, since it's simply a crop of the full frame image. Not sure if I mentioned this to you, but I'd definitely go to your local camera store and try to rent them, even for a day or two. IMO, both lenses are so similar, you'll definitely benefit from trying both and see which matches your style/needs the best. To date, it's hands down the hardest decision I've had to make between 2 lenses.
@Bryce Thoman I've never had to do an "official" sensor cleaning (with the swabs and liquids). So far all I've had to do is rocket blow a few small pieces of dust here and there. But I know what you're talking about. Some people reported an abnormal amount of sensor dust. Haven't experienced that yet!
Most important difference so many forget to mention in reviews is the fact that the 100400GM has DUAL linear AF motors. The 200600G has a single motor to move all those elements. This is why the 100400GM is faster to focus on moving subjects, with more precision
Is there anywhere I can find this data? I'm planning to upgrade to from my kit telephoto lens, and the only sources for autofocus speed, accuracy are youtube reviews, which may be subjective.
@@sahilmeena8018I mean I own the 200-600 and the 35mm 1.4 gm (which has dual linear motors). The af in the 35 is slightly faster than the 200-600mm (which has much heavier glass). Basically what I’m saying is that it’s pretty hard to notice the difference between 1, 2 and 4 linear motors. I wouldn’t base your buying decision on the factor as it’s just to fluff up spec sheets (unless it’s the 85mm 1.4 gm which is actually slow at af). Even my 55mm 1.8 is insanely fast and it’s about 10 years old. The 200-600mm focuses very very fast.
Not necessarily. The weight that matters is the moving elements within the lens, and the wider aperture lens probably has heavier elements to move around.
Another advantage of the 200-600mm over the 100-400mm is that the barrel doesn't extend. The balance on my hand or the tripod doesn't change when zooming. Besides it's less likely to get dirt on the elements when the barrel is fixed.
What an honest , revelant and informed evaluation . Great voice , pace and humour. Well done young Stefano.
200-600 for me is dead on sharp at either extreme. Tracking birds in flight is superb at 600mm.
You’re right about macro use of 100-400.
One other observation. You can put 200-600 on a gimbal since length doesn’t change. Also no internal dust problems.
Yeah that's what I've noticed too. It's definitely sharper in those middle zoom ranges (like pretty much all telephoto lenses) but definitely sharp at 600, as well. I really appreciated the internal zoom, especially after using the 100-400. So handy! I'm trying to find some areas around me to do BIF so I can better test it, can't wait 😁 Thanks for commenting!
Own both of these lenses. No dust problem with either. 100400GM is a bit sharper,lighter and focuses closer. The 200600G is great for smaller birds....larger birds or general Wildlife tye 100400 is superior...and has faster AF. The MFD is another reason to own 100400. End of day was a tough choice so I now own both :)
There's some wonderful pictures here, thank you for sharing them & your opinions.
Glad you enjoyed! Thank you 🙂
I watched this video earlier this year when I was trying to decide which of these 2 lenses to buy. I finally decided on the 200-600 with a 2x converter in order to shoot an annular eclipse that occurred here a few months ago. Recently, I've been re-watching reviews to learn a little more about the 200-600 and to get some ideas for other uses of the lens outside of nature/bird photography. I live in a very urban area and my only mode of transportation is a scooter. Anyway, you said you were in low light most of the time because you were in the jungle. The a7III, the camera I use, has a great reputation in low light. I find that my a7III when paired the 200-600 is great when I'm in the jungles/forests here in Taiwan, or when night shooting the people on the street below my apartment. I don't have the 100-400, but your comments have made me rethink my reasons for not considering it as part of my arsenal. I have always loved super-zoom "macro" photography. Back in my film days, I used a 70-300 with a 2x converter with my Minolta 7000i to do "macro" photography of insects, spiders and humming birds. I needed a lot of light, back then, because I always shot with either ISO 100 or 400 film. I appreciated your review of both lenses and why it could be possible to own both of them because of their unique shooting qualities, compared one to the other, that don't overlap. I have all the G zoom lenses from the 12-24 thru the 200-600 and have recently been saving up to replace them the their GM counterparts, well, maybe not the $3000 12-24 GM lens. I haven't been considering ever buying the 100-400 GM, until now. Thanks for your review.
12:15 - Tightness and quality. This raises a question on different options to consider, but we’d need all the pieces to test and find out for sure.
As you mentioned, the 100-400GM has better quality/sharpness overall, but if you’re cropping in, the 200-600 will suit you better.
What if you get the Sony 1.4x/2x teleconverter and slap that onto the GM lens? Light transmission aside, does the toll on sharpness drop it below the 200-600?
So awesome to have you in my country man, i'm glad you enjoyed the trip and got to see our incredible wildlife!
I love my 100-400mm. It is just so flexible. I also have a 1.4 teleconverter for if I really need to get closer (but of course it won't be as good as the 200-600 in low light and shallow DOF). I think if you are primarily a wildlife photographer though - the 200-600mm would be a better choice.
Yeah, not being close enough is certainly a more common issue in Wildlife Photography, than being too close. So I can see the 200-600 being overall more appealing to buyers. That and the fact they've made it very similar in performance/IQ to the 100-400!
I used the 200-600 for a college football game in the US. Rented it. Glad I did. It was too heavy for me. I shoot with the a9. I think I’ll give the 100-400 a shot. It is lighter and easier to hand hold, isn’t it?
Great review and thanks for posting. Loved your photographs. You certainly helped to cement my decision and I'm heading for the 100-400. The portability and the close range ability were the deciders for me. I often cart the camera along on my dog walks and take my chances with the wildlife but I like the sound of being able to capture the flora and occasional fungi. The 200-600 is just not portable enough for my typical situation.
I'm a Photographer and used both 200-600 and 100-400. Overall, there's a very sharp edge with 100-400 over 200-600 however some Photographers still prefer the 200-600 for a couple of reasons-
1. extra 200mm
2. internal zoom (not much rotate from 200 to 600
Both lenses are sharp. I've tried small and big birds and both lenses are outstanding in terms of clear sharp images.
100-400 can be used in general purpose cases also like urban landscapes, etc. 200-600 has a very specific role.
After 2 weeks of researching and YouTubing among the Sigma 100-400mm, SONY 70-200mm GM, Sony 100-400mm GM, and the Sony 200-600mm G over and over again, I finally made a decision and ordered the 100-400 mm GM. Can't wait for the lens to come tomorrow.
Hoping to get the 100-400 for landscape. I have the a7iii and want to venture a little into wildlife since I'm relatively close to Yellowstone and had planned to go to Switzerland which has been postponed for a year. The compactness of the 100-400 appeals to me the most. In crop mode I can get up to 640mm plus I really like the short focus distance as I think I'll use it more. Thanks for the great explanation on the differences.
I'm glad you enjoyed! And that's awesome that you live near Yellowstone. Hopefully the parks reopen soon. Although I'm sure the wildlife is getting a nice break.
So agree with your point about the switch focus limiters, a third option would indeed be great!
Yeah I wonder why they didn't add it 🤔 Thanks for commenting 🙂
"we pay people in maple syrup"...priceless!
Love the video! I've compared the two back to back as well. My results were similar to yours. The 100-400 is definitely a little bit sharper. In conjunction with an A7R3, I actually liked images slightly better shooting with the 100-400 in crop mode at 400mm @5.6 than the 200-600 at 600mm @6.3 without crop mode. Add to that the smaller size and lighter weight and the 100-400 was the clear winner for me.
Thank you! And that seems like a good choice! Especially if you prefer the results of the 100-400. I would be curious to try both on their crop sensor cameras too!
What about 400 mm on the 200-600 in crop mode? whats the f number there? Would've been interesting to compare
@@pablo_costas The 200-600 is F6.3 from 300mm
@@pablo_costascrop mode doesn’t change f-stop: it simply crops / digitally ‘zooms’ in.
If you put the tension of the zoom ring of the 100-400 to smooth, it would be as easy to zoom as the 200-600. I own them both and find the 100-400 more versatile (usually)
Haha, up until 2:58 i thought "definetly the 200-600 for me". And THEN... :-)
Your enthusiasm is contagious.
Your arguments regarding the 100-400 macro capabilities pushed me to finally pull the trigger to purchase the lens. Yes, I’m a generalist with subject matter. Thank you.
I'm coming from Micro Four Thirds, with an Olympus E-M1 Mark I and the Panasonic Leica 50-200mm f 2.8-4, and I am looking to replace them for a better AF capable camera for wildlife. From what I have seen I like the Sony 100-400mm f 4.5-5.6 because it's smaller size and lighter weight if I'm not taking the lens with me I'm not using it and the Sony 200-600mm doesn't even fit in my backpack, don't think I would take it with me on my work commute (which brings me every day close to wildlife at the edge of the town) and I am not doing any long, far or special trips for wildlife, only what I can walk to from where I live (for the foreseeable future). I love everything about wildlife, from big mammals to small birds to birds of prey, insects, rodents, etc. It will be hard to give up on Micro Four Thirds for the crazy good Sony AF and better ISO performance and DR of the Full Frame.
From what you've said, it does seem like the 100-400 is a better choice! I really enjoyed using micro four thirds (GH5) for video. In terms of photos though, you'll definitely see a jump in quality and performance. Let me know how it goes 🙂
I've been looking to buying the 100-400GM for a while, but one day there was suddenly a great offer for the 90mm macro, and I went ahead with it. Then Sony came up with the 200-600G, and now I think that having the 90mm in my collection is an extra argument in favour of the latter.
I can imagine that if I get the 100-400GM, then my macro lens will see much less use, as I'll always be tempted to leave it at home and take only 100-400GM with me. Even having both of them in the bag, I'll be too lazy to swap sometimes.
200-600G, on the other hand, will make very distinctive use cases for both.
The only issue, is that I've always believed in compact setups, and compactness was what made me buy the first Sony mirrorless as it came out.
200-600G seems to require quite some dedication, you won't take it with you "just in case". This also means, that you might miss some unexpected photo opportunities...
Yeah that makes a lot of sense! With the 200-600/90mm, I tend to do specific macro days and wildlife days. Especially since I use an external flash and wireless trigger for my macro work. By not having both lenses with me, I do miss some opportunities, but I also like the idea of focusing on one subject matter. Sometimes when I try to photograph everything, I come out with nothing.
@@StefanoIaniro Thank you Stefano, I'm ordering the 200200-600G 🙂
I'm glad to have found this channel.
Will be checking your wildlife photography tips now in a hope to be able to produce photos that are half as good as yours one day!
Quality photos like these increase the impact of the reviews. Good job.
Glad you came to my little country, I'm beginning my birdwatching foray and your videos have been an amazing insight for me, thanks a lot man....
Another telephoto lens has been released for the Sony E-Mount: the *Sigma 100-400*. Checkout my first day with this lens here -> th-cam.com/video/lEc5kVlE_uc/w-d-xo.html
Very helpful review. Don’t forget about the teleconverters for extra reach with the 100-400.
Great comparison video. For those who have cropped censor camera like A6400 or A6600, Sel70350mm (525mm on cropped censor) is also a good choice considering it is much much cheaper than both 100-400 or 200-600 and also ultra light (625g), you can carry it whole day on your hand without any issue.
You mentioned you use APS-C mode to gain focus on the bird's eye first and even pop back. How do you do that on a Sony A7 camera since the APS-C mode is only available in the menu not on a custom key. Could you give a little big of a guide?
I’ve been considering both lenses and have tried both (briefly). You absolutely nailed the difference between the two in regards to usability. The zoom ring on the 200-600mm is so buttery smooth and quick compared to the 100-400mm. But I was absolutely shocked at the sharpness of the 100-400mm. I didn’t think a lens that isn’t internal zoom would be so sharp. I think for size, weight, sharpness and macro ability, I’m leaning toward the 100-400mm even though I enjoyed the handling of the 200-600mm considerably more. Thanks for such a good video!
Thank you! This was definitely the hardest decision to choose between both lenses. So many benefits to both, but I agree the slight edge goes to the 100-400 for majority of shooters
Nice Review, thank you for that. Could you pls tell me which color Profile do you use? I really like your colors. Did you change the settings?
Thank you so much! The profile I use is Cine4. But it would only be visible in the videos and JPEGs, since they don't really alter the RAW images. I didn't change any other setting within that profile.
This is one of the most thorough reviews on both lenses that I've seen. Thank you for this!
If you can handle the weight, then getting the 70-200 f/4 macro + 200-600 is a killer combo. PS. Your honesty is something pretty refreshing on TH-cam, which has become a bit of a sewer of biased (and paid) opinions
Would the 60-600mm Sigma be a good allternative?
I like using the 200-600 with the 1.4x TC. Most of the time I have them together. Of course, I'm usually shooting in good light. I finally broke down and got the Sony 2x TC. Yes, it needs more light, but generally, that's not a problem for me. It will focus slower with less light...again, not a problem. In testing, not much difference between using the 1.4x and cropping vs the 2x when the subject is within 50'. It's at longer distances that the 2x TC beats the 1.4x with cropping. Comparing the 1.4x to the bare lens with cropping....the 1.4x wins.
Another issue is focus breathing. Unfortunately, the 200-600mm has a serious issue with focus breathing at close distances. Apparently, internal focusing often results in focus breathing where the 600mm is maybe closer to 450mm at close range...or even less. So...compare that to the 100-400. Not internal focusing. I'll do comparisons when I get my new 100-400mm, but it may well be that there is very little difference in the size of the object at close range between these two lenses. The 100-400 is an honest 400mm at 8', but the 200-600 is more like the low 400's at 8'. And, of course, the 100-400 will focus much closer than the 200-600. Now, with the TC or extension tubes, you once again get 600mm at 8' out of the 200-600, but you've just give up a stop of light...and it was already slower than the 100-400mm which is 5.6 at 400mm. Obviously, if you're always shooting at greater distances, you won't care about focus breathing of the 200-600, but I'm often shooting butterfly's at close range. Shot a morning cloak butterfly today. Bright sunshine, so used the 2x TC on the 200-600. The shots came out fine.
The quality of Your pictures and videos is crazy !
Thank you so much! Very glad you enjoyed!
If you only had the budget for 1 lens (this year) to do animal portraits (parrots that are inside) and start experimenting with wildlife in general, would you invest in the Sony 70-200 GM or get the 100-400 GM? I'm using the a7 III and having a hard time deciding between the two. I rented the 70-200 to try and loved it. I'm also interested in the 90mm macro from Sony so the fact that focusing is so close with the 100-400 is really leaning me towards that lens. I'm in Canada too.
Like you said at the end, I would lean toward the 100-400, as well. If you were only doing indoor work I would have leaned towards the 70-200. But it seems you'll want more of an all around lens, which is where the 100-400 shines. Especially since it can tide you over as macro lens, and down the road you can decide if you want a 90mm lens for your kit. Not sure how comfortable the parrots are with being photographed, but being able to use the 100-400 as a macro lens means you don't have to get as close to them as you would with a 90mm, which is certainly beneficial for more timid subjects.
I love your honest comparison and pros and cons of each lens. I love my 100-400 but want to get more reach, as I am always having to crop so much for songbirds. I have A73...if I upgraded my camera to an R version, which is best for birds? Then I could use the crop feature. I am in nova Scotia so low light is often an issue.
Thank you so much, very glad you enjoyed! I actually lived in Nova Scotia for a couple months this summer, it was a lot of fun! I still think for smaller songbirds I would lean towards the 200-600. With that being said it also depends on your style. If I was mostly doing backyard birds and work from a hide, I would likely lean towards the 100-400, especially if you already own it. But for general walk around photography, I prefer the 200-600
So helpful! As I look to my first 14day Safari across Africa, I’m on the fence when it comes to the right lens for game drives (wildlife). I’m really looking to get shots of eyelashes on the wildlife. Thoughts? Just picked up the 100-400, then saw this (is a teleconverter a viable option?) Thanks!
I wouldn't use a tele on these zooms, but that's just a personal preference. I know people who use them and enjoy them. I would suggest renting one first to actually try it out beforehand (unless you already own one). I've only been on a couple of safaris back in the day before I was really into photography. At the time I had a 300mm and was able to get decently close to a lot of the wildlife. But every safari is different, so kinda difficult for me to say. I'd be more than happy bringing the 100-400. I think having the close minimum focus distance could be an added benefit. Since sometimes you can't really move too much when you're in the vehicle. From what I remember, there were a few instances where we had wildlife walk right up to the truck!
Excellent review Stefano, very informative.
So many great shots, you're very talented. Thanks for sharing!
Thank you so much 🙂
A very good and fair review.
I do want to add another option regarding the reviewers love for the 100-400 as a dual purpose, macro lens .
I own both Canon and Sony gear. My cleanest lens I have in my Canon gear is my 100mm macro (clarity and color). I noticed some really high rated e mount macro lens in the $450 to $600 range. For me, even if preferring the 100-400, I would be inclined to have the 200-600mm, then carry a second camera, let's say like my A6300 and put a macro on it.
Knowing the excellence of my Canon 100mm macro, I highly don't the 100-400 lens can compete with a prime 80, 90, or 100mm macro, especially with close up photos of insect eyes etc.
I am a surf photographer, the 200-600mm suits my needs better so no brainer for my needs but do understand not everyone has my same needs or other gear.
Great video. Your channel has made me want to travel to Ecuador. I currently have an A7Riii and looking to get a second body. Trying to decide whether to get an A9ii or A7R iv. Also want either a 200-600 or 100 -400.
What two lenses would you take if you were going to Ecuador again?
Also any opinions on the A9 against the A7R iv. Did you crop much?
Thanks
Thank you! Ecuador is incredible, you'll love it. If I was going back, I'd take my 200-600 and the 90mm macro. I do have 2 bodies so it's easy to keep the macro lens on one and the telephoto on the other.
I haven't used the a9 a whole lot. I photograph a lot of smaller songbirds, and on occasion do BIF/faster action photography. For that reason, the a7r4 makes more sense for me. I did use the crop mode quite a bit. I found it especially helpful for focusing in busier situations and for better composing my shot in the field. It's like having an aps-c camera and full frame camera built into one. Although I wouldn't recommend it for higher ISO work.
I have both of them, both amazing lenses. The macros like around 4:22 - did you darken the background by carrying a flash with you or in post?
I did most of my macro during the night, so the dark background is a combo of flash at nighttime.
Excellent review. I have both lenses and I'm thinking about selling the 100-400 GM and keeping the 200-600 G. I also have a 70-200 f4 G lens which I love. There's just too much overlap to keep the 100-400.
Great video! Keep your reviews like this. Real world use, unbiased, pros and cons of both. Love it! No one cares about shooting brick walls and pixel peeping at 400%. The results are in the images... Real images! Those humming birds and the shutter speeds you were using tells a lot about image stabilization too! A++
Thank you so much! This is my first real review video so it's nice to hear that. I would love to get my hands on some gear from different companies to compare. Especially with all these new mirrorless cameras and lenses coming out, would be a lot of fun to see the differences. Thanks for watching 🙂
Loved the review... and your pics are amazing too.
Hello, about close range of the 200-600 what about adding a closeup lens in front ? Did you try it ? Rather easy and quick to put on/off.
Excellent overview, thanks. Love your work too. I own the Sony 200-600mm G, and after watching this, I wonder if it isn't worth getting the 100-400mm too? I love shooting insects and flowers, as well as birds. That said, I use the 24-105mm G or the Sigma 14-24mm for those closer items at the moment. I have the A7iii and A7rii bodies so far. As an oldie, the weight of the 200-600mm is a factor, I get neck ache after a while holding it, and a monopod is useless, I find. Hence thinking about the lighter 100-400mm.
I have the 200-600mm with the A7RIV and everything you said is 100% accurate. The zoom ring is...AMAZING. I also have the Alpha 70-400mm with the latest adapter and it is just as sharp as the native E mount 100-400mm. Yes, the zoom ring does inhibit being able to pull out and back in without losing the subject. You have to 'work' the zoom ring as opposed to the 200-600mm. I use the 70-400mm just like you...for getting the small wildlife close by. I gain a bit more being able to crank it down to 70mm. The only drawback in using both...is carrying both...but it is worth it.
Great review. I’m really enjoying your channel. I just picked up the A7RIV. My next purchase is more than likely going to be the 200 to 400 to shoot in the marsh while kayaking.
Thank you so much! Hope you're enjoying the A7RIV. That'll be a fun lens to use in the kayak. Especially if you're targeting egrets and herons! A lot of cool shots to be had of them catching prey.
I enjoy your videos. I am a fuji xt3 100-400 shooter, and looking to move over to Sony for the 200-600. The fuji is a nice package, but I am looking for more reach with native lens. I am on the fence with the A7111, and A7R4. You have both so, what's your opinion for best body? I also love shooting birds, wildlife. The crop mode on R4 looks incredible. Although, I am concerned with file size.Thanks!
Thank you! I'm hoping Fuji releases some more wildlife lenses, I'd love to try out their cameras.
For myself, the a7iii is a great choice if you do a lot of video, or do a mix of both photos/videos. And also if you shoot in a lot of low light scenarios. It noticeably outcompeted the A7RIV in low light. The A7RIV has amazing AF performance and image quality wrapped into 1 camera body... so long as you don't push your ISO too much. The biggest benefit in my opinion is with such high res photos, since I can crop more, it means I don't always have to get so close to my subject. I think if you're strictly talking about taking photos, the A7RIV is the better choice overall. If you're on the fence but not looking to buy right now, maybe wait until they announce the a7IV. That might be a better comparison to the a7RIV.
@@StefanoIaniro Thank you for the quick reply. I don't do video at all. I also wish Fuji would add additional lenses. The 100-400 is really the only option. It's an excellent lens. Take care...
Fantastic review! I currently have the a7r4 and 100-400 as well, but am thinking of getting the 200-600. My concerns are that 6.3 might be a little too dark for me, as I already have some problems with 5.6 on my 100-400. I'm working on songbirds in generally overcast or canopied areas and often have to resort to tripods at 400mm wide open so I can shoot at up to 1/15s. In your opinion would I benefit from the 200-600 under these conditions?
Thank you! If that's your usual shooting conditions, I would likely stick with the 100-400. Although you'd certainly benefit from the longer focal length for songbirds, I think if you're at f5.6, 1/15s already, with the 200-600 you'd pretty much have to bump your ISO up quite high. And although I don't mind using higher ISOs every so often on the a7r4, I wouldn't want to make it a regular occurence. Since it's not the best at handling noise. Hope that helps!
Hi, Great video on the 100-400and 200-600. I've got an A7iii and plan to buy the 100-400 in the near future. I have one questions. I'm a little surprised that you did not mention using clear image zoom to get more reach from the 100-400. I've used it on the 70-300 and didn't think it degraded image quality but I'd like your opinion. Would that be a useful option on the 100-400? Thank you.
Thank you! And I didn't mention it because (unless there's a new firmware changing this) - clear image zoom only works for JPEGs. I shoot RAW, so for myself it really isn't an option. I do however love the feature and use it quite a bit when it comes to filming wildlife in 4K.
REALLY HELPFUL! I'm looking for my first zoom/superzoom for my A7iii and you covered a number of comparisons between these two that I've not seen elsewhere. Thanks!
Just got the A7RIV and immediately want to shoot my son’s HS soccer games usually at night under lights. Later I want to get into wildlife including BiF so really considered the 200-600, but a camera store employee told me the low light performance of the R IV combined with smaller iris of the bigger lens may not work for me. He suggested the 2.8 70-200 for this reason. What do you think would work for low light sports AND wildlife out of these 3 lenses with the R IVa?
My husband surfs, so I love getting shots of him. Which lens would you prefer? I’m assuming the 100-400 would be best for portability and he’s not that far away when he’s surfing. My current lens is the tamron 70-180 and I’m always pushing 180. Thank you for any input!
Excellent images Stefano. Thanks for sharing your interesting ideas on flexibility of composing and shooting creativity. Your shots on the old Sigma are stellar too, so at the end of the day, I think any tool will work in the hands of a magician!
Amazing video and photos!
En primer lugar Stefano, darte la enhorabuena por los tres reportajes. La calidad de las imágenes son increíbles y los resultados con las dos ópticas insuperables. Hace poco que estoy trabajando con la sony A9 y el 200-600 G y me parecen un tanden formidable y con calidad óptica fabulosa. Las primeras pruebas fueron con los inquietos correlimos oscuros y la verdad que la velocidad de la A9 para estos casos es formidable. Me gusta el equipo y creo que voy a disfrutar bastante con el.
That's amazing to hear! The a9 is definitely appealing to pair up with the 200-600, especially for birds in flight. Hope it treats you well and you get some great shots 😀
I had a 100-400, but returned because the images were not as sharp as my 200-600 - but seeing other people’s comments, I think I must have had a poor example. Maybe I will try another one?
I have just got my hands on another 100-400 and my assumption was correct. This lens is even sharper than the 200-600, so I had a poor lens before. Never knew before, that lenses of one model can vary so much.
Good review and comparison, I own the 100-400GM and I do shoot at 400 90% of the time and have to crop so that’s why I have been interested in the 200-600 or a 1.4 x teleconverter but then I’m at f8 560mm instead of 6.3 at 600
Thank you so much! Yeah that's my reasoning too for not using teleconvertors with these zoom lenses. Definitely try out the 200-600 if you have the chance! Would love to hear your thoughts on the two.
I am curious about your use, or non-use, of a tripod. My 200-600mm lens on the A9II with the battery grip is pretty heavy to be handholding for extended periods. I come from a Canon 80D (crop sensor) with the Canon 100-400mm, which is overall considerably lighter than my new Sony rig. Just wondering if you use a tripod or monopod, say, with a gimbel head to both stabilize your shooting at low shutter speeds and also to relieve you of the shakes after shooting for long periods. Maybe the disadvantages of lugging an extra piece of gear and reduced reaction time discourages its use?
Hey, I use a tripod a lot nowadays, but mostly because I'm filming videos for TH-cam and I like to take a mix of stills/video of wildlife. My preferred style is still handheld with a Peak Design shoulder strap. That way I can rest my arms while I hike. I have been able to make sharp images at 1/50th handheld, but certainly not consistently enough to fully ditch a tripod on days/situations with minimal light.
Great video! I know exactly what you mean that the 100-400 makes you look around. I’ve had the 100-400 for a few months and I never really realized that it is a decent near-macro. I found myself on an autumn hike covering every range from tiny insects to tight compositions on the trees. You nailed it. I can see birders wanting the 600, and that’s cool. But I like that the 100-400 packs smaller. Total agreement!
Well said! This was certainly the toughest decision I've had to make between 2 lenses.
Great video and photos Stefano! Glad you came to Ecuador 🙌🏼
Thank you so much! Really hoping to meet up next time. Your volcano photos are insane 🔥🔥🔥
I have the 200-600mm and mine is very sharp at 600mm. If yours is soft at 600mm, it could be due to sample variation and/or user error. Just to be clear, I also have a 600mm f4 lens and I have been photographing birds for over 20years. The biggest handicap for me with this lens is the f-stop. In low light situations, I wished it was an f4 lens :-)
I agree! Mine is definitely sharp at 600, as well. I also agree with the f-stop, especially for jungle/forest birds. It's manageable but an f/4 or f/2.8 would be great
Great review. I am switching to Sony from Canon and looking at getting the 200-600 with the A7rv.
Really good breakdown between the two lenses. I purchased the 100-400 earlier this year after weighing it against pre-ordering the 200-600, and I'm glad I did. I'm still only shooting with the RII, but it performs nicely with it. The external zoom really doesn't matter to me at all, and makes it easier to fit in my bag. I'm also a landscape photographer first and wildlife photographer second (or third) so I find the 100-400 was more versatile for what I shoot, such as compressed telephoto landscapes. I got to try out the 200-600 over Thanksgiving (my uncle owns it with the RIV) because I wanted to be sure, and after trying it out, I'm still happy with the 100-400. The question for me is whether or not it's worth it to get the 1.4 or shoot in crop mode when I do need the extra reach.
Thank you! I definitely agree, if wildlife isn't your main target, you certainly benefit from having the 100-400 instead. Personally I've never been a huge fan of TCs on zoom lenses. I tried them out back when I was shooting Canon. Never got into it. For prime lenses however, the 1.4TC is definitely more appealing.
Thanks, yours has been the best of tens of videos I've seen on this comparison. You answered so many questions I had about whether to sell my 100-400 and go for the 200-600.
That's awesome to hear, very glad I could help 🙂
Are you still selling your 100-400mm lens? Thanks.
@@hungqtran7960 Sorry, already sold it. I now have the 200-600. :)
Don't sell your 100400GM. Two different lenses... the MFD of the 100400GM alone makes it worth having for general purpose nature closeups and wildlife. My 200600 is my smaller birding lense. By owning both I have a lot of flexibility and do not need a dedicated macro. Lastly, the 100400GM has Slightly faster AF on R4 at this time, and you do get a 600mm equivalent in APSC mode. For many thats plenty of reach .
@@njrtech It's already sold, I couldn't afford both it and the 200-600. I totally get what you're saying though, the 100-400 is a fantastic lens, but I hated the extending barrel zoom, and found it too "sticky" for quick adjustments. I do miss that MFD though, and it's smaller size / portability...
Hey 2 years later do you feel the same way. I have the 200-600 put it is so heavy at least for me. So what I use now is the 70-200 gm 2 with the converters 1.4 and 2x and the a9ii. This makes a400 5.6. Very light and very sharp. What do you think? Thanks ric
Beautiful shots and great video. Would you mind sharing the focus area and focus modes you use, along with any focus tips? I just bought the A7III and am working to learn everything about it. Also curious how you push all the way in to get a focus and then re frame your shot without the camera auto focusing again when you push the shutter button. Really appreciate your guidance. Thank you.
Thanks a lot! My 'walk-around' focus area is usually set to Zone. It works great for a variety of situations. I've stopped using Wide, as I generally don't frame my subjects in the outermost area of the frame. Wide also allows for a larger margin of error, since the AF might jump to leaves or branches towards the outside of the frame. If my subject is in dense brush or foliage and I think Zone AF will have trouble acquiring focus, I'll switch to Flexible Spot Small. The easiest way to think about it is: The trickier the AF situation, the smaller your AF point should be.
The way I'm able to reframe my shot without the AF re-engaging is by shooting back button focus. I have focus coupled to my AF-ON button, and I've set my shutter button to only take photos. Once I acquire focus, I'll release the AF-ON button, and so long as my subject and/or I don't move forwards/backwards, I can keep shooting, zoom in and out, use S35 crop mode, and I know it'll be in focus. It's one of the benefits of back button focus. Hope this helped!
@@StefanoIaniro Thanks so much!
Could you make a video how to transport those lenses safe during flight?
Like do you use a pelicase oder are you pushing it into hand luggage?
I use the Lowepro BP AW II 450 camera backpack. It's pretty comfortable and the exterior is more firm than a regular backpack. There's removable velcro dividers so you can make sure everything is snug in there and doesn't move around too much. I haven't tried a ton of camera bags but I've been really happy with this one. It also fits in the overhead compartment of every plane I've been on!
@@StefanoIaniro thanks a lot!
@@StefanoIaniro I've got the Protactic AW 350, was trying to decide if I should buy the 450... Did you look at the 350 before settling on the 450?
@@JKPhotoNZ Yes, I checked the 350, but ultimately decided on the 450 since I usually carry around extra gear for filmmaking. The 350 would be great as a day pack, but when needing to carry all my gear on a flight or to a shoot, it would definitely be too small for what I need.
Stefano do u see much difference in bird species from the west side of quito (mindo area) vs the east side, (papallacta/cosanga area )
I haven't been on the west side, I only went to Mindo. But when I was researching, there is a decent amount of different species that like to hang out on the Western slope. Next time I go to Ecuador I'll definitely do both slopes to see more species.
@@StefanoIaniro ok thanks , I am going in early March so I am researching like crazy, thanks for the videos
@@ivan11cast You're going to love it! If you have a field guide, you can skim through the range maps for the species. There's quite a few that are only found on the east or only found on the western slopes. Or you can use ebird to scout different hotspots/areas 🙂
Good, informative video. I sold my 100 - 400mm and purchased a 200 - 600mm, then Sony announced the A7R4. So, I will be purchasing a secondhand 100 - 400mm to compliment my 90mm for my "dedicated" macro days. It will be a better option than the 200 - 600mm for butterflies and dragonflies which are too far away for my 90mm macro lens. I do prefer the 200 - 600mm for wildlife in general, though.
Yes, especially for birds I felt more comfortable with the 200-600. I'm definitely looking into doing more dedicated macro days so I think the 200-600 with the 90mm should be a good all around combo 🙂
@@StefanoIaniro. I do use auto extension tubes with my 200 - 600mm in order to reduce the minimum focusing distance to about 2m. Here's the problem, though. If you suddenly see a bird in flight that you simply must capture, you are prevented from doing so by the extension tubes. The 100 - 400mm, however, will allow you to take the shot.
Exactly! Like I mentioned, you won't miss a shot with the 100-400. You can photograph everything and anything. How do you find the 200-600 with extension tubes?
@@StefanoIaniro. They work brilliantly well. I actually own two sets, one attached to my 90mm lens and the other set on my 200 - 600mm during my dedicated macro days. As you well know, though, as a wildlife photographer it is very difficult to ignore everything else, even when you are determined to do so. Hence my reason for purchasing a 100 - 400mm.
That's one of the biggest reasons I'm missing having the 100-400! I'll look into extensions tubes for macro in the future. I had some in the past for my DSLRs but haven't gotten around to buying any for my Sony cameras.
For outdoor sports such as Nordic, biathlon or Motocross, how would the 200-600 paired with the a9 handle for autofocus?
I am doing a trip to Ecuador next year for birding, I have both the 100-400 and 200-600 with the A7R4. I am not sure that taking both lens is the best idea as bag space might be at an issue, so if you had to do your trip over again and only bring one of those lens which would it be?
If I did this trip exactly the same I would take the 200-600. However, this wasn't really a conventional trip for me. Since I was filming content and testing lenses, I didn't do as many long hikes and backpacking like I normally do. I do plan to return to Ecuador and tour around a bunch of different habitats in the future. When I do that, I will likely lean towards the 100-400, since it's smaller and can double as a "macro" lens. I think it really depends the type of trip you're on and what you intend to photograph. Do you have some of that planned already?
@@StefanoIaniro It is a guided tour trip specifically for birding. Leaning toward the 200-600 because there will not be many days of long hikes and I believe having too much reach is better than not enough. My feeling is that I just don't know how often I would be at the longer range of the 200-600. Thanks
@@davidlewis5929 If that's the case I would probably bring the 200-600!
i just put in a rental order for the 200-600, I'm so pumped to try it out!
Awesome! How long do you have it for? Will you be comparing it to any other lens?
@@StefanoIaniro it comes in on the 19th and ill have it until the 30th. Luckily my office is closed during that time so i can take full advantage of it.
Pretty much the only thing i have to go against it is my ancient Canon 80-200 L that i adapt to my a7iii.
@@RamusJamus Perfect timing! Haha. Not sure which adapter you're using, but I'm pretty sure you'll see a noticeable increase in autofocus speed with the 200-600🤓
@@StefanoIaniro I use the MC11, my copy is decent but i notice from time to time i have to remove the adapter from my camera and reattach it to start working because the AF starts to fail mid way through a shoot.
I've been looking into long telephoto zooms all year like the sigma 100-400 or 150-600 but because of that issue i mentioned im so glad i waited until the 200-600 come out!
@@RamusJamus Yeah that has happened to me in the past while using the MC-11 and 150-600. Since ditching the adapter I've had fewer headaches lol. Definitely let me know what you think after testing the 200-600!
Just found your channel, I have seen many lens reviews for many lenses this past year and none are as passionate as you nor have a real point of point, like usability and how it feels, you went beyond by just the simple specs, great video ! For me it's tough to pick a telephoto because I want to photograph a lot of different scenes, besides birds I also want to get into dog photography a sport called dog agility, really tough to photograph because they go fast through obstacles and most competitions are undercover or indoors making it harder to have a clean image for action.
Lovely, lovely images, you have a very nice aesthetic style. thanks for sharing!
I have both these lenses and totally agree - the 200600 makes me look out and wide, the 100400 makes me look close around. It's a fun combo!
Great review. I have both the lenses and use them on an A7RIV, and your review is right-on. I like and use them both. One point, for me, is that I’m good taking handheld pictures with the 200-600 for about 2 1/2 hours after which my wrist is extremely sore, and my armies get tired and shaky. I’m pushing 70, so the weight is an issue for me. How do you “punch-in, get focus points, then punch-out to frame the shot?” You obviously use OSS At those shutter speed. Which mode do you use for small birds?
For me the 100-400 is my all a round go to.Light weight/versatile and sharper than the 12K GM telephoto.Would highly. Recommend it.My other favorite is the 24mm GM (wow)Just my preferences.
I've seen/heard great things about the 24mm, as well. I'd also love to try the 2 large primes, would be a fun comparison to the zooms!
I would love to know how you pack up a camera bag for carry on for flights.
Looking at going to Alaska for bears in August, and I’d like to appropriately pack bags.
May I ask if you used flash for the 100-400 flash for the macro-esque photos?
Yes, those were with flash. For any macro work I like to use flash majority of the time.
@@StefanoIaniro Thanks for the reply. I shoot a lot of macro and use a dual flash ring light. I assume your flash set up would be different when shooting close-ups with the 100-400?
Sorry for the late reply, I never got a notification for this! I use the same lighting setup for the 100-400 "macro" shots as I do for my regular macro shots with the 90mm. One off-camera flash with a diffuser that is wirelessly triggered. For my shooting style, I find it really beneficial to be able to move the light source in any direction. I can spend a minute or two with a subject and get 4 or 5 different lighting angles/styles.
@@StefanoIaniro No worries at all. Glad that you replied! Right because I always have my flash attached to my hot shoe when I shoot macro with me 90mm. I have been using the 100-400 lately and have not thought about using an off-camera flash. That said, I will probably need to get a transmitter. Do you usually locate a subject then slowly creep up or around it and place the off-camera flash near it, or do you just hand-hold the off-camera flash with one hand and the 100-400 on the other?
Great vid man. I've wanted the 100-400 for a few years now and this video really helped to solidify that choice. I like the internal zoom of the longer lens but I would prefer being able to dabble in the world of macro, also if I'm being totally honest the extreme long end of the scale is cool but not really what I do on a regular basis. I currently have a 24-70 gm and I think this will be a great addition. Cheers
For portraits and event photography, I would love to skip the 70-200gm and get the 100-400gm instead. So I can do macro as well as wildlife if I want to. Would that be a good choice? What do you think? And thanks for making the video.
Beautiful photos! Beautiful lens design! I've bought this lens,too.
Im waiting for this lenses
Ready to explore some wildlife photography for this summer
Hi, how do you punch in crop mode focus and keep the focus when you zoom out to full mode ? Thanks
100-400 with the macro uses and being able to use a 1.4 teleconverter to still get sharp images, good focus and 560mm, I think the 100-400 wins, but I have never used either, just been researching and just bought the 100-400 which should be here next week. Great video btw, good comparison.
Hola Stefano. Me gustaría preguntarte por que modelo de cámara Sony utilizas con el 200-600 mm, soy usuario de Nikon (d500) y el tamron 150-600 g11 y estoy pensando cambiar a Sony por el objetivo 200-600 que me parece una opción muy buena para fotografía de naturaleza. Gracias y un saludo.
Hey! I'm using the Sony a7RIV and the Sony a7III. Sony a7RIV I use more for photos, and I use the a7III for videos!
Thanks for the video. I bought he 100-400 GM in Dec 2017 and I have loved it. I have started transitioning into doing more bird and wildlife (I primarily am a portrait photographer). I am waiting on my 1.4TC and hoping it will bring my GM closer in for the birds. I appreciate your positive take on both. I have watched a ton of 200-600 vids and most were done when it came out and with GAS and Latest Shiney, the videos kind of trash the GM. I love doing flowers as well so at this point I think I am going to keep the GM and maybe when I open back up my studio I can swing the 200-600. Thanks man.
So glad you enjoyed, thank you! It really is such a tough decision between the two. Although I decided to stick with the 200-600, I sometimes find myself in situations where having the 100-400 would have been beneficial. Just last week I found a bunch of Garter Snakes while birding and would have loved to have the minimum focusing distance of the 100-400... especially since I left my macro lens at home haha. Hope you get some good results with the 1.4TC when it gets in!
So I have a project in a few months in big open terrain filming and photographing reindeer. Im thinking 200-600?
Not sure how close they'll be. But if they vary from close up to really far out, I would likely choose the 200-600. Just so I'd have both ranges covered. Also, using the crop mode plus clear image zoom for video can get you a lot tighter.
Thanks for the information. I already have the 200-600 and I love this lens.
Try the 70-300 as your second, it is close focus, cheaper, and lighter. I go with the 70-300 on my a7 and the 200-600 on my a6500. Gives me everything from 70 to 900 with close focus.
Another phenomenal video with phenomenal pics! How did you get the background so dark for the insect shots? Flash?
Thank you so much! And all those "macro" shots were during night hikes, so that plus flash created the dark backgrounds 🙂
I know the video is about the lenses but how did you find the A7RIV as a camera for bird shots, including birds in flight? Other reviews have suggested viewfinder lag was a problem. On paper, this and the 200-600 would be a great setup for me, I currently use a M43 setup giving me 800mm equivalent and yet I still need to crop - therefore the sensor on the A7RIV would give me more to work with if it could keep up? This would be my absolute maximum speed, I know the A1 would be better still but that’s out of the question. Anyway, great video, thanks.
Hey man, great video, quick question. Do you know at what focal length the 100-400 switches from f/4.5 to 5.6? Also I’m more of a sports videographer that also photographs. So deciding between these two have been difficult. Right now I have a 18-200 and I definitely know I need some more distance, I’m just not sure how far and at the difference in aperture