I decided for the 100-400mm because of his sharpness. I´m very happy with the performance in willdlifephotography with the fast in focus in all light situations.
Yessss, I was hoping to see this video to get a better grasp on long reach. The only other I’d look into is a Tamron 70-180 vs a Sigma 100-400, though between all 4 I think it would be such a mess of options and pros/cons
Been watching TH-cam reviews for couple years. Never seen your page. Glad I came across it. I your review video top notch. Subscribing. Keep up the great work.
I was searching for a video where there's one more lens in the comparison. The Sony 200-600. Can you please make a comparison video of these three lenses...
i own both! i love the look of my 200mm more, but adore 400mm reach. but maybe i'm doing something wrong with the settings, i am super new to the mirrorless game.
@@hatemsmusicvideos1362 Would not use the 100-400 for neither of those. That lense is for nature photography or if you know what you do, then for landscape. For low light you usually are looking at lenses at F2.8 or faster and same goes for portraits but the biggest issue to use the 100-400 for portraits is that it flattens the body so much that it does not look natural imho. The 70-200 is more likely to be a "do it all lense"
Amazingly, someone just generously lent me their Sony100-400 to try out so this video has come out at the right time. I had been looking at the Sigma equivalent lens as I am finding the limitation to my Sony 70-200 f.4 lens and am hankering after more focal length.
What do you think about the 70-200 F 4.0 version ? Assume one stop is not the end all and ok with upping the ISO etc ? Lets say the teleconverter does not matter...
Thanks for adding the metric sizes. Still keen to see what Sigma release for their 70-200 2.8. Personally, the 70-200 with the 1.4 teleconverter is more versatile than just the straight 100-400. But Im also not a wildlife shooter
You made a good point, I was so confused too on which one to go with, I was so leaning with the 100-400. As you said with a 1.4 teleconverter, the 70-200 actually gets the versatility that one would look for. I feel lucky I stumbled on this video thanks to @Stefan Malloch and for your comment, Mark. :-)
@@berginrp Only that the Sigma 70-200 still does not exist. Moreover, Teleconverter will not work on the Sigmas. And if you go Sony 70-200 you will lose on PQ with a teleconverter.
@@TheOneMonk thanks for the reply. I hired a 70-200mm f2.8 GM and used in a church event, felt 100-400 would have been good to reach in the large church, however the issue was the light. Since I had 2.8, I was able to manage, not sure what would a 100-400 do on light also not sure how far I should go on ISO to avoid noise. Though 100-400 would give a good reach, I felt the light you get at 2.8 very important as well. Now I need to weigh the need for reach vs light .
Thank you for doing this vid, it helps out a ton in the descision making process. One question though, in the sharpness test, did you shoot below recommended shutter speed? You shot 1/20th and 1/30th shutter, I thought you are not suppose to shoot below the focal length of the lens. Thanks a lot, I think you’re doing an amazing job!
would you say it would be better to get the 70-200 for an APSC camera, because of the better aperture? i have the Sony NEX-6 and i'm looking for an upgrade from my 55-210mm OSS lens. thanks!
I have the 100-400 but have never felt the need for the 70-200! f2.8 does appeal however. Really want the 400f2.8, but I here a 300 f2.8 is possibly coming soon! Sticking to the 100-400 for now thanks for the confirmation, best for my wildlife photography now!
Yes its good practice to turn it off when on a tripod. The camera and lens will try to compensate for movement and its just a machine after all so better safe than sorry.
Thanks a lot for this comparison. I'm not into portraits (not a professional photographer either), I just shoot landscape/travel kinds of things. How does the 100-400 work for general casual portraits?
Considering the number of sports/action shooters that are in the market for long glass, the number of reviews that include ratings for sports is minimal!
I think the sharpness might be misleading, both sony and dxo show the 70-200 being sharper than the 100-400. I suspect you received a bad 70-200 due to its sample variation. The sharpness shown does not depict every 100-400 and sony 70-200
Which one are you going with?
If i had the money the 400
Both lol 😆
200-600mm
@@lisawells8226 ola ,qual a distância máxima de alcance desta lente para vídeos ? Obrigado
I decided for the 100-400mm because of his sharpness. I´m very happy with the performance in willdlifephotography with the fast in focus in all light situations.
Yessss, I was hoping to see this video to get a better grasp on long reach. The only other I’d look into is a Tamron 70-180 vs a Sigma 100-400, though between all 4 I think it would be such a mess of options and pros/cons
Rewatched this again tonight and caught a gaff: 11:35 you made the pros & cons list comparing the Sony 70-200 and the Tamron 70-180 heh
Damn... I can't unsee that. 😵 The Cons are right, the lens name is wrong.
Great video Stefan. Going with the 100-400. Thanks for the comparison. Very helpful.
Extremely Useful Comparison.Great Detailed information .Simply Great Photographic Features Explained.👍👍
Been watching TH-cam reviews for couple years. Never seen your page. Glad I came across it. I your review video top notch. Subscribing. Keep up the great work.
Welcome aboard!
I was searching for a video where there's one more lens in the comparison. The Sony 200-600. Can you please make a comparison video of these three lenses...
i own both! i love the look of my 200mm more, but adore 400mm reach. but maybe i'm doing something wrong with the settings, i am super new to the mirrorless game.
wow nice lens bro..i love it..one day i will buy it..nice clicks too
It is showing wrong lens name in Pros & Cons, not Tamron. Great comparison anyway.
Got both,love both....love the 70-200 for almost everything,love the 100-400 for landscape,macro(ish) and nature....👍🏻👌🏻
Can the 100-400 be used for everything also? How about 100-400 low light photo and video? Also, how about portraits?
@@hatemsmusicvideos1362 Would not use the 100-400 for neither of those. That lense is for nature photography or if you know what you do, then for landscape.
For low light you usually are looking at lenses at F2.8 or faster and same goes for portraits but the biggest issue to use the 100-400 for portraits is that it flattens the body so much that it does not look natural imho. The 70-200 is more likely to be a "do it all lense"
8:03 is all I need for an answer that I was looking for years. Great job.
OMG. Now i'm confused again. But thats for the comment. I still need to find one. What did you go with @James?
Does the new release 70-200 (11-2021) change your comparison much?
Amazingly, someone just generously lent me their Sony100-400 to try out so this video has come out at the right time. I had been looking at the Sigma equivalent lens as I am finding the limitation to my Sony 70-200 f.4 lens and am hankering after more focal length.
Really hope you'll get the Sigma on your hands one day and can make a 100-400 comparison between the two options we have.
Working on it!
what are the differences between the viltrox 85mm sony vs the mark 2 version?
Mostly build
Great review!
What do you think about the 70-200 F 4.0 version ? Assume one stop is not the end all and ok with upping the ISO etc ? Lets say the teleconverter does not matter...
great video ty, are they both Parfocal?
Thanks for adding the metric sizes.
Still keen to see what Sigma release for their 70-200 2.8. Personally, the 70-200 with the 1.4 teleconverter is more versatile than just the straight 100-400. But Im also not a wildlife shooter
You made a good point, I was so confused too on which one to go with, I was so leaning with the 100-400. As you said with a 1.4 teleconverter, the 70-200 actually gets the versatility that one would look for. I feel lucky I stumbled on this video thanks to @Stefan Malloch and for your comment, Mark. :-)
@@berginrp Only that the Sigma 70-200 still does not exist. Moreover, Teleconverter will not work on the Sigmas. And if you go Sony 70-200 you will lose on PQ with a teleconverter.
@@TheOneMonk thanks for the reply. I hired a 70-200mm f2.8 GM and used in a church event, felt 100-400 would have been good to reach in the large church, however the issue was the light. Since I had 2.8, I was able to manage, not sure what would a 100-400 do on light also not sure how far I should go on ISO to avoid noise.
Though 100-400 would give a good reach, I felt the light you get at 2.8 very important as well. Now I need to weigh the need for reach vs light .
How much versatility do I sacrifice going with the 100-400? Can it be my only lens?
100-400 is more versatile. Depends what you shoot though.
I thought you’d say 70-200 plus 1.4x in case u need the extra mm. Interesting
I use the 100-400 for my sons sports. there are times I have to back up cuz I can't fit what I want into frame. 100mm is a lot for a be all lens.
Thank you for doing this vid, it helps out a ton in the descision making process. One question though, in the sharpness test, did you shoot below recommended shutter speed? You shot 1/20th and 1/30th shutter, I thought you are not suppose to shoot below the focal length of the lens. Thanks a lot, I think you’re doing an amazing job!
Happy to help. The sharpness tests are done on a tripod so shutter speed rule is not a factor.
An Updated review of the new 70-200 II vs. the old 100-400 incl. TCs would be awesome !
would you say it would be better to get the 70-200 for an APSC camera, because of the better aperture? i have the Sony NEX-6 and i'm looking for an upgrade from my 55-210mm OSS lens. thanks!
Hi I was wondering if you have the tamron 17-35 mm f2.8 ?
I like to shoot tennis photography. Which one should I go with? Thanks in advance!
I have the 100-400 but have never felt the need for the 70-200! f2.8 does appeal however. Really want the 400f2.8, but I here a 300 f2.8 is possibly coming soon! Sticking to the 100-400 for now thanks for the confirmation, best for my wildlife photography now!
Can you use 100-400 for portraits or night (photo & video)?
100-400 more uses. Too bad its not a 2.8 haha
I’ve heard you wanna turn off image stabilization for stills when you’re using a tripod is that the same case for both of these as well?
Yes its good practice to turn it off when on a tripod. The camera and lens will try to compensate for movement and its just a machine after all so better safe than sorry.
Great review, thanks!
Thanks a lot for this comparison. I'm not into portraits (not a professional photographer either), I just shoot landscape/travel kinds of things. How does the 100-400 work for general casual portraits?
why not get the 70-200 and buy the 2x adapter? then get the best of both worlds?
But you can use the 2x on the 400 and have an 800mm lens!
which one for high school football in daylight would you bring if you had a choice?
400
Thats my unicorn lens 100-400
I think you may have gotten a bad copy of the 70-200 I've never heard anyone say the 100-400 is sharper before.
I sold 70-200 2.8 and super happy with 100-400, it is way sharper than 70-200 on A9 Mark II
Considering the number of sports/action shooters that are in the market for long glass, the number of reviews that include ratings for sports is minimal!
I think the sharpness might be misleading, both sony and dxo show the 70-200 being sharper than the 100-400. I suspect you received a bad 70-200 due to its sample variation. The sharpness shown does not depict every 100-400 and sony 70-200
I still can’t decide...🤦🏻♂️ 100-400?
I sold 70-200 2.8 gm upgrade to 100-400 and super happy
it's good bro
100-400
The 70-200GM was never an amazing lens.
100-400