Sony 100-400 GM vs 200-600 G (3 weeks in Ecuador)
I give my opinion on the Sony 100-400GM lens vs. the 200-600G lens after using them for 3 weeks in Ecuador on the a7RIV and the a7III. Primarily, I compare the usability of the lenses (design, autofocus, etc) and then the image quality. Both lenses were a lot of fun to use, and if you're deciding between the two, you have a tough decision on your hands!
I hope you enjoyed, and HAPPY BIRDING! Checkout my first bird photography video from Ecuador here: • BIRD PHOTOGRAPHY in EC...
The Lenses:
Sony 200-600G ▶ geni.us/sg99l7
Sony 100-400GM ▶ geni.us/100400
For more videos, be sure to subscribe here:
SUBSCRIBE ▶ geni.us/GhZe
FOLLOW ME
Instagram ▶ geni.us/7tV2ie
Facebook ▶ geni.us/q1tBto
PHOTO GEAR
My Photo Editing Software ▶ geni.us/PhotoEdit
GREAT Noise Reduction Software ▶ geni.us/Topaz
Sharpen Your Photos ▶ geni.us/sharpen
My Main Camera ▶ geni.us/alpha1cam
My Video Camera ▶ geni.us/WdpB
WILDLIFE Lens ▶ geni.us/sg99l7
My Second Wildlife Lens ▶ geni.us/Sigma100400
Monopod ▶ geni.us/gitzomono
Monopod Head ▶ geni.us/Wimberley
Wide-Angle Lens ▶ geni.us/17-28
MACRO Lens ▶ geni.us/90mm
MUST HAVE Camera Strap ▶ geni.us/sluAsKY
Rain Sleeve ▶ geni.us/Stpy
Camera Bag ▶ geni.us/cRZgtj
VIDEO GEAR
My Video Editing Software ▶ geni.us/videoedit
Tripod ▶ geni.us/tripodInn
Tripod Head ▶ geni.us/502AH
Mic ▶ geni.us/KcJO2
Camera Monitor ▶ geni.us/atomosnin
My Video Gimbal ▶ geni.us/G4kfBf
Field Recorder ▶ geni.us/ZoomH
Where I Get My Music/Sound Effects (Get 2 Extra Months) ▶ geni.us/musicvid1
For Business Inquiries: contactstefanoianiro@gmail.com
#100400GM #200600G #BeAlpha
-------
The above may contain affiliate links. Please consider buying from your local camera store before purchasing through larger retailers.
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.
What an honest , revelant and informed evaluation . Great voice , pace and humour. Well done young Stefano.
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. KZhead 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.
There's some wonderful pictures here, thank you for sharing them & your opinions.
Glad you enjoyed! Thank you 🙂
So awesome to have you in my country man, i'm glad you enjoyed the trip and got to see our incredible wildlife!
This is one of the most thorough reviews on both lenses that I've seen. Thank you for this!
Your enthusiasm is contagious.
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!
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 🔥🔥🔥
So many great shots, you're very talented. Thanks for sharing!
Thank you so much 🙂
Loved the review... and your pics are amazing too.
Excellent review Stefano, very informative.
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.
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....
Thanks for this! You hit some really good points that aren't part of everything lens review
This is truly excellent!
Beautiful photos! Beautiful lens design! I've bought this lens,too.
Very helpful review. Don’t forget about the teleconverters for extra reach with the 100-400.
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!
most concise and very informative review.
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.
just watched one video of yours yesterday and i subscribed... informative , to the point n with example...geat content...thank you...
Thanks for the information. I already have the 200-600 and I love this lens.
Quality photos like these increase the impact of the reviews. Good job.
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 🙂
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.
Useful video and really nice photos. Thanks!
Awesome video! Thank you. You address issues other reviewers miss.
Tnx for this, seems thorough and honest with the assumptions made explicit.
Thanks so much!
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.
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...
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.
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!
The quality of Your pictures and videos is crazy !
Thank you so much! Very glad you enjoyed!
Such good pictures! I'm so jealous.
Glad you enjoy 🙂
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.
Fantastic review. Thank you.
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.
Excellent, very helpful mate, thanks from the UK
Im waiting for this lenses Ready to explore some wildlife photography for this summer
Great review keep it up 👍
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 🙂
Great review. Lots of information to to comprehend and dissolved. I'll be back to you after my 2nd view of your review. I apprciate your advise and recommendations. Looked like a great trip to Ecuador ands their rain forest. Wow, 3 weeks?
Great material and advice
Great pictures... Beautiful photos... Greetings from Puerto Rico...
Thank you 🙂
Nice review👍Can u share some ideas on using these lens on aps c bodies? Thanks
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.
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
your review was the best damn review out of literally the 15 different videos I've watched
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
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.
Hey Stefano, thanks very much for your videos. I use the 100-400 exclusively for many use cases but considering getting a lense capable of 600 for wildlife purposes. Love the 1-4 for closer scenes!
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.
Your image processing is really good, the colours look amazing on ur photos
Thank you! I don't really edit them too much. The colors straight out of camera of the a7r4 are great!
Agree! What software are you using to process your images?
@@taiebyoel I have the Adobe Suite but really only use Lightroom for photo editing for the channel.
Thanks, and what about the color profile ? Do you use Adobe Color or Camera Standard profile ?
@@taiebyoel Adobe color when exporting 🙂
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.
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’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
Very good video and very good personality. ❤
Really interested in your insight about the 100-400 encouraging more creativity in your shooting Stephan. The 200-600 seems to have established itself as a classic lens for bird photographers, so your alternative perspective has me thinking a little bit more deeply about what I want in a zoom lens.
Hey Stephano great video and amazing review! I just got the a7r iv with the 200-600 but im struggling with sharpness in still birds photo , both camera and lens are new but im not sure why the photos are not sharp guessing that i have something wrong in the settings.
Great vid! I'm tempted by the 200-600 myself even though I've been doing less birding and more herping these days as well. I'd be curious to try it for astro too. Looks like the 100-400 works great for a herping lens! But have you tried any of the macros?
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!
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.
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!
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 review
Thanks a lot! Glad you enjoyed!
Excellent review, it is exactly what I was looking for. As a die hard traveller who goes rather often in the rainforest, I needed a honest, on-the-field review of the 200-600. Can't wait for this damn COVID to go away... I also do a lot of macro (amphibians and insects mainly) but for that I have already the 90mm. Thanks!
"we pay people in maple syrup"...priceless!
Stunning shots! I know I'm late to the party, but this video was super helpful! I was wondering if I could get your advice... I like photographing big wildlife best (bison, african mammals, etc.) Would you say the 100-400 or a combo of the 70-200 and the 200-600 would be better?
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!
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.
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!
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.
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.
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 :)
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.
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.
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.
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!
Thanks for your great video on these two wonderful lenses. I will be buying the 200-600mm though you seriously made me consider the sony 100-400mm which costs AU $700 more and I feel I need the extra reach especially for photographing and filming birds, wildlife and the moon. You give some great points for both lenses in this video and if I didn't already own the Sony 90mm I would be even further swayed to the 100-400mm. Top images too!
hi. new subbie here. i do really enjoy your honest to goodness review . I just ordered my 200-600 to pair with my new @7III. i am so excited to try it since i'm a newbie bird photographer and started with mirrorless 4/3rd olympus. i will try all your shared tips to a sharper picture. more power and thank you
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.
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.
Thanks Stefano for the nice video. You have helped me move closer to a purchase. )))
Great channel. I'm thinking of getting the 200-600 (A6400) for general wildlife. The videos that you are showing, are they done with the 200-600 lens?
Thank you! And yes, all the wildlife footage was shot with the 200-600. Both on the A7RIV and A7III.
I have the 200-600 on my 7ar4 - my wife has the 200-600 on her a6400 - the lens is great - period..
For outdoor sports such as Nordic, biathlon or Motocross, how would the 200-600 paired with the a9 handle for autofocus?
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 😀
beautiful!
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.
I keep coming back to this video... Still on the boat of the 100-400mm.. could you maybe dive into the macro abilities some more with this lens? :D
Well for really up close detail, I'd still suggest a conventional macro lens over this. But the positive about using the 100-400 is you don't have to get as close to your subject. I'd use it from large insects, to frogs, and reptiles. But for smaller insects, I think having a macro lens makes more sense to capture those very small details. It's nice cause minimum focusing distance is under 1 meter. So you don't need a whole lot of working area to use the 100-400. If I get my hands on it again, I'll definitely compare it to a macro lens and the 200-600
Very helpful review! Since you shot in the rainforest: what about the weather sealing on the 100-400? The lens extends, after all, while the 200-600 focuses internally. Did you use the 100-400 in rain without problems?
Thank you! I never trust a camera/lenses weather sealing, unless it's an action camera like a GoPro. I use a rain sleeve with all my lenses. Especially in the rainforest where the weather can be unpredictable. It's always better to be safe. Although the 200-600 is an internal zoom, it can still "suck in" dust and moisture to a certain degree, because of the zoom function.
Wow super helpful. I rented the 200-600 for 5days..but it was pretty heavy for use with my A6500...I have the RX104, the A6500 and own 90mm macro and also a high quality Kowa scope which I am trying to learn digiscope with(again heavy and tripod dependent for me). So I read A9 works better with 200-600...any thoughts...and should this be on my upgrade list...buy a full frame with 200-600? Loved your Ecuador trip...we were there two years ago. Adding your channel!
Very good review, thanks so much! I want to get into bird/wildlife photography. I mainly photograph landscapes and have been struggeling in deciding if I should go for the 100-400 or 200-600... I'm tending to the 200-600, as I'll usually tell myself if I'd go for landscape or wildlife when hiking. Do you know if there is a big difference in terms of bokeh when photographing at the long end of both lenses? From what I could see from your pictures it seems not. But I's like to have your opinion on that. Thanks! Cheers from Switzerland!
Thank you! From what I've seen the difference in bokeh is pretty much negligible. Didn't notice much difference between both lenses. I think lens choice would depend on whether you're using this lens for landscapes, as well. If you are, I'd probably go with the 100-400 since you can get out a bit wider. If you're getting it just for wildlife, what type of wildlife are you looking to photograph?
@@StefanoIaniro I'm not sure. I currently have thr A7M3 but will change for the A7R3 so thay I can crop more. So, I guess the 100-400 might be the better choice even for wildlife if I plan to go for birds (mainly).
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?
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!
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?
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.
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!
I have watched about 10 your videos and subscribed. I like the style how you present and your pictures are beautiful. I have a7iii and I wonder about a7riv. I see that you have experience with both now. How would you rate a7riv autofocus in relation to a7iii? A7riv has better modes to place AF points on subject, but is it as good or better to keep up with subject movement towards you? There are a lot of AF comparisons with a7riii vs. a7riv or a9 vs. a7riv online, but none with a7iii. What is your AF experience?