p.1 #3 · Sony FE 200-600mm or Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6
I use 100-400 for more all general purpose. Semi macro at a distance, landscapes, wildlife. I only bring 200-600 for wildlife. While I do bring the 200-600 on trips, the 100-400 is lighter and smaller, so easier to pack.
I consider their purposes dissimilar. If I didn't enjoy birds, the 200-600 would not even be considered.
p.1 #5 · Sony FE 200-600mm or Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6
I bought the 100-400 first, because the 200-600 wasn't around. I bought the 200-600 after seeing the fine photos here, and after reading reviews.
If the 200-600 would have come out first, I wouldn't have bought the 100-400.
p.1 #6 · Sony FE 200-600mm or Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6
100-400 GM for me because it is smaller, much lighter (200-600 is 55% heavier) and does not have AF issues with some Sony bodies, like my A7RIV. With my 20G, 35GM and Sigma 65 f2 it fits in my smaller sling bag, the Mindshift Photocross 13, in the same slot my Batis 135 normally is kept. So for this reason I carry it more.
With the 26MP APS-C crop mode mapped to the C1 button I am instantly shooting at 150-600mm. If I need more reach I can add the 1.4X TC and go out to 830mm. For me with the A7RIV, it's a win-win.
p.1 #7 · Sony FE 200-600mm or Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6
200-600mm better for birds
100-400mm better for not-birds.
I currently own a 200-600mm but I’m not going to be 100% happy until I add a 100-400mm to have a lighter more mobile long lens. Also the 100-400mm is especially nice for near-macro shots (flower, fungi, insects, etc.).
p.1 #9 · Sony FE 200-600mm or Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6
darbo wrote:
200-600mm better for birds
100-400mm better for not-birds.
I currently own a 200-600mm but I’m not going to be 100% happy until I add a 100-400mm to have a lighter more mobile long lens. Also the 100-400mm is especially nice for near-macro shots (flower, fungi, insects, etc.).
You got me thinking the 100-400 might be more useful.
p.1 #13 · Sony FE 200-600mm or Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6
fotografur wrote:
The 200-600 is only a G and the 100-400 is a GM maybe
Right. Also the 100-400mm has a slightly faster maximum aperture of F4.5-5.6 vs the 200-600mm (F5.6-6.3). And the 100-400mm is an excellent landscape lens being impressively sharp throughout the frame, while the 200-600mm is less sharp along the edges.
p.1 #15 · Sony FE 200-600mm or Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6
Much as I'd love a 200-600, it would be too much of a niche lens for me to justify the cost. The 100-400 is pretty versatile -- long enough for most wildlife (esp. with the A1's APS-C mode), very useful close focus ability, and relatively lightweight for landscape/travel
p.1 #17 · Sony FE 200-600mm or Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6
One of the things that got me into the Sony system was the 200-600 for birds. Maybe I’ll add the 100-400 later but the 200-600 seems too good to be priced at $2K
With the Tamron 70-180 2.8 I’m pretty well set on tele Sony glass. It would be sweet having the 400 or 600 primes but I don’t really need them at the moment.
While the 200-600 is clearly not the best tool for the job it isn’t completely useless for bugs.
p.1 #19 · Sony FE 200-600mm or Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6
shadow9d9 wrote:
I use 100-400 for more all general purpose. Semi macro at a distance, landscapes, wildlife. I only bring 200-600 for wildlife. While I do bring the 200-600 on trips, the 100-400 is lighter and smaller, so easier to pack.
I consider their purposes dissimilar. If I didn't enjoy birds, the 200-600 would not even be considered.
p.1 #20 · Sony FE 200-600mm or Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6
I have had both, and also the 100-400 DN. The Sigma was a tad soft on the a7R IV (at least my copy). The first copy of the GM was also a dud, but this 2nd one seems great. I'm actually thinking of getting the DN again, as I want to save money up for other lenses for other uses. If you don't need the best AF (it's fine), and you don't mind a bit of softness in the corners (they will mostly not be in focus anyway unless you focus stack), the DN is a great option for stills as well. 100-400 is a better choice for general use as some have mentioned. If one is more in to architecture, landscapes, a bit of macro, etc., and only wildlife occasionally or not at all, I would go for either of the 100-400 lenses any day, but if mostly wildlife, especially birds, mostly the 200-600 G. For bigger birds as herons, the 100-400 can be good enough with technique. If you can get close to smaller wildlife, you can also get a tighter image due to the higher magnification that the 100-400 got other the 200-600. I didn't find the 200-600 too heavy, even with these skinny arms, but it just didn't fit in my shoulder bag, and I always bring a bunch of lenses. It just bothers me to wear a huge bagpack, which makes it harder to change lenses on the fly.
