p.2 #1 · Sony FE 200-600mm or Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6
I started with 100-400 because it was the only game in town for birds when I was dipping my toes in the Sony water to shoot the A9 back in 2018. Once I got 200-600 then the 100-400 only came out sporadically to shoot semi-macro stuff or if I was out with family and didn’t want the bigger 2-6 along.
I sold the 100-400 last year when I bought the RF100-500 as they served the same purpose. I bought a new copy of the 100-400 when I sold my Canon kit this year.
If I had to choose only one it would be the 200-600. But I still like having both for their individual strengths.
p.2 #2 · Sony FE 200-600mm or Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6
I'm trying to decide of the 100-400 is worth having for my garden/semi-macro stuff. It bugs me that the 100-400 costs even more than the 200-600 and that it wouldn't be used very often. There's always the Sigma but I really want to be able to shoot at 30fps. I don't mind the larger size and weight of the 200-600, but wish the MDF was shorter. It does help to have a high-resolution camera body that supports liberal cropping, but next time I'm going to try using some tubes to get closer. I wonder if the 135GM might be a better choice?
Still, the 200-600G can be made to work reasonably well on it's own...
p.2 #3 · Sony FE 200-600mm or Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6
It's quite a hard call for a lot of people. I'm very very happy with my 100-400GM but I don't think of myself as a wildlife photographer and we hardly get interesting enough birds here in the wild to warrant a 600mm lens. Would I use a 200-600 if it landed on my doorstep? Of course! But would I buy it? Probably not.
It also goes with what kind of body you have I think. For the moment I don't see myself taking full advantage of the 200-600 unless I have an A9/A7R4/A1 and I don't have any of those. For now the 100-400 makes for a great hiking lens that shoots a variety of subjects I'm interested in shooting.
p.2 #4 · Sony FE 200-600mm or Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6
I have both and shoot with an A7R4. I find myself using the 100-400 GM much more often than the 200-600. For one, its brighter than the 200-600 and that makes a difference in foggy/overcast coastal weather. Another is that focus acquisition seems to be not as precise with the A7R4 and 200-600 - in repeated benchmark testing I found a 1 or more inch variation in precise focus at 20ft - and with the narrow DOF wide open this means soft or missed focus on small birds. Also the 200-600 flares more than the 100-400 - which means less contrast against a bright gray sky. The 100-400 is also easier to carry.
I got better results with the A1 and the 200-600 than I did with the A7R4 but returned the A1 because of firmware issues.
p.2 #5 · Sony FE 200-600mm or Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6
Personally I feel 400mm is the general minimum for wildlife and 600mm is the general minimum for birding. Though it depends on the shooting environment and the goal of the photographer.
A 600 isn't just for small birds or for filling the frame with a large animal, it's still great for showing the animals surroundings. Again, it depends on the shooting environment and / or how close you want to be near your subject.
Buy the 100-400 if you want:
Smaller / lighter
Closer minimum focusing distance
Buy the 200-600 if you want:
400mm - 600mm
To use teleconvers
Internal zoom
$$$ savings
Physical dimension of the lens aside, in my subjective opinion the 200-600 is the better bird / wildlife option while the 100-400 might be the better multipurpose tele. You already have that optimal 400-600 range in one lens and you can get 840mm with a 1.4x at a respectful f9 with very minimal iq hit vs 560mm f8 with the 100-400 + 1.4x.
p.2 #6 · Sony FE 200-600mm or Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6
If I had to choose just 1 then it would have to be the 100-400, smaller and lighter can’t be understated, throw in the semi macro ability and the fact you can add the 1.4extender with no loss in quality,
Saying that lol,
I had the 100-400 and got the 200-600 and 70-200gm, the idea being I had 2.8 in the lower range and the reach especially with the 1.4extender, so no need for the 100-400 right? I just couldn’t part with the 100-400, it’s compact lightweight footprint combined with the close up ability is of such a bonus, I have come to Spain for 6 weeks and it has come the other 2 stayed at home,
p.2 #7 · Sony FE 200-600mm or Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6
Given the choices, I voted what I did, the 200-600 first. I've had xx-200mm and xx-300mm lenses. From there, not sure something to 400mm was a great choice.if looking for the long reach. It's not necessarily a bad choice if dealing with the wider range of focal lengths nor if wanting/needing something longer but not wanting to carry the weight of the various xxx-600mm options, either. So maybe something like "Both" will eventually come along because right now with mirror-less, I've got xx-200mm and 200-600mm and that's not ideal for all uses.
p.2 #8 · Sony FE 200-600mm or Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6
I opted for the 200-600 G OSS.
Long before this I had tried a Sony A 70-400 G SSM which was not as sharp as my Minolta 100-400 APO. I also really disliked handling that Sony lens, and the 100-400 GM seems similar in that regard, but a better zoom between my Tamron 70-300 RXD and the 200-600 G OSS might be useful. Or I should just get used to using a monopod.
And I have a Sigma 400mm F5.6 Tele Macro HSM which is better close-up than the Sony zooms.
p.2 #9 · Sony FE 200-600mm or Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6
I have both lenses also.
Living in Florida I tried to make do with a 100-400 GM but if birding is going to be 50% or more of your photos then the 200-600 is the one.
I travel with the 100-400 for weight reasons and for butterfly and hummingbird photos it’s indispensable.
The Sigma 100-400 is sharp as a tack but didn’t like its minimum focus.
p.2 #10 · Sony FE 200-600mm or Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6
Reviving this from July so as not to derail a different thread. I’ve had the 100-400GM for the last 1 1/2 years. Love it. Originally bought it to accompany the Sigma 14-24/24-70 for a Cordillera huayhuash trek honeymoon that got canceled due to covid. Those three lenses have served us well, and a significant portion of the acrylic prints on our walls were taken with the GM. That being said, most of the shots I ended up taking with it that we printed were either near 100mm or 400mm and most near the truck. Even though I haul it everywhere, for whatever reason I just rarely use it when backpacking.
Now I have the 35-150 Tamron and am loving it. Just as sharp as the GM in the shared focal range. Was planning to replace it with the 200-600G. Many that own both suggest keeping the 100-400 of landscapes are my primary use, which it is. Considering I have 100-150mm covered by the Tamron, is it the experience of those that have both that the GM is still the sharper, better landscape lens compared to the 200-600G out at its end? Say around 300-400mm? Thanks in advance.
p.2 #11 · Sony FE 200-600mm or Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6
photosbyjaron wrote:
Considering I have 100-150mm covered by the Tamron, is it the experience of those that have both that the GM is still the sharper, better landscape lens compared to the 200-600G out at its end? Say around 300-400mm? Thanks in advance.
The GM and the G are so close to each other that when pixel peeking, the better copy will win in the shared range. AF is similar too, but with the GM having the edge. Obviously they are very different in terms of size, weight and MFD. I much prefer the 200-600G, as I mostly shoot birds and therefore use it mostly at 600mm. But the 100-400GM is much more versatile and much less of a burden to haul around. The 200-600 is *much* more lens to carry. So if your interest in >400mm is only secondary, maybe get the TC1.4 to extend the GM instead. The IQ suffers, but then the TC weighs very little and is ok-ish for occasional birding.
p.2 #13 · Sony FE 200-600mm or Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6
I own the 200-600 and it’s basically glued to my A1. The balance and focus throw are perfect, and it takes the 1.4 TC without worries.
I rented the 100-400, love it, and will rent it again whenever I need/want it to hand. ~$150 for a week vs $2.5k is a no brainer if you only need it now and then.
Save those extra shillings for a 600 down the road.
As an aside, I did find the handling of the 100-400 quite hard work after the 200-600, which surprised me. The zoom was stiff, even on smooth, and on Tight it still didn’t prevent it from telescoping out when held facing down. The zoom throw was tiring after a couple hours use too — the opposite of what I’d like when hiking. I’d be interested to know if that’s common, or probably just my rental?
