I think your shutter speed was way higher than required in most of these shots 1/2000-1/3200 has resulted in very noisy images. I'm sure 1/800-1/1000s would have been enough for this scenario and you would have ended up with much cleaner images.
Thank you for this comparison. I‘m using the 70-200gm with 2x teleconverter and the a6500. It‘s exactly like you said, all the pictures taken with this combination are blurry (no matter how fast the shutterspeed is, so camera shake can be excluded). At f8 the results are better, but still not satisfiyng at all! I think it‘s not a user error, but i‘m very interested, if you find out something more about this toppic. Greetings, lukas.
I’ve got a 2x tele which I use primarily with 70-200, tripod outside. It’s great for events where you can’t always be close but you don’t wanna lug around a super zoom.
Both are great lenses. I opted for the 200-600 instead of the 100-400, and haven’t been disappointed at any level. I shoot the A7Rlll with no problems. Have experience with the 100-400, and equally good as well. The more you use them and learn their limits, you’ll love all three!
Do you still have the 70-200 and 2x? Could you test it quickly on a tripod with manual focus on a static target @ 400mm? It may be the micro AF needing adjustment for it being that awful.
Congratulations on the video. I'm about to buy a SONY FX3 or FX6 to film socials but also ballet, I currently have an HXR NX80 with which I used to record ballet thanks to the zoom but I feel like I'm pushing it to the limit and I want to evolve. Normally the cameraman is located at the back of the theater for this reason the need for a suitable lens. What would be ideal? Thanks and greetings from Lima Peru.
You have to use the same body for both lenses. You manipulated the image from the R3 before doing the comparison. Get two of the exact same bodies then run the test again.
Note on sharpness: the low pass filter on the a7iii is only about half as strong as the one in the a9, so anything shot on it will have a small advantage in sharpness.
First: filter away and lens hood up! Second, different cameras produce different results, and a free-field test of this kind is not science-enough to provide comparable results - it's impossible to shoot two identical and comparable photos at different shutter speeds and ISO sensitivities. Third: For sharpness comparisons, a static subject with identical camera settings from the tripod would be better. Fourth: Oh wonder, a 2x telephoto converter costs sharpness (and light!), Something completely new! ;-) (Sorry, my English is not really good.)
It is quite normal for the focal length to be doubled at the expense of image quality. But better, you have the focal length when you need it and can take pictures. Or you buy 2 expensive lenses and drag them around with you! My alternative is: A Sony A7R II / III, with 70-200 / 2.8, 1.4x teleconverter and if need be the x1.5 APS-C crop mode, with ~ 18mp use. If ~ 10mp are enough, also goes an A7 II / III, or of course the A9. For this type of sport, the autofocus should be sufficient on all these cameras, with the new 3 series and the A9 being preferred. 420mm @ f / 4 are possible if 10 / 18mp are enough. The loss of quality is limited and thanks to f / 4 you can also choose lower ISO, or faster shutter speeds.
Shouldve rented an A9 from a shop, or ask them to borrow one with a free shout out so we get fair comparison. Love this video. It was exactly what everyone is debating on.
they both have solid image quality imo, and since the long reach isn't going to work without an equally solid AF performance, I think 100-400GM is better for sports shooting. but 70-200+teleconverter should be definitely more versatile
I was surprised, I expected the 70-200 F2.8 GM to be better (I own it and know it is incredibly sharp by itself) with the teleconvertor. Not that I expected it to beat out the 100-400 GM, but I would have thought it would have been a closer competition. I have heard that the 1.4 tele has much lower loss in quality.
I have this combo: A7Riii -> 70-200mm f/2.8 GM + 2.0x Tele Converter, and was very surprised how very soft the images were. I’m probably selling/trading it to get 1.4x Tele converter or put funds towards longer lens like 100-400mm GM or possibly towards whatever Sigma or Tamron puts out in native E-Mount.
It looks the same to me in the video. The 70-200 f2.8 pictures are really soft compared to 100-400. For those who use 100-400 focal lenghts, clearly is the better option.
Is your 70-200 noisy? I mean, literally doing noise? Same people are claiming that on differents facebook foros and since mine is on it way I begin to get a bit worry about it, of course since is new, I will send it back immediately but I'm curious if the last firmware update may have something to do with this, or are just some unfortunately people who got a bad copy of the lens.
Just for interest's sake, I will chime in here, I already owned the 100-400mm L from Canon and use it with the Metabones V on a Sony a7 iii. Very, very sharp but half the time AF fails and I have to use manual focus. I have the latest Metabones firmware update and I have tried many, many, many ... combinations of settings. All my other Canon lenses work far better, it's a shame. Manual focus isn't that bad with the zoom to focus feature as long as I have a fairly still subjects.
Thanks a lot. I was going to ask you to do this comparison actually. The 70-200 with the converter is almost the same price as the 100-400 so having the earlier combination would allow you the flexibility of using f2.8 when you only need 200mm. It will also cover the 85mm which some people wants. I would say that combination makes more sense. Once again many thanks. Great job!
With the great high ISO performance and good detail you cant complain a F5.6 is a problem not at all, theese cameras now are giving great results above 12 600 what was it ISO.
Which combination would you get? Sony 70-200 F2.8 with 2X or Sony 100-400GM? The 70-200F2.8 with 2X is supposed to be better when stopped down to F8/F11 or so. I will do another video looking at that. However, when shooting it wide open, results aren't very good. I'm also second guessing if the focus was actually worse. Let me know what you think.
I compared the 100-400mm on an a7iii with/without a 1.4x teleconverter to an a6400 with/without a 1.4 teleconverter. To cut to the chase, I immediately sold the teleconverter. My test was in absolute best case scenario for the teleconverter (on a tripod with ISO 100) and it was barely acceptable. In real life, ISO will be higher because of the light loss and it drops to unacceptable. I use the a7iii with the 100-400 and no teleconverter 80% of the time. If i’m photographing mid day in really good light, i’ll use the a6400 with the 100-400mm with no teleconverter.
The Stuff Mentioned in the Video🔽🔽🔽🔽 Affiliate Links Sony FE 2.0X Teleconverter AMZ: geni.us/AUBlmKt B&H: bhpho.to/2K4Uw2r Sony 70-200GM F2.8 AMZ: geni.us/w1b2v B&H: bhpho.to/2wcLzlx My Favorite Sony Zoom Lens 100-400 AMZ: geni.us/OCW0N B&H: bhpho.to/2r7pkIH My favorite Sony Full-Frame: a7RIII AMZ: geni.us/cDJCpgL B&H: bhpho.to/2A9HVGf
Dislike the review: such a long impressive intro and setting up of expectations and such an underwhelming final (quick exit) comparisons... evidence, total lack of variable situations. Disappointed.
Dee Yammy Agreed. The conclusion was awful, no consumer advice other than “the 100-400 is clearly sharper, but you’ll already know which one you’ll want”... Dude, if I knew I wouldn’t be looking at “70-200 2x vs 100-400” comparisons...
Agreed, it sucks that we didn't get an idea of the difference in sharpness - not through the EVF but on a computer. I can't exactly tell which is sharper in a compressed UA-cam video.
very good comparison. But, there is nothing new for me. The sel70200gm is are very good lens, but it has some limits. I used a nikkor 70-200 2.8 vrii on my d800 for some years. At 200mm the nikon version was a little bit sharper. Only a tiny nuance better. Nothing to write home about it. But this shows me, that the sel70200gm is on its limits with a 42mp sensor. I thing sony build it for a maximum of 50mp. Nothing more. If you use a 2x converter then you extract more then twice out of it. Now the sel70200gm collapses and show some softness even on a 24mp sensor. Especially if you zoom in to 100% image magnification. The sel70200gm is a very fine lens, but if sony wants to bring out a 60...70mp sensor, then they have to renew their lenses
Really strange that you didn't use the same bodies for the comparison, kind of makes it a bit redundant. Overall though, well made video. Also, you're doing your channel a disservice by doing your conclusion before you've even had a chance to sit in a post-environment to make a more detailed and conclusive opinion of your own.
the teleconverter makes it softer.... without it at 70-200 its sharper than the 100-400 if you need more reach we all know the obvious choice but for versatility portraits low light etc.. 70-200.. gg
Guys, on my R3 i have 35 1.4 AF Samyang and 85 1.8 Sony. And i have sigma mc11 + 50 1.8 stm canon. I am new to the business of weddings. I am considering 25 Zeiss 2.0, 50mm 1.4 zeiss and 70-200 2.8. Wich will increase in cost, but.. Do you think its worth it? All could be used in S35 if zoom is needed. But business says - do more with less... Seems i am confused, need help ;-).
check out the 55 1.8. Its a great size and weight and is sharp as hell. Great lens. But the 70-200gm is just stunning. It is heavy and a commitment to take with you. I suggest looking into the tamron 28-75 2.8 as well once they get the firmware update to the focus out. If you like zooms at least. I love that lens as well. I have not tried the 25 zeiss but im sure it is stunning. I have the 16-35gm and it is the perfect landscape and astro lens for me. I think it is the sharpest lens of its kind. Same as the 70-200 based off dxomark at least. Both are amazing. You can not go wrong with the 16-35 f4 or the 70-200 f4 either. With the iso ability of the sony's. It is all down to what you shoot mostly and I suggest being honest with yourself on what you need and what you dont need. Because things get really expensive really quickly with GAS. I am happy with the 50 1.8 for example. But I do want the 55 zeiss. It is on my wish list.
Dear mr @that1cameraguy you just selected the right subject but you just skipped out on some key issues. First, the macro ability of the 100-400,- the bokeh of the 2,8 vs the 4-5,6, the sharpness was not conclusive nor the autofocus. Good job, nice video, great subject,- just missed some key points.
Ffs Sony please make an affordable 400... 1k was a lot for the 200 f4- I need a decent 400 that isnt adapted. What's the 2x with the f4 200 like compared with th 400?
FINALLY! Finally, someone made this comparison.
It's been compared for a LONG time now on the web...
I think your shutter speed was way higher than required in most of these shots 1/2000-1/3200 has resulted in very noisy images. I'm sure 1/800-1/1000s would have been enough for this scenario and you would have ended up with much cleaner images.
This
Thank you for this comparison. I‘m using the 70-200gm with 2x teleconverter and the a6500. It‘s exactly like you said, all the pictures taken with this combination are blurry (no matter how fast the shutterspeed is, so camera shake can be excluded). At f8 the results are better, but still not satisfiyng at all! I think it‘s not a user error, but i‘m very interested, if you find out something more about this toppic.
Greetings, lukas.
Would it not have been easy enough to repeat tests with the bodies switched?
It seems like I wasn't the only one who wanted to see this review. Could you do a part II with more in-depth sharpness comparison?
I’ve got a 2x tele which I use primarily with 70-200, tripod outside. It’s great for events where you can’t always be close but you don’t wanna lug around a super zoom.
Nice job! I own the FE100-400GM as you know it's a fantastic lens.
your vocals are so crisp! What mic you using?
Both are great lenses. I opted for the 200-600 instead of the 100-400, and haven’t been disappointed at any level. I shoot the A7Rlll with no problems. Have experience with the 100-400, and equally good as well. The more you use them and learn their limits, you’ll love all three!
Do you still have the 70-200 and 2x? Could you test it quickly on a tripod with manual focus on a static target @ 400mm? It may be the micro AF needing adjustment for it being that awful.
Congratulations on the video. I'm about to buy a SONY FX3 or FX6 to film socials but also ballet, I currently have an HXR NX80 with which I used to record ballet thanks to the zoom but I feel like I'm pushing it to the limit and I want to evolve. Normally the cameraman is located at the back of the theater for this reason the need for a suitable lens. What would be ideal? Thanks and greetings from Lima Peru.
Do these work with Sony E 70-350mm f/4.5-6.3 G OSS | APS-C, Zoom, Super Telephoto Lens (SEL70350G) and Sony a6400?
You have to use the same body for both lenses. You manipulated the image from the R3 before doing the comparison. Get two of the exact same bodies then run the test again.
Note on sharpness: the low pass filter on the a7iii is only about half as strong as the one in the a9, so anything shot on it will have a small advantage in sharpness.
First: filter away and lens hood up! Second, different cameras produce different results, and a free-field test of this kind is not science-enough to provide comparable results - it's impossible to shoot two identical and comparable photos at different shutter speeds and ISO sensitivities. Third: For sharpness comparisons, a static subject with identical camera settings from the tripod would be better. Fourth: Oh wonder, a 2x telephoto converter costs sharpness (and light!), Something completely new! ;-) (Sorry, my English is not really good.)
It is quite normal for the focal length to be doubled at the expense of image quality. But better, you have the focal length when you need it and can take pictures. Or you buy 2 expensive lenses and drag them around with you!
My alternative is: A Sony A7R II / III, with 70-200 / 2.8, 1.4x teleconverter and if need be the x1.5 APS-C crop mode, with ~ 18mp use. If ~ 10mp are enough, also goes an A7 II / III, or of course the A9. For this type of sport, the autofocus should be sufficient on all these cameras, with the new 3 series and the A9 being preferred. 420mm @ f / 4 are possible if 10 / 18mp are enough. The loss of quality is limited and thanks to f / 4 you can also choose lower ISO, or faster shutter speeds.
Great info man, thanks! I'm looking into picking up the 100-400.
What about the 2x on the 100-400?
autofocus goodbye.
Why would you put that filter on the front of a $2500 lens?
Shouldve rented an A9 from a shop, or ask them to borrow one with a free shout out so we get fair comparison. Love this video. It was exactly what everyone is debating on.
they both have solid image quality imo, and since the long reach isn't going to work without an equally solid AF performance, I think 100-400GM is better for sports shooting. but 70-200+teleconverter should be definitely more versatile
well i think most who would get the 100400GM will also have the 1.4x so that gives you a solid range...
Just purchased the 100400GM last week, the 1.4x is on back-order! How much does the 1.4x degrade the image quality if any? cheers...
I'm planning to work on a video later today on that
I was surprised, I expected the 70-200 F2.8 GM to be better (I own it and know it is incredibly sharp by itself) with the teleconvertor. Not that I expected it to beat out the 100-400 GM, but I would have thought it would have been a closer competition. I have heard that the 1.4 tele has much lower loss in quality.
I have this combo: A7Riii -> 70-200mm f/2.8 GM + 2.0x Tele Converter, and was very surprised how very soft the images were. I’m probably selling/trading it to get 1.4x Tele converter or put funds towards longer lens like 100-400mm GM or possibly towards whatever Sigma or Tamron puts out in native E-Mount.
It looks the same to me in the video. The 70-200 f2.8 pictures are really soft compared to 100-400. For those who use 100-400 focal lenghts, clearly is the better option.
Just the video I've been looking for, thank you!
Why on earth would u use an polarized filter???
Is your 70-200 noisy? I mean, literally doing noise? Same people are claiming that on differents facebook foros and since mine is on it way I begin to get a bit worry about it, of course since is new, I will send it back immediately but I'm curious if the last firmware update may have something to do with this, or are just some unfortunately people who got a bad copy of the lens.
Comparing them on different cameras... sure, that's the way to get objective results.
Just for interest's sake, I will chime in here, I already owned the 100-400mm L from Canon and use it with the Metabones V on a Sony a7 iii. Very, very sharp but half the time AF fails and I have to use manual focus. I have the latest Metabones firmware update and I have tried many, many, many ... combinations of settings. All my other Canon lenses work far better, it's a shame. Manual focus isn't that bad with the zoom to focus feature as long as I have a fairly still subjects.
Thanks a lot. I was going to ask you to do this comparison actually. The 70-200 with the converter is almost the same price as the 100-400 so having the earlier combination would allow you the flexibility of using f2.8 when you only need 200mm. It will also cover the 85mm which some people wants. I would say that combination makes more sense. Once again many thanks. Great job!
Solid B-Rolls! I thoroughly enjoyed them!
Any chance you can test the canon 100-40Lii vs the Sony 100-400 on the a7iii? Very curious on the autofocus performance
What songs did you use?
With the great high ISO performance and good detail you cant complain a F5.6 is a problem not at all, theese cameras now are giving great results above 12 600 what was it ISO.
Which combination would you get? Sony 70-200 F2.8 with 2X or Sony 100-400GM?
The 70-200F2.8 with 2X is supposed to be better when stopped down to F8/F11 or so. I will do another video looking at that. However, when shooting it wide open, results aren't very good. I'm also second guessing if the focus was actually worse. Let me know what you think.
that1cameraguy 70-200 f4 or f2.8 and 400mm f2.8 when released with 2x if accesable
1.4X teleconverter is the best teleconverter. Don't waste money to buy 2X teleconverter.
70-200 GM + 1.4X
100-400 GM + 1.4X is the best😍😍
a7R3 + 100400GM + 1.4x + clear image zoom for video is yummy :)
Yes! If my 1.4x looked anything like that 2x I would've returned it immediately. That was too blurry for my taste
that1cameraguy would you think the 70-200 f4 G lens with a 1.4x convertor to be a good combo, with good sharpness? Is the aperture affected?
Will this teleconverter also work with the Tamron 2875f28?
nah
You've got the vibe of a TV anchorman. Thanks for the comparison.
I am going to buy the 85 mm prime and the 100-400 .
Ohhh. thanks for this review. Its fantastic !!!! best regards from Spain.
Excellent Capture for sure, amazing video
can i use teleconverter for sony 70-200 f4 ?
no the sony TC only works with 70-200 2.8 and 100-400
Thanks for doing this one!
What’s the best lens for concert photography/low light photography with a Sony a9?
Definitely 100-400GM. UNBELIEVABLY SHARP GM LENS I’VE EVER TESTED
These images are so noisy? Why?
What is the song with the lyrics? I really like the lyrics, please reply
Nahra - Queen of Mars
For those of you in the world post covid
Hmm couldn’t watch it all the way through not the same camera. What’s the point the a9’s better autofocus capability is going to skew the results.
I compared the 100-400mm on an a7iii with/without a 1.4x teleconverter to an a6400 with/without a 1.4 teleconverter. To cut to the chase, I immediately sold the teleconverter. My test was in absolute best case scenario for the teleconverter (on a tripod with ISO 100) and it was barely acceptable. In real life, ISO will be higher because of the light loss and it drops to unacceptable. I use the a7iii with the 100-400 and no teleconverter 80% of the time. If i’m photographing mid day in really good light, i’ll use the a6400 with the 100-400mm with no teleconverter.
Thanks a million
The Stuff Mentioned in the Video🔽🔽🔽🔽
Affiliate Links
Sony FE 2.0X Teleconverter
AMZ: geni.us/AUBlmKt
B&H: bhpho.to/2K4Uw2r
Sony 70-200GM F2.8
AMZ: geni.us/w1b2v
B&H: bhpho.to/2wcLzlx
My Favorite Sony Zoom Lens 100-400
AMZ: geni.us/OCW0N
B&H: bhpho.to/2r7pkIH
My favorite Sony Full-Frame: a7RIII
AMZ: geni.us/cDJCpgL
B&H: bhpho.to/2A9HVGf
Thank you so much for doing this 🥰
what does the teleconverter do???
I would have thought the name answers the question.. eg 2x tele will change the range of a 70-200 upto 140-400.
oh
AllPinkBarbieDollHouse it Converts to tele 😂
For the price of a teleconverter, I'd put on some extra money to get an a6300
KirbyGoezPink For the price of Sony kit in general you mean
Definitely your results shows the 100-400 is better
4:38 - iso between 400-1000 and that much grain in the image, really?
Dislike the review: such a long impressive intro and setting up of expectations and such an underwhelming final (quick exit) comparisons... evidence, total lack of variable situations. Disappointed.
Dee Yammy Agreed. The conclusion was awful, no consumer advice other than “the 100-400 is clearly sharper, but you’ll already know which one you’ll want”...
Dude, if I knew I wouldn’t be looking at “70-200 2x vs 100-400” comparisons...
Agreed, it sucks that we didn't get an idea of the difference in sharpness - not through the EVF but on a computer. I can't exactly tell which is sharper in a compressed UA-cam video.
I agree. Very inconclusive conclusion renders this comparison a total waste of time to watch
Wow. In that comparison there is no comparison. The 100-400 GM blew away the 70-200 GM with the 2x.
not a great comparison but still somewhat useful video
A question I asked for so long!
Overall good video but music choice is appalling, you should consider more calm and downbeat music.
very good comparison. But, there is nothing new for me. The sel70200gm is are very good lens, but it has some limits. I used a nikkor 70-200 2.8 vrii on my d800 for some years. At 200mm the nikon version was a little bit sharper. Only a tiny nuance better. Nothing to write home about it. But this shows me, that the sel70200gm is on its limits with a 42mp sensor. I thing sony build it for a maximum of 50mp. Nothing more. If you use a 2x converter then you extract more then twice out of it. Now the sel70200gm collapses and show some softness even on a 24mp sensor. Especially if you zoom in to 100% image magnification. The sel70200gm is a very fine lens, but if sony wants to bring out a 60...70mp sensor, then they have to renew their lenses
use the 200mm on an aps c sensor and you will then have a 300mm:)
Really strange that you didn't use the same bodies for the comparison, kind of makes it a bit redundant. Overall though, well made video. Also, you're doing your channel a disservice by doing your conclusion before you've even had a chance to sit in a post-environment to make a more detailed and conclusive opinion of your own.
100 400 gm,my go to lens.😎
the teleconverter makes it softer.... without it at 70-200 its sharper than the 100-400 if you need more reach we all know the obvious choice but for versatility portraits low light etc.. 70-200.. gg
Helpful
Guys, on my R3 i have 35 1.4 AF Samyang and 85 1.8 Sony. And i have sigma mc11 + 50 1.8 stm canon.
I am new to the business of weddings.
I am considering 25 Zeiss 2.0, 50mm 1.4 zeiss and 70-200 2.8. Wich will increase in cost, but.. Do you think its worth it?
All could be used in S35 if zoom is needed.
But business says - do more with less...
Seems i am confused, need help ;-).
check out the 55 1.8. Its a great size and weight and is sharp as hell. Great lens. But the 70-200gm is just stunning. It is heavy and a commitment to take with you. I suggest looking into the tamron 28-75 2.8 as well once they get the firmware update to the focus out. If you like zooms at least. I love that lens as well. I have not tried the 25 zeiss but im sure it is stunning. I have the 16-35gm and it is the perfect landscape and astro lens for me. I think it is the sharpest lens of its kind. Same as the 70-200 based off dxomark at least. Both are amazing. You can not go wrong with the 16-35 f4 or the 70-200 f4 either. With the iso ability of the sony's. It is all down to what you shoot mostly and I suggest being honest with yourself on what you need and what you dont need. Because things get really expensive really quickly with GAS. I am happy with the 50 1.8 for example. But I do want the 55 zeiss. It is on my wish list.
gimiked Thank you, much appreciated! I am still thinking..
Dear mr @that1cameraguy you just selected the right subject but you just skipped out on some key issues. First, the macro ability of the 100-400,- the bokeh of the 2,8 vs the 4-5,6, the sharpness was not conclusive nor the autofocus.
Good job, nice video, great subject,- just missed some key points.
Ffs Sony please make an affordable 400... 1k was a lot for the 200 f4- I need a decent 400 that isnt adapted.
What's the 2x with the f4 200 like compared with th 400?
John Walsh , check out the 70-300 for an affordable alternative
Good morning
helpful
Looks really grainy
Too many variables to make any sense !
That OTHER Camera Guy Is More Entertaining To Watch But He's Annoying . You're More "Pro" \Boring :)