Sony 200-600 vs. 100-400 comparison
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 лип 2024
- My In The Field Review of the Sony 200-600mm Zoom Lens was a hit and you folks posted many amazing comments, questions and requests.
Because of the number of comments I've decided to create this new video where I do some of the comparisons you all requested between the Sony 200-600 with the Sony 100-400.
You could consider this to the Part II of my 200-600 review.
Here is a list of the comparisons that I make:
Focal Length Comparisons:
200mm
300mm
400mm
With a Teleconverter:
280mm
420mm
560mm
I also compare the center of the image and the edges of both lenses with the 200-600 @ 600m and the 100-400 @ 400mm
I also compare the minimum focusing distance of both lenses.
And lastly I also compare the bokeh or out of focus areas of the lenses.
As always I hope you find this information useful. If you do, I would appreciate it if you could subscribe to my UA-cam channel and remember to click on that bell to be notified when I upload new videos.
==============================
Here are the links to the gear I discuss in the video:
Lenses
Sony 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 GM: bhpho.to/2KLxCQL
Sony 200-600 f/5.6-6.3 G: bhpho.to/2KO37tI
Sony 1.4x TC: bhpho.to/2KLMoHn
All my photo gear recommendations: kit.co/jpons
==============================
Visit my links:
Website: juanpons.org
Facebook: / juanpons
UA-cam Channel: / juanpons
My photo gear recommendations: kit.co/jpons - Наука та технологія
4 year old video, still good as gold today. Thanks a ton man!
Great comparison video! Thank you for it I own the 100-400GM and thinking about getting the 200-600G
Glad you found it useful.
excellent review. Thanks
btw this is a good work and a good review of the two lenses so thanks you for this nice video. btw because to compare the lenses 2 factors are missings in my point of view: when you speak about minimum focus, it's important to speak about maximum zooming too. Another important point is the AF reactivity ( maybe at different zooming range). Many thanks you for your work, realy appreciate it .
Thank you for the nicely detailed review. The new lens puts me (and other I am sure) in a quandary. I have the 100-400 and while it is a great lens I have never been completely happy at the long end with a teleconverter; and that is where I use the lens most. By the way, the focusing / tracking on the 100-400 work much better on the new a7R4 than the R3.
Agree with you. This is why I still have both. Who knows some day I may sell the 100-400 but I am not ready to do that just yet.
Thank you for this good detailed explanation.
Alfred from Germany
My pleasure
Great comparison .Making me more convinced to go for 100 -400 for my Sony a 6400
Thanks for the kind words.
This time you get a thumbs up!
Great follow up
Good video, thank you. I shoot wildlife/macro exclusively and owned a 100 - 400mm G Master + SEL20TC and used it on my A9 and A7III. Due to the area in which I live, I require a long focal length most of the time. When the 200 - 600mm was announced I part exchanged my 100 - 400 + SEL20TC for a 200 - 600mm + SEL14TC. This proved to be the right move for me. Though I rated the 100 - 400mm a fabulous lens, the 200 - 600mm handles better due to the internal zoom. It also very sharp and I really rate it. I had never regretted selling my 100 - 400mm until last week. Last week I part exchanged my A9 and A7III for an A7RIV. I won't bore you with why I did this, but trust me, it was the right thing to do and took me 6 weeks to decide. For the reason you highlighted (using the 100 - 400mm instead of, or in combination with, a macro lens) I have decided to purchase another (seconhand) 100 - 400mm G Master in the spring of next year (begining of the insect season). The minimum focusing distance of the 200 - 600mm means that I constantly have to look behind me in order to make sure I am not going to fall in the canal/river/lakes I frequent. I will keep this lens for all my bird and mamal shots, but on the days I go out expressly to take macro images I will take out the 100 - 400mm and 90mm macro. In fairness, the 200 - 600mm does do the job when it's not possible to get in close enough for the 90mm, but the 100 - 400mm does it better.
Yes, I agree with you 100%, but as an alternative, you could get a set of extension tubes and use those with the 200-600, they will get you much closer and reduce de amount of gear you have or need to carry. You would have to put the extension tubes on and off when you are shooting macro but it's a pretty good alternative that is super inexpensive. Just a thought.
@@JuanPons. Thanks for that. Funnily enough, I have a set of Kenko extension tubes fitted at the moment for my next outing. I have used them with the 200 - 600mm and my A9 and need to see how they work with my A7RIV. As far as I can make out, they reduce minimum focusing distance to about 2m or slightly less. I don't need the 100 - 400mm for a few months, which gives me time to make a decision. I have noted that Mark Smith and a couple of other wildlife photographers, have suggested the 100 - 400mm can produce better results in some situations when used with the A7RIV. Having one of each would not be a bad thing. As I subscribe to your channel (as a result of Gerald Williams sharing one of your videos on FB), I will let you know how I get on.
Here’s me now super confused thinking what to do.
1. Should sell my really good copy of 100-400mm and get a 200-600mm?
2. keep the 100-400mm and get another 200-600mm?
3. Upgrade my a7iii to a7RV and keep the 100-400mm.
My gut feeling says to keep the 100-400mm and upgrade the camera cause I can always crop my images to achieve the same outcome with a slightly sharper image.
The Sony 200-600mm 5.6-6.3 is really a great lens. I use it with the Sony A9 and recently also with the Sony A7R4. Especially on the A7R4 it allows me to crop at 27MP giving me effectively up to 900mm at 6.3. What is not bad. Maybe just the f/6.3 sucks a but it is still acceptable. Really a great lens from Sony. I am very happy with it.
I agree with you!
Juan, I have the 100-400 and use for my kids sports events, is one of my favorite lens, it is not too heady and I took some amazing pics with it , all merit of my gear, A7RIV with this lens is great because I can crop on post really good action shots.....
Im using a A6400 with 75-350 lens for birdwatching now, but looking for a lens upgrade. So need a pro tip to decide between these two. Right now the crop help me a lot; but some day I will switch to a full frame also.
Great work in this video Juan, thanks a lot. Actually I have a sony a7riii and I have a serious problem to decide what lens to buy. I supposed for versatility is better the 100-400? (Birds, landscape and others)
Glad you found the video useful. If you shoot birds at all or any fast action I would recommend the 100-400 with the a7rIII. You will find the Auto Focus on the 200-600 lacking with that camera.
I would also pick up the Sony 1.4x Tele Converter. It works extremely well with the 100-400, you lose very little AF speed and very little image quality. Good to have when you need that extra reach.
Juan Pons Thank you Juan, another question, what about the 2x Tele convert with the 100-400?
@@guillermolopez1356 I don't like the 2x Tele Converter, I feel the image quality suffers too much.
Need a comparison on A7RIV body. Many state 100400GM is superior on R4 from both an image quality and AF standpoint. Thanks
Hi Juan, Good comparison video. I don’t have the 100-400 but do have the 200-600. Never did get the 100-400 but did get the 70-200mm f2.8 along with the 1.4 teleconverter. I found that be good combination. Use both on the A9 and A7RIII. But waiting for the A7RIV to arrive. Looking forward to trying that lens out in crop mode with the 200-600. Should give a 960mm reach with a file size about 26mp which would be a good size to work with. Any thoughts on that combination? Cheers.
I am not sure why I would ever use the crop mode when you can simply crop the image in post processing and achieve the same result. This way if you find you needed a bit more room because you cropped something inadvertently you have it. The only benefit I see is a smaller file.
@@JuanPons What you posted makes sense. But there could be times that you may want that extra reach. Anyway my A7RIV arrived today (9/16/19) at the local camera store. Just need to go pick it up. Cheers!
Juan I'm hearing mixed reviews regarding A7R4... Mark Smith stated he got better results with the 100400gm vs 200600p with A7R4 combo? Is this something you can test ? Thanks
Every individual will have a different experience depending on the type of photography they do. So while I plan on testing this combination extensively while in Yellowstone next week, your experience may be different or different from Mark Smith. No ones opinion is going to be absolute. Use these opinions, including mine, as guidelines, not absolutes. One thing to do is rent the gear you are thinking about and test it yourself in the type of situations you shoot it.
Sorry when you tested , did you use the higher resolution A7R3? I think this is key to determine how the glass resolves. Thank you
Yes, all tests were done with the a7r III
I’ve got the a9 and the 200-600. I recently switched from Canon systems. In looking at my use of the Canon 100-400 I notice that most of my shots are in the 200-400 mm range. So for me, the 200-600 is the way to go. Whatever shots I lose under 200 mm is more than made up for by the additional reach between 400 and 600.
My thoughts exactly.
Hi Alan, have you totally switched? How do you find the images compared to the canon. Do you find the 200-600 as sharp as the Canon 100-400? I have the mark II 100-400 and its probably the sharpest zoom I've ever used.
Michael Brady I have totally switched. The images on the 200-600 are tack sharp at each extreme. I always found the Canon 100-400 a little soft at 400mm. People compare color science but I see no real difference. I am saving my Canon glass in case Canon comes to their senses and issues a Pro mirrorless camera.
@@alanross3661 Thanks for the reply, appreciated. I'm considering the total switch myself as we speak. I presume your meaning the Canon 100-400 MK 1, because the MK2 version one of the sharpest lenses ever made.
Very nice tnx, any comments on AF speed n accuracy with and without the 1,4x?
I offered advice on those in my in the field review of the 200-600. Summary is that the 200-600 is a bit slower with the a7rIII than the 100-400. With the a9 there does not seem to be a difference.
@@JuanPons Tnx yeah I forgot you covered that ground in part I and I was hoping you'll go a bit deeper into it in part II. At any rate your summary suffices for me at present. Perhaps update when you get you hands on the a7RIV. Tnx in advance.
Yep that is my plan. Camera should be in my hands sometime today.
Juan, the shots taken with the 100-400 are always larger (as displayed on your screen) than the shots taken with the 200-600, even though they are at the same focal length. This problem is most noticeable when you add the 1.4X teleconverter. Any idea what's going on?
Hi, I answered that a couple of comments back. This is what I wrote then:
I was trying to get the same approximate framing for all the shots, but not trying to do it perfectly because for the tests that I am doing it really does not make a difference. Also with the vastly different minimum focusing distances of both lenses it was not really possible for all the shots.
@@JuanPons "...for the tests that I am doing it really does not make a difference..."
I have to strongly disagree: in evaluating sharpness the reproduction ratio *does* make a whole lot of a difference.
I find that I primarily use my 100-400 not only at the upper reaches, but usually coupled with the 1.4x teleconverter. It would seem that the 200-600 would be the lens for me so I am not limited to f/8 all the time.
Yes, that is why I personally prefer the 200-600
Hi Juan, Which is the best lens for bird photography: the 100-400 or the 200-600? And the best Sony combo also for bird photography?
I think the ultimate combination would be the a9 and the 200-600. However rumors are that the a9 Mark II is about the be announced sometime in Oct. So you may want to wait to see how that camera compares with the a9. If nothing else it will be the price of the a9 down some.
Really helpful - thanks Juan. Am leaning towards getting 1.4 TC for the 100-400 instead of getting the 200-600. And I love your point about the close focusing - I found that very true, the 100-400 works great on the trail.
Glad to hear it.
Thanks a lot for the video. I wish Sony had a 100-500 or a 200-500!
Glad you found it useful
I rented the 200-600mm last weeked and went on a safari in India. I had issues in auto focus where it hunts though there was a contrast. Esp, it doesn't focus blacks at all. We spotted a black drongo but the lens just did not focus at all. How was your experience with focusing at black colour?
You did not specify which camera you were using. The lens is going to perform MUCH better with an a9 than an a7R2. Without specifying which camera you used there is not much anyone can comment on.
I've used both lenses with a Sony 1.4 TC. The bigger combo is softer than the smaller of my copies, when both are racked out - unacceptably so, so I sold it.
Hi, Sony does seem to have variability between copies of the lenses so I wonder if you got a lower quality 200-600
When you say that a9 has better autofocus speed than 7r4 I understand that this is referred to when shooting at 20 fps. Am I right ?
But what is the focus speed comparison when shooting at 1 fps, that is 1 single shot ?
Tha AF speed on any camera is unrelated to the frame per second speed. The AF on the a9 is superior to the a7r4 irregardless of the fps setting.
Many thanks for your feedback. Notwithstanding my preferred photo activity is about flying birds and animals in general and, also understanding how important is the autofocus speed an lock , I have been and am very reluctant vs the a9 because of his 24 megapixel sensor.
This because the large resolution of the high pixel size gives me a great cropping flexibility since I use a 100 400 tele. More than the a1, I am attracted by the forecasted 7r v of which I read in a Sony rumors report
Do you know if the mk v will have the birds eyes focus locking and the sensor shield ?
@@marziofusaroli8955 I have no way of knowing.
Nice review, subscribed. I have a 100-400 Sony with an A9. I also have a Nikon 500mm f/4 prime which I think absolutely blows the 100-400 away in sharpness and low-light capability. However, I have to pair that with a D850. In my opinion, the A9 is a far better camera for wildlife than the D850, other than the lower pixel count. Until either Sony produces a nice f/4 prime in the 500 to 600mm range or Nikon produces a good action-mirrorless camera, I will remain torn.
I know this is usually a bad idea, but has anybody tried putting a Nikon or Canon wildlife prime on an A9?
I have one more observation. On the split bullseye part of the test pattern there are converging black on white lines coming in from the left. What mostly looks like gray continues on the right. If that gray area is really even finer black and white lines then the 100-400 seems to have a big advantage over the 200-600. Probably a lot of the grayness is from the f/8 or f/9 diffraction blur, but some may be from chromatic aberration and/or flare. This would be consistent with the GM rating of the 400 zoom versus the G rating of the 600 zoom. In my general experience, this is what makes images taken with primes seem to pop without looking oversharpened.
Did see some attempts in the field.. A9 + Comlite PRO +AFS 600mm f4.0VR, did not work that well.. A9 + EF 500mm f4.0IS + Sigma adapter , did fine if the brids do not fly at high speed,
not the great "hitrate" of keepers.. The problem is not the A9, but the adapters, One had the A9 + Techart leica M AF-adapter + Leica APO TEYLT-R 280mm f2.8 + LEICA APO 1.4x extender and it did great !!!... You have to wait for better adapers i think... , or just try it at a store , this seems to be fine -> see link : ua-cam.com/video/Yp_t49PqzNM/v-deo.html
Stuart, Sony does make a 600mm f/4 and a 400mm f/2.8, and rumors are that they are about to come out with the 500mm f/4. The problem with these (as is with any other brand) is that they are very expensive, very big and very heavy. I owned and used a canon 500 f/4 for about 15 years and used it extensively, but the quality of these newer zoom lenses is so good that I much prefer their versatility and weight over the huge lenses. These allow me to be much more light and nimble and that helps increase the number of shots I am able to make in dynamic situations.
Juan Pons , thank you! I would point out that the primes from both Sony and Nikon are getting a lot lighter, and with the weight centered closer to the camera body. The 400 f/2.8 is about 6.5 pounds, for example. Nikon has made strides with its phase-Fresnel technology. However, both companies seem to have had a lot of trouble getting production lines up to meet the demand. The 400 f/2.8, in particular, has been listed as “new product, coming soon” for over a year now by both B&H and Adorama. I just checked again before posting here and Adorama now adds that this product is currently being shipped to its warehouse. So perhaps things will get better soon.
I have both lenses and kept the 100-400 just because of the minimum focusing distance.
Yes, if you can afford to keep both, they both have their uses. Thanks.
I did the same and keep them both. 👍
An interesting comparison between two fine lenses. However, the difference in the size of the test chart images made it almost impossible for viewers to see for themselves , and we would have to take your word for it that one was 'sharper' than the other. Thanks anyway.
Yes that is correct. That is the point of a review, offering my opinion. If you don't trust my opinion, why would you trust the samples I would provide? If you don't trust me, you can very easily perform the same test.