Sony 400/4.5 GM vs 400/2.8GM and 600/6.3 vs 600/4.0 comparison
p.4 #1Sony 400/4.5 GM vs 400/2.8GM and 600/6.3 vs 600/4.0 comparison
300 f/2.8 was always a stop gap IMO but finally Sony now has not only affordable longer FL options but insanely light options too. I was always bummed Sony didn't release a 400 f/4 GM at the same time as the 300 f/2.8. But now I like the idea of the 100-400 f/4.5 and 600 f/6.3 combo.
Don't forget even if say the 600 f/6.3 were a bit softer, it's so light, you will not get the fatigue you would with the faster options and can hold a lens like this at eye level for very long times. You will get more keepers IMO in decent light at least. I can't wait to get the 600, being less than half the weight of my 200-600 which was mostly at 600mm for birding anyway will be a huge bonus.
Don't forget even if say the 600 f/6.3 were a bit softer, it's so light, you will not get the fatigue you would with the faster options and can hold a lens like this at eye level for very long times. You will get more keepers IMO in decent light at least. I can't wait to get the 600, being less than half the weight of my 200-600 which was mostly at 600mm for birding anyway will be a huge bonus.
Sep 25, 2026 at 04:52 PM
p.4 #2Sony 400/4.5 GM vs 400/2.8GM and 600/6.3 vs 600/4.0 comparison
Pixel Perfect wrote:
300 f/2.8 was always a stop gap IMO but finally Sony now has not only affordable longer FL options but insanely light options too. I was always bummed Sony didn't release a 400 f/4 GM at the same time as the 300 f/2.8. But now I like the idea of the 100-400 f/4.5 and 600 f/6.3 combo.
Don't forget even if say the 600 f/6.3 were a bit softer, it's so light, you will not get the fatigue you would with the faster options and can hold a lens like this at eye level for very long times. You will...Show more →
I'm interested to see how the 600 6.3 does in low light, how far can i drop the shutter speed and still get a good shot of a moving bird. Since its so light i think i can get away with under 1/600, even if the bird is moving if your shooting 30fps you might get that split second shot where the bird is not moving for that millisecond sharp shot and not blurry.
300 f/2.8 was always a stop gap IMO but finally Sony now has not only affordable longer FL options but insanely light options too. I was always bummed Sony didn't release a 400 f/4 GM at the same time as the 300 f/2.8. But now I like the idea of the 100-400 f/4.5 and 600 f/6.3 combo.
Don't forget even if say the 600 f/6.3 were a bit softer, it's so light, you will not get the fatigue you would with the faster options and can hold a lens like this at eye level for very long times. You will...Show more →
I'm interested to see how the 600 6.3 does in low light, how far can i drop the shutter speed and still get a good shot of a moving bird. Since its so light i think i can get away with under 1/600, even if the bird is moving if your shooting 30fps you might get that split second shot where the bird is not moving for that millisecond sharp shot and not blurry.
Sep 25, 2026 at 04:58 PM
p.4 #3Sony 400/4.5 GM vs 400/2.8GM and 600/6.3 vs 600/4.0 comparison
nick0954 wrote:
Wouldn't the 100-400 F4.5 GM be the most versatile for safari?
I considered that, but being able top drop the TC for 2.,8 in low light makes a massive difference. 4.5 isn't really special imo.
Wouldn't the 100-400 F4.5 GM be the most versatile for safari?
I considered that, but being able top drop the TC for 2.,8 in low light makes a massive difference. 4.5 isn't really special imo.
Sep 25, 2026 at 06:53 PM
|
p.4 #4Sony 400/4.5 GM vs 400/2.8GM and 600/6.3 vs 600/4.0 comparison
umut_h_toprak wrote:
For people like me, who salivate over those shots we see gotten by those of you who have those 600 f/4.0 and 400 f/2.8 lenses, these new lenses don't seem to be able to satisfy in the image quality department. Unfortunately, the wildlife images that capture my attention most are those with creamy backgrounds.
The 300mm f/2.8 seems to be the perfect balance for me.Just my personal perspective after using the 200-600 6.3 for the last 7 years.
After getting enough experience in different conditions with it and getting a camera that does not limit me or its potential (A1). I've extremely rarely said after looking at a well-framed and focused photo that it could use better backgrounds. (I mostly shoot birds.). You'd need to have a distracting background very close to the subject for a 600 f4 to be able to fix and f6.3 be unable.
I share your desire for a much higher class of lens, but more for reasons of better light gathering...Show more →
Continuing with my safari theme, I noticed a huge difference in quality between the 300 with and without tc and the 200-600.
Lt.Deadeye wrote
It's probably a "me thing" but I believe it could be a bit different from the perspective of one who doesn't have an 'Excalibur' lens, just waiting in the cabinet, when it's needed to get THE shot. Then, I imagine having that Excalibur lens, one could more easily consider 'settling' for a lighter/ slower lens to add to the kit.For people like me, who salivate over those shots we see gotten by those of you who have those 600 f/4.0 and 400 f/2.8 lenses, these new lenses don't seem to be able to satisfy in the image quality department. Unfortunately, the wildlife images that capture my attention most are those with creamy backgrounds.
The 300mm f/2.8 seems to be the perfect balance for me.
After getting enough experience in different conditions with it and getting a camera that does not limit me or its potential (A1). I've extremely rarely said after looking at a well-framed and focused photo that it could use better backgrounds. (I mostly shoot birds.). You'd need to have a distracting background very close to the subject for a 600 f4 to be able to fix and f6.3 be unable.
I share your desire for a much higher class of lens, but more for reasons of better light gathering...Show more →
Continuing with my safari theme, I noticed a huge difference in quality between the 300 with and without tc and the 200-600.
Sep 25, 2026 at 06:54 PM
p.4 #5Sony 400/4.5 GM vs 400/2.8GM and 600/6.3 vs 600/4.0 comparison
shadow9d9 wrote:
Continuing with my safari theme, I noticed a huge difference in quality between the 300 with and without tc and the 200-600.
I have no doubt, it is a much more expensive and well-designed instrument.
My point is, if we are comparing the 600 f6.3 end to the 600 f5.6 (with 2x), or even the 600 f4 in a whole different league I would not be paying that premium for the bokeh amount or quality. I would be doing that for other reasons, choice of better ISOs or shutter speeds depending on situation, better AF etc.
Continuing with my safari theme, I noticed a huge difference in quality between the 300 with and without tc and the 200-600.
I have no doubt, it is a much more expensive and well-designed instrument.
My point is, if we are comparing the 600 f6.3 end to the 600 f5.6 (with 2x), or even the 600 f4 in a whole different league I would not be paying that premium for the bokeh amount or quality. I would be doing that for other reasons, choice of better ISOs or shutter speeds depending on situation, better AF etc.
Sep 26, 2026 at 12:36 AM
p.4 #6Sony 400/4.5 GM vs 400/2.8GM and 600/6.3 vs 600/4.0 comparison
shadow9d9 wrote:
I considered that, but being able top drop the TC for 2.,8 in low light makes a massive difference. 4.5 isn't really special imo.
Yeah but not many birds I can shoot at 300mm and cropping 300mm to 400mm FoV loses you ~0.8 stops in noise, so you are only a about 0.5 stops better off than with the 400 f/4.5 assuming you are FL limited.
nick0954 wrote
Wouldn't the 100-400 F4.5 GM be the most versatile for safari?Yeah but not many birds I can shoot at 300mm and cropping 300mm to 400mm FoV loses you ~0.8 stops in noise, so you are only a about 0.5 stops better off than with the 400 f/4.5 assuming you are FL limited.
Sep 28, 2026 at 03:54 PM