I got myself a Sony G 200 - 600mm Lens.......I love it, it's amazing, especially at the zoo.

WOW!; Tony you and your daughter Chelsea have chemistry; I'm gonna have to view more of your videos when I get time which isn't often 👍

​@@PSYCHIC_PSYCHOwait, Tony is her father? I thought he's her husband. 😅 He looks young.

@@zurgmuckerberg Are you being serious?, he's her husband?; he doesn't look young to me, he looks like he's in his mid 50's, while she looks like in her late 20's early 30's

@@PSYCHIC_PSYCHO apart from his gray hair, he looked like he's in his 40s for me. There are a lot of men who lost hair pigmentation early, so I thought that's the case here too (I still think that's the case).

I use this lens with the Lumix G9, great results.

It's funny because I have that lens and the 40-150mm with the teleconverters. The 40-150 with the teleconverter can be very sharp but I had a set a photos I really thought it was from that lens and when I checked the meta data, it was the 75-300. It shocks me how sharp it can be.

What is clear at 300mm?

Our pleasure! We had to pay to rent it but I was really surprised by how well it performed with the OM-1.

​@TonyAndChelsea it shouldn't be a surprise at that price. I hope they can bring it down to like 5k or so but they prob won't

Ditto on Nikon. The 500 PF fits in this price range, and the 800PF squeaks in also. I currently shoot with the 500PF and with the exception of some occasional abstract looking background, it can be a wonderful performer.

@@tc6912 both the Nikon 400 and 800 primes looks fantastic and still below 10k

I tested the Sigma 60-600 on Sony bodies for three weeks. I found the Sony 200-600mm much sharper on the long end and sent the Sigma back. I loved the wide 60mm but just couldn't sacrifice the sharpness at 600mm. 📸

@@CameraRay I have the 200-600 but that 10x capability is super impressive. I can definitely understand there always has to be sacrifices with lenses that have so much versatility. I guess the sharpness on the long end is expected given everything it offers

@sneakergearz I would've loved to see the sigma 60-600 here ....

exactly, pixel density matters a lot

yep, i see it also (linked Sample images) Maybe ''user-error''? Also some of the Sony shots shown in video appear to be ''enhanced+NR'' (DSC03045-Enhanced-NR.jpg)? Maybe this video should be updated? This doesn't reflect good on reviewer...

I bought an rf100-400 AND a 500 F4 for cheaper than the 100-500. Great combo!

Same here. I use the Rf 100-400 with the canon RP. Budget birding. Sometimes I put the camera in 1.6 crop mode for reach. I want the 100-500 but I’m waiting for the right price.

Adam, what have you been using before, that you are so amazed? No trolling, honest question.

@@pawelmod3292 you won't find any 400mm that is that lightweight, that cheap and that good all at once. The OIS and AF in particular are definitely, objectively, completely amazing. IQ is pretty good as long as you use without TC. I prefer it for most bugs in the field over my RF100mm macro, since 0.5x is often more than enough and 400mm provides much better working distance. In the field you'd be stopping down to f8 anyway for DOF. It's even great for video too! Yes it's f8, but if you shoot with it within the usable range of shooting conditions, the images it delivers are superb. Worth adding that with the high fps of modern bodies and the amazing OIS, you can now use shutter speeds that were considered way too slow for wildlife before, pushing the boundaries of what is considered "usable conditions" at f8 (for stills only, as for action nothing beats more aperture). Personally even the f11 primes are too dark for me, but f8 is still more than usable. Like I said, I got that lens and a 500 f4 for cheaper than an RF100-500. So whenever I do need aperture I'm covered! Yes it's only 400mm and 600mm lenses render more detail at long distances, but for a 400mm, it's pretty amazing. Since you're asking, here are the other telephoto lenses which I've personally tried, owned or had extensive use with: EFS 55-250, EF70-300 USM ii, EF70-200L mk ii, EF Sigma 150-600C, RF100-500 (rented), rf600 f11 (tried once), sigma 120-300 F2.8, EF500 F4L mki. The RF100-400 is pretty much on par AF and OIS wise with the 100-500 and beats all the others. As far as sharpness goes, it's more than good enough for me. It needs to be hammered down how ridiculously lightweight it is for such a package. 635 grams!!!! How??

This video was terrible lol

I have to ask, how good is the OM-1 ISO capability ?

@@pierrevilley6675 it’s a valid question, the overall image quality is less and the noise more when using the OM1 than with my Z8 or, previously, my D850. However, less than you might think and when I have a deeper crop on my Nikons for birds or wildlife using the - shorter - long lens, the difference diminishes a lot. Using Topaz or now LR Denoise, my raw shots with the OM1 clean up very well. I’ve got good shots off of it as high as ISO 12800, although it’s unusual to go that high. The secret with the OM1 is to actually overexpose slightly, favouring a slightly slower shutter or higher ISO than necessary, then adjust the exposure back toward center when processing.

I've shot m43 for a decade. The IQ loss is not worth it. Post cannot being it up to what other formats can do SOOC. I no longer recommend m43.

I have 40-150 2.8 Pro and 300mm F4 Pro and I rarely pick up the 40-150mm. With 1.4tc it's not close enough, totally zoomed in stabilisation is suffering and AF performance drops. For bird fotography you need reach and light. 40-150 just doesn't cut it.

Except it has the same bokeh as an F/5,6 Lens (F/11 with 2x TC), and if you take into account the fact that MFT ISO capability is around 2 stop worse than FF, that combo is really the equivalent of a 80-300 F/5,6. 160-600 F/11 with TC. So basically you get with your 40-150 2.8 the exact same results as a full frame user with a 70-300 F4,5-5,6 with the only advantages of weight and build quality but for more than twice the price.

​@@pierrevilley6675OM marketing at work. Equivalent reach, but not equivalent f-stop.

And you get better perfomance (compared to the 100-400) when using the 300 mm (at a still reasonable price).

M 4/3 is not really that lightweight. 150-400 has similar weight to ff 200-600 lenses. Fuji 150-600 is even lighter. For lightweight set-up, nikon is the best with their compact primes (600mm and 400mm).

I've shot m43 for about a decade and, no, it's not worth the IQ loss. No amount of parlor tricks can mitigate IQ loss. I shoot with other formats and with photographers who use other formats. If you lack skills and budget m43 may work for you.

I love mine too! ❤

I use the 300mm all the time. It’s super sharp . I got mine secondhand and it’s never been off my om1 since. Compared to the 100-400 it’s amazing. I too want a mid price 100-400 as currently the 100-400 is not a good lens and the 150-400 way out of a lot of our price ranges

Also look at the 150-500 tamron. It's about half the price of a 200-600 and it is much better than the 70-350. I've had some very mixed results but I've only owned it for a few days so I'm sure it has been a lot of user error.

Get the 200-600mm Sony. Superb value and great handling especially as a first big lens. Doesn't extend when you zoom, focus throw is just right. I'm very happy with mine. Look for deals around Black Friday or used lenses in excellent condition 👍🏾👍🏾

Thank you! I like the portability of the 70-350, but finding there are more times than not that I wish I had a longer focal length. I'll look into it. @@gamebuster800

Thank you, good advice! I like the portability of the smaller lens, but realize if I want further reach, I'm going to have to put up with the heavier weight and longer lens. It looks like Tony and Chelsea thought the 200-600 was the best overall telezoom, I also like the fact it has a short zoom throw and as you noted, the advantages of internal zoom, that is a big positive. Thank you!@@thewiseoldbird

Yeah true Sony needs to launch bodies with that dynamic stab of ZV E1 and eight stops hybrid stab of a7R5 in their new a9iii and a1ii. Uptil then for videos other cameras are better. Also, possibly upgrade 200-600 its been more than four years now.

Don’t agree at all, A1 has a better Af than Z9, for me.

Nikon for video is a crazy to think! 5 years ago you would have been laughed at!

Yes on minimum focus distance (reproduction ratio)

.. and I would also argue the image stablisation is the best in the business if you are partnering it with the G9 ii, it is definitely not mid tier scoring just 5/10 in this review LOL.

What are your opinion after that time? :)

yes, the Sony does NOT hit 600mm at closest focusing distance. And the RF100-500 smokes the competition when it comes to closest focusing distance too. The Sony is more like a 200-500 at closest focusing distance due to the focus breathing design issues. Does the Canon have some focus breathing? Sure, but nowhere near the extent of the Sony 200-600. Caveat - I do NOT own a RF100-500 lens and I shoot Canon (R3 with mark 1 500f4 prime).

@@davepastern well that's important, especially since they rate the Sony number one. I just read that the Nikon 180-600's maximum magnification is .25 while the Sony's is .20. And it has minimal focus breathing so close to 600 mm at minimum focus distance. Perhaps if we consider these additional parameters, the Sony is no longer number one.

​@@lsaideOK I would concur . I think the Nikon 180-600 is a better option, and #1 with the RF100-500 2nd and the Sony 200-600 3rd. Size and weight are important factors and not to be ignored. A lens that is too heavy and hardly used isn't a good lens, no? A lens that is used frequently, and happily, is a good lens. I have no horse in this race. I have no beef with Sony, no love for Canon. I like Nikon products - their lens lineup for their MLC range is the best of the 3 main marques imho. I love my R3 (other than the 24mp limit, but I am getting around that by using gigapixel to pretty good effect). I like Tony and Chelsea, and have defended them in the past - they cop a lot of flack from fellow photographers, but in this rating, I think they got it wrong.

@@davepastern Olympus 300mm f4 with MC-14 Teleconverter has a 35mm equivalent 840mm with a 1.4 metre minimum focus distance.

@@tdunster2011 that sounds right. Edit - the drawback is at higher ISOs the OM-1 falls behind the full frame cameras. And noise really destroys feather detail.

Check out the Canon R7 + 100-400 if you're interested in a light-weight rig.

@@TonyAndChelsea Please maka a video comparing this combo and OM Systems OM-1 with their 2 lenses using Precapture, Buffer size, AF speed, subject recognition, subject tracking to check if whe can debunk OM System claims.

Thank you!

Panasonic discontinued the Leica DG 200mm in 2022 and there's been no announcement of a replacement.

I have X-T5 with latest firmware, the AF should be the same withX-H2 and X-H2S, I cannot recommend the Fujifilm system for wildlife photography. Fujifilm AF is not that great compare to the other 3 brands. I also shoot with Canon R5 by the way.

Huh, I wonder how I'm still able to get great images with my Fuji system. FWIW, the X-H2S uses a stacked image sensor (similar to Alpha a1, EOS R3 and Z9), which is not insignificantly faster than the Bayer sensor on the X-T5 (which is the same as on the X-H2.) @@epsonc882009

Yeah, I “still got great shots” with my XT-3 + 70-300 & Tamron 150-500… the problem is how many even greater shots do you still miss?? Sold all my Fuji gear probably switching to Nikon. The “infrastructure” score they gave was wild. Nikon has much better selection of affordable fast(ish) Z mount tele primes than Sony… and when you factor in the deep roster of legacy F mount glass, forget about it. They’re a 10 in that department.

You can setup Olympus and OM System cameras to show overexposed and underexposed areas as orange and blue respectively.

Om-1 has Bird detect in video, must hav animal to then? But you must be in video mode. You can’t just press the red buttom, that just a quick auto thing.

they dont.. thats why i sold my 200-600 A1 combo.. and kept Canon R3 and the NIKON Z9

My best guess is bias - with the exception of Olympus (with a $7,500 lens no one can afford) the results point us all to the largest, heaviest, and most expensive (FF) cameras and lenses with the least reach and best "near subject detail" lol. Basically the opposite of what I'd be looking for in a wildlife setup. The Fuji setup got the "best bang for the buck" nod, which seems accurate as it combined longest reach, most MP "at distance", excellent OIS etc. AF issues are obviously a bummer, but are also a software, not hardware problem at this point. In any case, "bad" in this group of high performers is still "very good" overall most of the time. Lets adjust the rankings together. Personally, I wouldn't consider OM-1 because the future of the company is now unclear. So they're out. Nikon is also out because IMO the Z8 is too pricey, overall, even if the lens is good (plus - where is the D500 replacement?). Their lesser bodies don't clearly beat Fuji overall, or enough to matter. Ditch the silly aperture "equivalent" and "infrastructure" penalties (who the hell that could afford a 600m f/4 lens is even looking at these, really?), and Fuji lands in 3rd place, after Sony and Canon. But then both of those are out because of high cost + less reach, forcing you to crop to get any closer. Now Fuji wins. BTW calling the lens "plasticky" as if a negative was odd, and not only because other 1st party companies make plastic "L" or "S" or "pro" lenses. I own the lens and it is light, well balanced, and handles amazingly well. Awesome tripod foot/strap eyelets + white paint legit keeps it way cooler/warmer outside than the typical black paint on metal of the other red badges, which can get crazy hot in direct sunlight. It is a superb lens, made in Japan, and super high quality like essentially every other Fuji lens I've ever tried. It is a great performer. Paired with the XT3/4, btw, it is an even cheaper setup, and still smoking fast and effective overall if you work at it. I saw a review of the Sony 200-600 on an APS-C body and the optics didn't seem to like the pixel density @24mp / 61mp "equivalent" - images were less impressive for sure. It showed the value of engineering lenses for a given sensor size. Fuji's 40mp sensor is like a 90-100mp FF sensor, btw, making the optics of the 150-600mm even more impressive, IMO. That said, to each their own. All of these setups would be fun to have.

The lower resolution of the XH2 would have caused significantly lower scores in the sharpness tests. Unfortunately Fuji currently lacks a good AF, high-megapixel combo like the R5/a1/Z8/Z9.

Cope

@@Yupthereitism “cope” *when they give you 530mm after paying for 600mm*

@@siddharthsriram2685 In Steve Perry’s experience the 400 and 500 are sharper and the 180-600 is about the same but sharper on edge of frame.

@@siddharthsriram2685 the worst telephoto performing perfectly in those scenarios isn’t true. If that was the case then you wouldn’t see any differences with his tests. outdoors you are dealing with atmospherics, temperature influences, heat haze, changing light conditions etc. at the end of the day I’m not concerned about a tiny bit of sharpness here or there. I have 180-600 and used to own the 200-600 and like you say bokeh is better with the 180-600, I’ll add that it’s much better balanced and not front heavy so it’s easy to handle and handhold for an extended period of time, VR is much better, and you actually get around 600mm.

@@siddharthsriram2685 lmao that’s cap I also have the 500pf and it’s sharper than the zooms. Google “Nikon 500PF vs Sony 200-600” there a topic on DPR about the matter, it’s a bunch of Sony users and they all agree the 500pf is sharper.

Maybe, but the sharpness results would be significantly worse. It's too bad they don't offer a high-megapixel camera with great AF like the a1/r5/Z8/Z9.

Sharpness has nothing to do with mp count, If you crop the image to match that of a 60mp file of course it will degrade,but sharpness doesnt work like that​@@TonyAndChelsea

We haven't yet tested the Nikon 800, but I'd expect good results. I'll say with the TC you're going to be at 1100mm f/8.8 which is a really challenging setup. I'd definitely leave off the TC and just crop if you need more reach.

Yep, I hope to check it out today!

Yeah that's what the Distant sharpness test showed. The Oly matched detail with the 60MP Sony when you had to crop.

I actually have a Nikon Z9 and an OM-1 with the 150-400 f4.5 pro lens. If shooting mostly perched birds , the Om-1 would be better with that 1000 mm reach but for bird in flight, it is very difficult to put the bird into frame when you zoom all the way to 1000 mm so you are most likely zoom out to 600-800mm which you will lose the advantage of being able to fill the frame. But a z9 doing the same bird in flight , I can shoot at 500mm and still retain a decent size bird cropping in because of its high resolution sensor so both systems have its advantages and disadvantages.

@@ryantang8146 Ryan, that is a wonderful explanation. Thank-you. Makes a ton of sense. For me and my shooting, I think the OM1 and 150-400 is a better fit. Most of my subjects tend to be slower moving where 1000mm will be very helpful to fill the image. Being able to go to 1400mm with the 1.4 TC is another bonus. Thanks for your response.

I agree, but I think we have a better shot of getting that 600, f5.6 or 6.3 from Nikon.

​@@tc6912I know. I'm seriously considering buying the Z8 just for the 500 f5.6. That's why I'd love for a popular KZfaq channel to encourage Sony to make one. ;-)

@@RG-rm9jt I am currently shooting the Z8 and 500PF. It's a nice combo, but if I was buying new, I would look closely at the 400 4.5 and a TC before buying.