Great summary!

I use mine on the A9II the 100-400 has not got back on the body yet for my wildlife photography

I have a7r3, crossing fingers the a9 drops a bit more in price before i grab it. I have the 200-600, and youre right, the 100-400 (rented) seems to come out a bit cleaner. Sigh... will now save up to go broke all over again to own both.... Cheers!

I found that the 200-600 focus speed is not as fast as the 100-400 with using the A9 or A7Riv. Agree that with the A7Riv the 100-400 are just a bit sharper. That said I do tend to use the 200-600 more mostly because the reach is just better. If I am going out on a trip in which I know there will be more birds in flight shots I do grab the 100-400 because I have found that it is just far superior in focus speed. Depending on the trip I am far more likely to take the 100-400 than the 200-600. With the A7Riv I would pick the 100-400 if I was forced to only pick one, for the A9 it would probably be the 200-600.

@@davidlewis5929 i just grabbed the 100-400 last week. (Which is stupid, because with Covid i cant use it anywhere ;) ). Now i have both lenses, my justification being the 100-400 will replace my 70-300 in my bag. The 600 is too big to carry around for day to day stuff, more just specialty stuff. Hoping to grab the a9 soon, pair it with the 600, and that will be my dedicated airshow / wildlife setup. The r3 with the 400 will be my carry setup for those times something cool comes along that you werent expecting

Lol. I would love to be able to own both lenses!

😂

:D this coment made my day!

Solid summary of the choices. I agree!

The bigger problem is that it makes it F8... they are definitely different lenses for different purposes. I think when i get old and move to the country I would get the 200-600, but then again I might just treat myself to a 400 F2.8 - for now though flexibility and pack ability are at the top of my list....

If you use a A6300,6400,6600 you can get 24 mp and 600mm with the long end of the 100-400 W/ these 1.5 crop sensor cameras

Mike Hines I would get the sigma 100-400 it’s a beast

@@angelguzman8737 yeah, sigma 100-400 is beast for people who can't afford a Sony 100-400 GM ;) native GM lens is always win

Thank you

@@deankim9958 I have sigma 100 400 and although its sharp alright, the autofocus struggles with quick movements. Ordered the sony 100 400 and glad to read sharpness is better even on a7riv, that i have.

Hi Taylor, i am confused which one to buy 70-200 or 100-400 ? apart the reach distance do you like your 70-200 2.8 ? is it versatile ?

@@FarhanKhan-gt7hd hey there my friend. I already had the 70-200 and was looking for a telephoto to get a little more reach. I decided to go with the 200-600 and I love it! As for the 70-200 2.8 I really enjoy that lens. I have had absolutely no issues with it. However, some of the pros I follow are saying that is due for an update. Best of luck!

Glad it was helpful!

Thanks Lori! Love to see my PEN friends commenting here too!

Glad it was helpful!

Bo - thanks! When will we see you on a trip again?

I have the 100-400 and found no problem at airshows hand-holding and tracking all day, but wish I had more reach. Was the tracking with the the 200-600 a weight or focal-length (narrow angle) issue? Thanks

@@dalefmurphy Hi Dale, It was the weight for me. It was cumbersome. The lens itself performed flawlessly. I also had no problem tracking with the 100-400. One other thing to consider is I had just gotten the 200-600 and wasn't used to working with it. I have no doubt that was part of it. I want to make it clear I am very happy with the 200-600 but I prefer the 100-400 is all. I hope I answered your question. Take care

@@photorectoby Hi Toby, Going to Scotland next year and a couple domestic trips I''m looking at 2021 now. BTW I absolutely loved the New England trip. I really look forward to another one with you. You and Steve are my two favorite photography folks. Take care

I agree the 100-400 is incredibly versatile! 200-600 for those looking mostly for wildlife!

Exactly, it all comes down to reach requirements, if you can come close enough to your subjects then there is no need for a 200-600.

Yep... I selected the 100-400 for the exact same reasons. No regrets whatsoever.

I am not sure I will be able to get that done - lots of workshops in the near future. I do think it is a great camera and a solid upgrade from previous bodies.

Sorry- here is the link photorec.tv/content/sony-200-600-vs-sony-100-400-14x-extender-easy-choice (raw files are linked there)

I really like the 100-400 when comparing these two. It's versatile enough for portraits, street, and wildlife. The 70-200 is a great lens but it is never going to feel long enough for anything but some backyard wildlife.

Man, thank you again. You're so helpful.

But with the 2x teleconverter you get more reach on the 70-200. Also some extra reach if you put it in apsC mode.

Excellently put. The comparison between the 200 600mm and the 100 400 mm isn't apt imo. It's which suits the requirement of the user

Yep! I may end up owning both at some point.

Sounds like a good plan!

@@photorectoby Thanks

I agree that the 100-400 is great for close focusing needs. I strongly prefer the 1.4x kzfaq.info/get/bejne/d5yDmMiZ1ZjNnZ8.html

Link is down below - follow the photorec.tv link.

Hi Brian - I think that is a good solution. It is going to set you up with two excellent lenses and a fantastic camera. Grab the tamron 28-75 for the wider end and you got it all.

This is a tough call. Most of the wildlife friends I mentioned are using the 200-600 with the a9 and are very happy. I think that combo is excellent. It is a pretty serious lens. All depends on how much you travel.

Maybe try some software first like the Topaz AI apps.. I have DeNoise AI (which also sharpens) and it can really rescue a photo that you're not quite pleased with sharpness wise. They're all on sale right now too, about 40% off with discount code plugsnpixels

For wildlife you won’t regret buying the 200-600

I use the same combo

@@kumingo , Hello, I have the a7r iv with the 24 1.4, and today I buy the 100-400 just like you, what lens / s do you use in the middle range, a 24-70 2.8, or fixed? Thank you. (excuse me, but I use a translator to write)

He probably meant by bumping the zoom ring

Hi Dale - I tried both extenders and while I didn't think they were rubbis with the 2x I did feel like AF was slower and quality took enough of a hit that it really isn't worth it except for very static scenes, like the moon :)

Clear image zoom feature?

@@jav_eee it's in the 2nd settings menu,5th page. It says zoom. You can get 2x the zoom and not lose any clarity.

I do love the true travel friendliness of that 70-200 f/4!

this is probably good choice if you can easily haul two lenses or don't need to do dual missions. The 70-200 f4 (used) can also basically be had for the difference in price between the 100-400 and 200-600.

I just bought the a6600 and its great so far! Debating between the Sony 200-600 or the Tamron 150-500

for crop sensor that is a great lens!

I have the A6600 and use the E 70-350G as a compact telephoto, or the FE 200-600G when I need length more than I need compactness. I didn’t consider the FE 100-400GM because (1) it’s neither here nor there - not as long as the longer lens, nor as compact as the compact lens; and (2) I already kinda have that lens as my A-mount 70-400G. The 70-350 and 200-600 do make it a little easier for me to transition away from my A-mount.

Great question! I think I would leave toward the 200-600 for even more reach but I want a second opinion. Ask kzfaq.info

@@photorectoby ended up getting the 200-600 and love it! Thank you!

@@wildlifehouse Nice- Can't go wrong with that lens!

@@photorectoby I have window to return the FX30 and 200-600 and am now thinking about swapping for the A7IV and the new Sigma 60-600. Any thoughts? Please let me know if you would choose the A7IV with the Sigma 60-600 or Sony 200-600 or the FX30 with either of those two. I was also thinking about the Panasonic S5ii but a wildlife photographer said that it won't compare to Sony in terms of animal autofocus. Decisions decisions! 😀 Thanks again!

@@wildlifehouse I would stick with the 200-600 - it is an excellent lens and while I found the sigma to be great I just love the colors and contrast from the 200-600 and I think it is a better match for the Sony a7iv. I don't have enough video experience to compare a7iv vs fx30. Sorry.

Depends what you're filming! Lions? 600. Children? 400.

Apologies. I forget to do that sometimes and it is annoying!

I think that is a great summary!

I use my 100-400 for video and I am happy. I didn't compare vs the 200-600 but google Ryan Mense does bird video and he might have a better idea kzfaq.info/love/TAXwfSKNg2zEYV0loJHtxg

PhotoRec TV will do, thank you.

Hi Brian, I haven't heard this and I don't remember having this issue when testing. I don't have the lens with me at this time to test but I will see what I can do.

@@photorectoby thanks, any help or confirmation of what the 1.4x does with the 200-600mm and A7RIII will be greatly appreciated. A friend thinks it's a limitation of the camera aperture in those A/F modes. Thanks Brian

That's impressive that the adapted lens works that well.

@@photorectoby I don't know about the Sigma, but my 70-200 f/2.8 L III with a Metabones V works "OK" on my A7r4, however, there is a significant loss in real-time AF tracking speed. I would suspect the same will hold true with the Sigma. I don't think the USMs on the Canon lenses were designed to track as fast as the Alphas do even without the adapter so I doubt they'd be able to keep up in any case. It's fine if your subject is stationary, but if the subject is moving then the lag induced by adapting the lens means real-time tracking only lasts long enough to get 1 or 2 frames before it loses the target and has to re-acquire. In fairness it's quick to do that, but you're still going to be losing a *lot* of shots in between. It's bad enough that you can't even focus+recompose to put your subject off-center. If you lock focus on a subject and then move the lens off to the side you lose tracking on it almost immediately unless you move your lens extremely slowly. Eye AF and Animal Eye AF have no problems finding and snapping on but again, it loses tracking rapidly if your subject moves or if you want to recompose and move the lens too quickly. With the 200-600 if I lock on to a bird in flight or an Eye in EyeAF... it generally doesn't let go until I *choose* to let it go. You will also lose at least 2 stops of image stabilization as you have to choose whether to use the camera's IBIS or the lens' IS. I'd love to shoot more with my L glass since it'll be another year at least before I'll be able to replace the Ls with Gms, and still do shoot with adapted Ls when I want every possible pixel of sharpness or need the wider aperture... but if I'm going for something that's moving then using an adapted lens is simply out-of-the-question. It doesn't much matter that the L glass is amazingly sharp if you can't keep the subject in focus. You just lose too much AF performance and it's the amazing AF that got me to switch systems to begin with. ;)

@@photorectoby Yeap works pretty well but AF isn't as fast as my Sony FE 200-600mm for obvious reasons. Take a look at some of my images made using that combination at my Instagram @marcioslssouza

@@Tinfoilnation Been using an A7R2 with Canon glass for a few years now (70-200/2.8 ,400DO ,85/1.2) .I`m more of a birder than a wildlife shooter although I do a lot of equestrian photography .I agree that you lose too much focus speed with adapted lenses (I use a Metabones ). Finally selling off my Canon glass and really considering the 2/600 .I`m comparing the adapted focus speed with that I obtain when I use my Batis lenses with the A7R2. This was a very useful review for me .

There should be a number of second hand ones after 2.5 years

The 100-400 is versatile - great for portraits and landscapes and it fits easily in normal sized camera bags. The 200-600 value great for wildlife and is more affordable.

Buy the GM and you gonna have blth world inside one lens! :)

These are still the top two lenses for Sony photography looking to capture wildlife. I give the 20--600 an advantage for strictly wildlife.

How's your experience so far?

fall 2016 - so yes :)