ketang wrote:
I recently shot butterflies at two gardens and compared two lenses: the 100-400mm and 70-200mm II, each with the Sony 1.4X TC. With perched butterflies, I have not had any issue getting physically close, so going in I was thinking that the 70-200mm might have an advantage in two ways: a higher maximum magnification, and the ability to stop down further before reaching the same aperture size as the 100-400mm. Based on about a thousand shots with each, the 100-400mm had superior IQ at f/6.3 even compared to the 70-200mm at f/8, and I also felt the OIS was more effective even with the longer focal length. I was surprised because I have always found the 70-200mm II very sharp. It could be that the 100-400mm is better a a close-up performer despite lower maximum magnification. The main advantage of the 70-200mm was size, sometimes the butterflies were close and I needed to zoom out or back up to get the shot, as well as giving others in the garden the space to walk by. Overall, I currently lean towards the 100-400mm for close up shooting with the TC.
In the near future I would like to compare maximum magnification on the 100-400mm at 100/200/300/400. I saw someone (Mark Galer?) show that the 100mm magnification was slightly higher than 400mm, but I also found that if I was too close at 400mm then a slight zoom out would solve the problem, indicating it's not a fixed MFD. With the 70-200mm II, my sense is that you get higher maximum magnification at 70mm and 200mm (better at 70mm), but in between it drops....Show more →
Surely the slower 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 GM is the best bet for this sort of thing., 0.35x sans TC and a lot lighter for easier hand-holding. You get 0.35x on the new GM with the 1.4x and but you can't get more working distance despite the extra 160mm FL at that same 0.35x.
I'd be comparing the 100-400 f/4.5 to the 200-600G and it is definitely much better for this semi-macro work even sans TC.
