I know how you feel!

Why thank you!

Thanks, I always try and dig deep in my reviews! The zoom twist really does sound minor, but it made a big difference to me.

Where I live, in the Caribbean, internal zoom is a huge deal. My 24-70 GM2 inhales salt, sand and moisture every time I zoom in.

You're welcome!

Thanks Bruce, and bonus thanks if you pre-ordered via my link!

Thanks!

Thanyou!

Thanks! I really like this lens and hope you will too!

The internal zooming and fast focusing really did it for me.

Thanks! They're both great choices, but with some key differences as you'll hopefully now understand. PS - if you're ordering online, please do consider going through my links here or at cameralabs.com thanks!

Thanks!

Thankyou!

You're very welcome!

Thanks! You're welcome!

You're welcome!

I'd like that too...

I think there'll be a few people weighing them up carefully. I'll d a full comparison in my final review. If you end up ordering anything online, please do consider going through my links here or at cameralabs.com thanks!

Willing to bet the 100400GM is sharper, although less reach. Question is, can you live without 100-200mm range? I cannot

Thanks! Yes, the A9 is comfortably better than the A7r III in this regard, but hopefully the A7 III is somewhere inbetween.

Weeeeeeell, depends a lot on how much you're swinging it around and how much weight training you do! I was fine for half an hour or so, but beyond that wanted a monopod. If you're mostly handholding, I'd say go for the 100-400.

Thanks!

Yes, that is a nice dilemma! If you end up buying one online, please do consider going through my links here or at cameralabs.com thanks!

Only a monopod!

Thanks!

Thanks! Yes, I hope to try out both those bodies with it.

Yes, it's not going to deliver the best-looking bokeh, the 100-400 is nicer in that regard.

Thanks! yes I'd like to do that too, and also using the A6400,

@@cameralabs I appreciate. Thank u so much 😊🙏

Thanks! I've not had a chance to retest it I'm afraid, but I haven't heard any issues from other reviewers.

Hmmm, I'll need to look into that. That sequence with the seagull approaching was across a fair distance...

Thanks!

If you get the 1.4 TC you will get almost 600mm

I hope to do that test in the future...

I know, right?

I've tried acting before. It didn't take: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/e8CHlZea1r2bc2g.html

I wholeheartedly agree. They're not cheap to hire though...

@@cameralabs But the Production Value...!

I'm down!

@@thatjordandrake we need to replicate this magic on EVERY video going forward now...

I own the A7R3 received my 200-600 4 days ago. Love the lens it's sharp and zooming is a snap but does not do any AF tracking. I will keep the camera as I love the 42MP and purchase the A9 possibly used.

You mean in the native e-mount? They already do if you're willing to adapt a DSLR lens of course...

yes, I meant for the native e-mpunt , or at least so I read on some photography websites....

No problem, it's this: www.cameralabs.com/feisol-tt-15-mark-ii-mini-tripod-review/

Thanks! Here you go: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/nrx_fsqmzsyzoZ8.html

Thank you so much, especially for the incredibly quick reply 🙏

That's a nice combination you have!

Nice one! If you're ordering online, please consider going through my links, thanks!

I don't think they will sell it for £1750.00 in UK. If they do I'll probably save up for it. If it's £2000.00 like I suspect I'll wait for Tamron to come up with something native E mount in similar focal range.

Ideally I'd have both as well! PS - if you end up ordering one online, please consider going through my links, thanks!

I think they are 2 very different lenses. If you do landscapes, nature shots the 100400gm is far superior. Only use case for 500mm plus it's usually wildlife (birds in particular). I'd rather get the 1.4tc for the extra reach in those cases

I'll be doing the same, going to keep my 100400gm and compliment it with the 200600G for the long reach subjects (mainly birds)

@@njrtech. I picked mine up four days ago. Weather was not as good as I had hoped over the weekend, but I did manage to take a few shots. Now I am back home I will process them and check the results. The weather this week should be a lot better, so I shoud be able to make a proper assessment.

@@klackon1 any updates on your 200600? Thx

I agree, I'd like to test with the A7 III and A7r III.

@@davevichich5294 yes, I'll definitely try to do that.

On the surface it's the reach, internal zoom and cheaper price of the 200-600 vs the slightly better quality, closer focusing, smaller and lighter 100-400. I'd really like to retest the 100-400 with a 1.4x TC.

Thank you both. Gordon, that's what I'm thinking. I unfortunately bought the 100-400mm the day before the 200-600mm news leaked, so now I'm unsure whether to sell it (it's still brand new, in box) and get the 200-600. I'm considering keeping the 100-400 and getting the 1.4x TC; that way I would sort of get the best of both worlds. But the internal zoom would be so nice!

@@radishcastle can you return the 100-400? It's still a brilliant lens, and the results are better quality too.

@@cameralabs I don't think I can, but it shouldn't be hard to sell. Sorry, I'm a bit confused - which lens are you saying is better quality?

@@radishcastle the 100-400mm is better quality.

It does round it out nicely.

Is it? Can't see anything here that replaces my 300 2.8 IS II

@@justinholding02 I would guess a fast 300 and 500 are on a roadmap at some point.

Is the wildlife moving towards you at speed? In which case I'd go for the Sony or stick with M43 and use the OMD EM1 II. If the wildlife is fairly static, or the motion os, say, a bird taking flight, then the G9 can work really well. Here's a safari I shot with the G9 and 200mm lens: www.cameralabs.com/south-africa-safari-photography/

PS - if you end up buying online, please do consider going via my links at cameralabs.com thanks!

@@cameralabs I am actually finding the G9 to be pretty decent at birds and other moving subjects but the reason for the faster lens/system change for low light is literally the low light aspect of things. Just a few days ago I was trying to get shots of garden birds and water rail at a local reserve and both are very fast and need relatively decent shutter speeds which is hard on an overcast winters day here in the UK. For the speeds required I needed to be at about ISO 3200 or above which is not ideal and my thinking was f2.8 can get me to 1600 or below which is much more acceptable especially when put through Topaz denoise. So that's the scenario really basically it would end up being my wildlife hide lens and general low light wildlife lens.

@@JoeMaranophotography sure thing. If the images look good enough to you at 3200 ISO, then stick with it and get a brighter lens. If the images aren't good enough even at 3200, then you'll need a bigger format as you've suspected.

Thanks!

Yes. I think they want the testers using the g9 to get best results. But, the a7iii owners are the people that will be buying the 200-600mm.

I will definitely try it with the A7 III when I get it back.

Kai has a video up where he uses both the 200-600 and the 600 f/4 with the a7iii: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/p6t8frtekp6WfYU.html

Great review, Gordon. I'm interested in the performance of this lens with the a7Riii. Thank you!

@@kamenrida1 me too!

Yep, I'll try it with the A6400 when I get it back.

The A6300, A6400 or A6500 would be awesome with this lens!

I've not tested a TC on this lens but there will always be a drop in ultimate performance with a TC. The question is whether you, your camera or subject resolution will notice it in practice.

I really need to do a side-by-side to see... hopefully soon.

It's a killer feature.

Buy whichever Sony camera you can afford, they will all work with it.

Not just the Tamron, ANY extending lens is harder to adjust. PS - I really enjoyed shooting at the match, great fun!

That's to do with autofocus,

Great idea, I'd like to know that too.

Yeah me too. Granted the 100400GM aperture will drop to f8 with the 1.4tc... but I'm betting IQ on the GM is still better with the TC compared to the 200600G without a TC

And let's not underplay the close focus abilities of the 100400GM... So very versatile for close up macro work

@@njrtech yes definitely, I've mentioned this in my new podcast video with Doug.

Thanks! Remember you could alternatively use a 1.4 TC with your 100-400... PS - if you order online, please consider going through my links here or at cameralabs.com thanks!

Selling a100400GM for a200600G seems like a mistake. I doubt image quality is comparable

@@njrtech You could be right, also you might be wrong! It's a new Sony made for these cameras. How bad could it be.

@@bcrphoto7 never expect a G lens to outdo a GM. So I'm betting I'm right

I hear ya, but it's still a solid option and great value for the quality and reach. I wouldn't change it.

If you ordered through one of my links, thankyou very much!

It's this: www.cameralabs.com/feisol-tt-15-mark-ii-mini-tripod-review/

Nope, NOT a G Master.

Yes, get the Sigma or Tamron 150-600mm. www.cameralabs.com/sigma_150-600mm_f5-6-3_dg_os_hsm_sport/

Hopefully in a design room somewhere...

@@cameralabs most poeple have crop sensor bodies... But Sony don't care about them... Everyone can not spend 2000 € for a lens... Sigma care about the crop sensor guys not Sony... Why ? I don't know...

I'm not a micro 4 thirds hater but I would consider that for wildlife the depth of field from the small sensor and hence the subject isolation you can achieve would be heavily compromised. If you did choose full frame the benefits from the bigger sensor would allow you to shoot hand held a lot of the time instead of using a tripod. Just my 2 cents worth.

@@markrigg6623 Actually, I shoot Wildlife with Olympus OMD EM1 2 as well as Sony a9. The OMD EM1 2 with the 300 F4 provides more detail than the Sony 100 - 400. Also, if your subject is still, the Image Stabilization of the Olympus is superior, as is the quality of the Bokeh. Where the Sony excels is in focus accuracy and tracking providing a significant improvement in the amount of "keepers".

@@andrepegus9014 My 100 - 400 is insanely sharp. I own a lot of lenses including one thats worth 15 k Australian dollars and its better than that. The store i bought it from has an A2 print i made of a water dragon (made with an A7riii) on the wall - its that spectacular. Maybe its the significantly lower resolution of the A 9 giving you quality reduction. Its a fairly ordinary camera resolution wise compared to the A7riii. Or maybe you've got a bad copy. Seriously Im not trying to be a smart arse but my camera gear is extensive (insured for 45k) and its the lense that amazes me the most!. Any way if youre happy with the results youre getting with the other gear thats what matters most. Thanks for the reply. Mark.

@@markrigg6623 Hi Mark. Without rigorous testing, it's difficult to tell which glass (Olympus 300 F4 vs Sony 100-400 G) is best. And certainly, copy variance could always be an issue. Being newer to Sony, it is entirely possible that I have not yet developed the specific techniques necessary for superior results. With that said, when I compare shots, I find the Olympus ones to be sharper. You're intuition that I would get superior results with an A7rIII is spot on. I've done so and those images have more "punch" with the 100-400 than the a9. However, the benefit of a camera like the Sony a9 is it's ability to capture fast moving objects while tracking and maintaining accurate focus, and simplifying the process of a high hit rate and more accurate focal points (ie: eyes). Unfortunately the a7rIII does not do that as well. I like the a9 & a7rIII, and I believe that Sony provides the most versatile PLATFORM of any manufacturer today. It's also true that the smaller sensor of micro four thirds combine quite nicely with well engineered, fast, light and weather sealed glass making mft a compelling alternative for long length shooting. I will need to decide if I buy Sony's 200-600 G or wait for Olympus' 150-400 4.5 Pro instead.

@@andrepegus9014 Yeah Andre I wasnt implying the A9R is a bad camera ,its obvious from what all the owners say that its an absolute weapon at auto focusing And I believe you about the advantages afforded by mft. Photography and gear in particular has become a very complicated and contentious hobby compared to the film era and I appreciate the constructive and intelligent debate . I think next generation of Sonys we wont have to choose between resolution and focusing performance assuming we have the money to keep upgrading! Thanks again for the response. MARK

The A7r IV doesn't have their best focusing system, especially for moving action. Are you able to try it with, say, the A1 for comparison? Maybe rent one or borrow one to see?

@@cameralabs I think that this camera, according to what I read in some forums, is not compatible for quick photos with this 200-600, although Sony says that it is so as not to lose clients. I do not have a camera or anyone who can lend me a Sony E-mount

www.cameralabs.com/feisol-tt-15-mark-ii-mini-tripod-review/

@@cameralabs thank you

At 300mm

95mm, sorry I should have mentioned that.

Well remember it's a FIRST LOOKS video, not a final full in-depth review. I did provide a bunch of sample images though here and at cameralabs.com and you can download them for as close a look as you like. And yes, the 600mm f4 is much crisper because it costs six times more.

That's my favourite part. In fact for a while, it was the entire review... thanks again for your help!

Me too!

What's the lag in milliseconds? For what application do you need burst of over 200 frames? How on earth have all those sports and wildlife shooters managed to capture anything at all?

Ern Reeders From what I understand I haven’t done a proper test on the camera yet because Sony won’t send me one. Once the camera starts to buffer whether it’s 10 shots 20 shots 30 shots you can’t change the menu you can adjust the menu that’s my issue

Yes it would be brilliant on an APSC body. I actually had the A6400 with me, but was using it to film the review!

@@cameralabs Thx Gordon. Would love to see it on the A6400 on a test. As I suspect alot of people will want it on a crop body. I know I will, and would love to see how that 900mm works out and the focus speed. Thx!

+Gordon Laing thanks for a great first impressions review. Please test the 200-600mm on the A6400.

@@xencats yes, I plan on doing that...

I'm planning on doing some A6400 tests with it soon hopefully...

@@cameralabs Thank you. For testing purposes may I suggest you include a camera like the ARiii and either a A6300, 6400, or 6500 when testing the 200-600mm lens. My rational is my bet is a lot of nonprofessional photographers will buy it vs pros who will likely get the 600mm prime. A greater amount of people buying the 200-600mm own either a prosumer ARiii level Sony or an A6300/6400/6500 camera. The big deal breaker for me has been the inability for a telephoto lens to track an athlete (surfer in my case) while videoing.

@@jeffwisener1378 I can definitely test it with the A6400. Have you tried tracking with any other long lens?

@@cameralabs At this point my only telephoto lens are both Canon. The 70-200mm and the 400mm prime. I love both lens but the problem rests with focusing with all Canon to Sony lens adapters. While shooting sports a burst of shots while shooting stills or continuous autofocus in video is essential. None of these adapters are able to do it. I am forced to.manually focus and as you know, it doesn't always come out well.

@@jeffwisener1378 yes, definitely. If you use native e-mount lenses you'll notice the continuous AF becomes MUCH better.

We all love the Canadian KZfaqrs

Not bad huh?

Gordon Laing It’s not bad but after watching a bunch of other reviews the Sony a9 still has a bad lag problem and that’s no good if you shooting motorsports. And if my camera is in operable for 15 to 35 seconds that’s no good if it’s writing to cards

@@sayharris1361 I haven't experienced lag with motorsports, but yes it's good to compare everyone's experiences.

When you're used to f2.8 it's a huge drawback having something this slow. Especially for wildlife