I think you nailed it. The 100-400 are the paramount of versatility and mobility at the expense of reach and brightness, the 600 f:4 are the paramount speed & quality at the expense of price, weight and mobility. And the 200-500/600 zooms offer 90% of each with a slightly different blend of compromise depending on the brand. So of course, I need to own all 3 :-)
The simple truth i learned is that there isn't one lens that fits all applications. We just have to compromise and accept the pros and cons, as life itself. Good job!
there is one - if you go out only with one lens on the camera - it is it. The special one. God sent :D You learn so quickly how to make a seascape with a 135mm or a landscape with a 300 if you have no other choice :D
Whichever brand you use, whichever lens you use, please just keep shooting and showing us the images. I cannot get out due to health issues right now. I love to see your images.
Great video as always! Thank you! I personally went for the Sony 200 - 600 paired with the A7 III and it's incredible! It's 1.600€ over here (brand new and not including cash back) and giving you a level of performance unheard of even 5 years ago, at least at this price point. What a time to be a photographer. There is so many great options out there, no matter, what manufacturer you go for. It's just personal preference... Have a great weekend!
If you live in the Pacific Northwest particularly west of the Cascades the 400 2.8 should be in the conversation. The more light hitting the sensor the better the shot. Action shots on cloudy days are a challenge. Thanks for posting unbiased honest videos
My wife has the Tamron 70-300 MM lens and she loves it. It takes better photos than my Sigma 600MM. I had to recalibrate it the other day - the lens had an update - it is better now.
you probably received a bad copy. Should have gotten it replaced. The early nikon 200-500s had a qc issue too steve perry went through a 3 units before he got one he was happy with.
This channel is starting to be my favourite one, i'm just a begginer in the camera world, big lenses and wildlife and you have been really helpfull for me. Thank you very much
You are correct about getting that last 5%. Since I use Olympus gear the new 150-400 image quality is certainly equal to my older Nikon 600 f4. I enjoy the lighter weight and versatility of the newer zoom plus it has a built in 1.4 teleconverter which is nice. In the end all the current gear is extremely good and forces us to use good technique especially with the higher pixel cameras. Can't blame the equipment for missing the photo, sure hate that it places that burden on me but this hobby is so much fun. Thanks for the weekly videos, really enjoy your adventures and perspective.
@@BayouJosh but you were correct about viewers. Most of your followers want to hear about specific cameras for specific uses. I’m in the minority in that regard. I still am hoping my health improves so I can go shoot with you. I have been shooting birds for the past 10 years.
I just picked myself up a 200-600 2 days ago! Hard to give an opinion but I did take it out for an hour after work and it is tac sharp, focuses fast and the weight isn’t so bad but is noticeably heavier than the 70-350g I came from! Awesome review josh, have a great day! a Sony 400 2.8 is a pipe dream for me.
I completely agree with you! That lens is undoubtably the best bang for the buck. Such a great value. I was very surprised at the image quality. I think I took two of my top five images in Alaska with that lens.
Getting to the top 5 percent is an achievement,realising what the top 5 percent can produce, is limited only by your capability. Nice video, well put forward. Keep well & stay safe 👍🇬🇧
Great video Josh, I also find the 100-400mm a great hiking lens, it is so versatile, and it’s size and weight is really nice when traversing more difficult ground.
Katie cracks me up, but shes right. She doesnt need another lens. Im the same way with a 70 200. But now the 600 f4? Time to see its beauty next week. Great video again!
I have a 70-300 in an APS-C camera which is roughly in that range of the 100-400 full frame equivalent give or take. The size and weight is absolutely amazing, especially while I’m chasing my kids and photographing birds at the same time. A longer focal length would be nice, but for now, it’s all good.
Randy Bocksnick-- Very nice video, Josh! Well by golly I've been wacthing Katie and her 100-400 mm lense ,very impressed, so 3 months ago I ordered the Nikon 100-400 and B&H said yesterday 6-9-22 I get lens in 3 days!! Verry excited!! Thanks Katie!!! Randy B(. Montana)
Outstanding video Josh. You hit a spot that a lot of folks do not understand. A long lens does not get you closer in the real world. It can add depth to your image so the object being photographed "can" be cropped easier. I have used the Sony 100-400 G Master and I have not reached for my Tamron 150-500 in 2 years. But Nikon and Canon have great long reach lens's as well, and they will perform well for folks using those cameras. For me the Sony 200-600 is a bit too heavy (as well as the Tamron 150-500mm) as a 70-year-old person, who wants to get further back into the prime areas for taking photos. So, my choice on the 100-400, and I can easily get anywhere without wearing out too quickly and getting some great shots. You and Katie are way too young to do it, but that is one thing that RU-vid is missing......not a single video for older photographers who have been doing it for years, but now have certain limitations about getting into areas for Bird, Wildlife, Landscape. We really are not dead from the neck up for sure, but from the neck down things don't work as well as they did 20-30 years ago (or 55 years ago in my case). Keep up the outstanding work, I appreciate your efforts and stream of knowledge.
Yeah John, I get it. getting older is not for wimps right? 😃 I wish there was an easy answer for that. I hope I'm getting around like you at 70. Even if it's with just my Iphone.
It was helpful Josh. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Sometimes you just have to sit back and say "it's good enough" and enjoy shooting with what you have.
Your 100-400 "macro" comment made me smile. I'm told by my supplier that I will have my long-awaited Z9, 100-400 and a few other pieces of Z glass next week. Sadly the 800 pf seems a long way off. I did purchase an FTZ adapter a while back because of my beloved F mount 200-500 which I use not just for birds but small bugs such as Dragonflies too. BUT! when I found that the 100-400 Z lens has TWICE the magnification factor of the 200-500 I went woo hoo and put it on my order. Ah but then I realized I wasted A$400 on the FTZ. Grr. LOL. I'm hoping since I have an almost A$30k order on the books with my supplier, they might just take it back. After all, it ain't been out of the box. If not, anyone interested in an untouched FTZ? :)
Good man Josh another tip, setting the crop to a rear button, that’s useful, Buddy 👍🏼 last video with Lightroom I also gained ideas I had missed, keep them coming, Hi to Katie 👋🏼
It’s great to hear how the different brands are similar and how they are different. I’m a Nikon shooter and I love my 200-500 f/5.6 on my D500. This is my go to kit every time I go to Denali (I live in Fairbanks).
Good video Josh, always enjoy your videos and style. No argument on the primes and the flagship cameras, in most cases (professional shooting) they are worth the price of a small car. However, one thing to keep in mind is budgets. Even in your wife's set up which is moderately priced it is still a lot more expensive than shooting with a quality DSLR combo (even when new). I still shoot with the D850 and the 200-500 F5.6 (not variable so makes it easier when shooting manual) and while I am not a professional, my images, in my opinion, are pretty good. The A7IV with the 100-400 G is a $5000 combo the D850 with 200-500 is a $3100 combo. Anyway, bottom line, people have to be realistic, understand their budgets, and get what best suits their lifestyle. Again, great video thank you.
Well said, and polite, but 5% does not describe it good enough. For some of us these "5"% are 50 levels above the rest. There is not only sharpness, but realism and 3d effect, tonal gradation, depth + the lower F number. Just better image quality. It is a visual art. We try, but we can not measure every single thing with numbers. Downside - the price. Price of lugging it around. Thank you for producing this Chanel :) PS If I may, I would replace the % with " .. it just does magic" :D
Thank you! 😊 It’s not always about the gear, it about being out there enjoying nature and your craft. Light weight gear can make all the difference in achieving that enjoyment and perfecting your craft with what you have, much like your wife! 😉 lol
I use the 200-600mm with a carbon fibre Gitzo monopod and whimberley monopod head. Very little additional weight and makes using it over a longer period much easier.
I have a Nikon 600/4 300/4 200-500 /5.6 and 500/5.6 They are all great lenses. What I have learned is... The best lens you have, is the one you have with you.
Nice video again. If your wife wants a little more reach for a very good price she should consider the Tamron 150-500 lens. Incredibly small and lightweight!
Here in N. CA, birds are pretty much all we have to photograph as far as wildlife is concerned. Few and far between are elk, deer, coyotes and occasionally a black bear. The majority of my IG is bird photos.
@@BayouJosh It definitely can be but it's how I learned. I think it's a good place for nature photographers to start bc it's all downhill from bird photography.
Thanks for sharing Josh. Always great to take a moment out of my week and watch your episodes. I just had an awesome weekend at a friend's camp on Blind River (Maurepas Swamp}. Lots of photo opportunities in the swamp. The highlight was catching the Prothonotary Warblers. The RF 100-500 lens served me well as those guys moved in and out constantly. I got some decent shots of hawks and ospreys.
That Sony 200-600 is pretty awesome for video, primarily b/c how smooth and short the throw is from 200 to 600. Definitely a bit of a beast this in that category. Great video, Josh!
It really is. I’m trying to convince myself I don’t need it but I am looking through a lot of my Alaska footage and it was the best for handheld video. Something about it’s optical stabilization that really makes it great for video.
I really enjoy a 100-400mm range, but I do prefer the Tamoron/Sigma 150-600 range. It is a bit heavier than a mirrorless lens but the 150-600 really works for me. Plus I can switch to APS-C mode then get me a 225-900mm lens. So much reach. Great video Josh.
i just purchased the exact kit you showed in your Amazon sample... the A7iv with the 200-600. should arrive today. so stoked to start using it. great video, as always!
There is a reason these companies make so many ranges and price points and most of us can't buy them all even though we wish we could, right now I'm using my 500PF on my Z9 and the 100-400 Z mount and do I wish I had a bit more without using a TC. "Yes" but a 600 f4 is out of my reach (and not available yet) and the 800PF may be a bit too much reach , so for now I make due with what I have. My guess is if you had to choose one lens when you go out its the 600 f4. Take care - Jeff
Great video Josh! I think a prime lens will give you definitely more than 5-10% difference. I would go as far as 20% BUT that 20% difference is 20% added quality to already a good piece of glass. Just think of an extra stop of light what impact that has on your images (half of the noise or twice the shutter speed), then the glass quality is probably better than say a 100-400 zoom, the AF motor is often faster not to mention the weather sealing is usually PRO-Grade level. The image separation with the background is unmatched with other zooms et similia. And of course there are the reasons that you pointed out quite rightly. Having said so, I do think they're overpriced, but a piece of glass like that, 20 years from now, will still produce outstanding images... I'd say look no further.
I have the Sony 200-600mm and a small lightweight Tamron 70-300mm RXD for Sony e-mount with my A7iv. I agree with you completely about the advantages and the image quality of the 200-600mm. I find that I'm out walking and carrying the smaller lens or a macro lens much more often and saving the big lens for specific situations on a tripod or handheld when I know I really need it. That seems to be less than 10% of the time so far even though I love the lens. It's sheer size and weight just make it not the best tool for simply exploring and walking around wondering if there's something to shoot. Thanks for your time and information and best of luck to you guys!
Good overview of the options, and it's a personal decision on the weight/performance, and your wife comes down to lower weight being more important. That's great that she knows what SHE wants not what everyone is telling her she should have. Upgrading to a high Megapixel (45+) camera (compared to ~24mp make the crop mode pretty usable, or use a higher end cropped sensor like the Nikon D500. The high MP camera is more versatile and full frame has better noise performance (generally). You always you have to ask yourself what are you really doing with your images. Large prints? Instagram, for sale or private enjoyment? And like you said budget. Lot's of options in the $5K budget area, but that last step to $15-17K (lens + camera) is a big jump that as an enthusiast is hard for me to justify to myself (Maybe even harder to my wife LOL). Didn't mention the used market for 600mm F4 lens might be an option. Older lenses however are heavier so that's a problem! What about the 800mm F11(ouch) canon, and 800 mm PF from Nikon those are some other lower cost and light options. The good news I think is that there are lots of options, and with the ISO performance and focusing ability with high ISO's of mirrorless high Fstop lighter lenses are more feasible to use successfully. Thoughts on teleconverters? Not as sharp but feasible with the 600mm F4. I use a 1.7x teleconverter on my Nikon 200-500mm (850mm/F9.5) when light is bright, and take off the teleconverter early/late in the day as light fades. Teleconverters are more of an option with mirrorless these days also. I found it interesting that when I'm out in the woods I really enjoy the teleconverter because I get to see the activity better while shooting, even if the final results in the photo are comparable to just cropping after the fact. I noticed that last time I was shooting in Florida. It's about the photography experience as well as the end result in the photo, at least for me.
Another great video. Thanks, Josh. The more I watch the less I know what to get. To me a Nikon body feels just so much better in my hands. But AF and IQ of those Sony‘s, your pictures…. man… why isn’t there just one camera to get and that’s it?! I guess I just have to decide at one point and slowly build some nice kit… but for now I so much enjoy my X-Pro1 with manual lenses for landscape and macro… there’s nothing to worry about, the camera does exactly what you tell it to do. If the image is shitty, it was my fault.
You can get the same results with any of those cameras. The lens is what matters most. Get a decent 24 to 50 megapixel full frame camera and buy the best lens you can afford. You’ll be happy.
Another fantastic video, Josh. I appreciate your work so much. Purchased the Sony 200 - 600 G and the 100 - 400 GM a few weeks ago. Been shooting non-stop with them since. Both phenomenal lenses! When I'm shooting around my urban neighborhood here in Seattle, the 100 - 400 GM stays pretty much attached to my camera the entire time. Your wife is right; it's a great all-arounder for what I photograph. Outside the city, though, that 200 - 600 G is key. That extra reach really makes the difference!
Derrick??! Watching one of my favorite content creators and see a familiar face and name down here! I had no idea you did wildlife photography -- we have to chat about this! :) Hope you're doing well. Peace, Dave B
@@davebelcherguitar Well hey there, Dave! Great to see a note from one of RU-vid's best classical guitar instructors. Seems we both share a penchant for technically challenging interests that simultaneously challenges and rewards your patience: classical guitar and wildlife photography! 🤣
Fully agree, any tool in the hands of someone who knows what they are doing can produce a great image, that said if you have the big primes you have zero excuse left, if you still suck with that gear, it’s all you. Also you might want to cover how well the new generation of large primes handle the teleconverters. The new Canon 600 RF is incredible with both the 1.4 and 2x TC
@@BayouJosh I live with the 1.4 on the 600 RF, the quality difference with the RF to EF is incredible, no degradation of IQ, speed the same. Little bit of softness around the edges with the 2x, the bigger problem is getting and keeping in frame at 1200..why Canon is bothering with that as a prime I dunno..another story :)
I did NOT like that 200-600. I shot with it for a couple months last year, took it with me to Oregon and Northern California and I came back VERY disappointed I didn't take the 100-400 GM instead. I found it heavy and cumbersome for what it was, even on a tripod or monopod. I feel it wasn't as sharp as advertised unless I stopped down. Hard edges weren't blurry per se, but they had a "ghosting" effect almost like astigmatism or coma smear. Plus the AF didn't play nice with my RIV. It may have been a bad copy of the lens, but I wasn't going to find out. I returned it and I just shoot with my 100-400 in crop mode if I need to punch in since I still get 26MP and am MUCH happier with it.
You really make a great point. I found the 100-400 to have better focus speed and it just looks crisper out of camera. However, I have to remind myself that the 200-600 is a budget lens. it costs about $600 less than that 100-400 and they don't tag it as a GM lens. that being said. I would argue that you would be hard pressed to find a budget zoom that out performs that lens. I may have to test that one day.
I pretty much align and agree with your views. AND as an old person I tool luv the new even lighter gear. BUT -- I shoot at dawn and dusk so need both a 2.8 and 4.0. I have all the lenses in my system you covered. WHY -- well I could buy the 100-400 before the 400 and 800 were available in the latest mirrorless mount. I am still waiting for a 200-600 and 600/4TC to be available for my mirrorless system. When on Safari in Africa beyond moving from my Tent to the vehicles I do not have to lug gear anywhere and I have a lot of help But when shooting eagles from eye level in Scotland I have to climb and that is why I bought the 800/6.3PF. I tend not to have to hike a long distance with gear - one long prime and a 100-400 each on their own 45.7mp body works for me. As I age and become ever more decrepit I will feel the wiat of traveling with lighter but still heavy gear.
That sounds like a killer kit. The weight of these new products is fantastic. I hand carry that 600f/4 all the time. so balanced and light. I hope the upcoming Nikon 600 is equally manageable.
Interesting. Danni Connor did a video like this, her approach for small mammals was a dedicated 300mm prime for that extra 5% image quality, teamed up with a couple of teleconverters. It seems to work for her and was an affordable option.
I find that by adding a grip, the balance on the longer lenses increases significantly. I know it adds weight, but the shooting experience is much better with the improved balance.
Personally I use the Sigma (100-400mm F5-6.3 C and 150-600mm F5-6.3 C) lenses as they are affordable and lightweight. In not making money from my photography, don't have a website or Instagram page where I share my photos. Sometimes I share them with select people via email and that's just 25% sized JPGs... my hobby is just for me. So for all those like me, spend what you can afford to get the focal lengths you want/need. The first party lenses are damn expensive, yes they often but not always sharper and often have faster focusing, which can be critical when shooting fast moving subjects. But then coin you have to drop is painful and prohibitive for some.
Used is always a good choice too, the current ones are always so expensive you're right on there. I picked up a Canon 400mm DO mark i in addition to my Sigma for about the price of the Sigma 150-600 Sport. It has the benefits of that AF/weather sealing/IQ of pro lenses, but due to the much older tech definitely has a lower floor than the Sigma being more prone to flare-based contrast loss and CA. Love both but all the benefits currently are making the Canon my main with the Sigma an option.
You make a great point. It is a Hobby. It is also seasons of life. Like I've said in the past, I couldn't even think about a nice camera 5-10 years ago. As life goes on and the kids get older it allows us to splurge a little more. I shot with a D7200 and 300f/4 for the first 7 years. It was fantastic and the total kit was under $1000 used.
Nice video Josh. I cannot disagree with anything you said. As a guy who cannot afford the big prime nor do I wish to carry it around 5 or 6 miles 3 or 4 times a week,the 200-600 looks great. I currently have a 200-500 Nikon. Great lens but the AF speed can best be described as glacial. The Canon 100-500 is also a good lens. A buddy has one and does quite well with it.
Right on. I had that 200-500 for about 6 weeks and I went back to using my 300f/4 prime. You're right about that 100-500. That little thing is so good!
5:50 which strap is that you using ? looking at a sollution to carry my camera with a 200-600 around on walks. either on my belt or with shoulder strap.
Buttery smooth backgrounds of the 600mm f4 primes can't be beat. But, it will be interesting to see if camera manufacturers, especially those specializing in smaller sensor sizes, can come up with a digital filter that can approximate the out-of-focus look you get with a big prime. I enjoyed the video.
I have the Canon 100-400 IS II and I love it but I have been saving for a used 500mm f4. Now I'm considering skipping the 500mm and going straight to the 600.
Finally I got my z9 after 7 months of waiting. Probably Mark Smith will make a test with his z9 and Sony 200-600 G lens adapted with the latest Megadap E-mount adapter. I have ordered the Megadap already and will wait for Marks test video. If it turns out well I will order the Sony 200-600 G lens. Meanwhile I have my nikon 500pf and Tamron 150-600 lenses to play with. Time will show if the Sony lens is the best.
For the 100-400mm you can also add the 1.4x teleconverter if you want to get to 560mm. Of course that puts you at F8 at the long end.... but if you are shooting in good light (which you kind-of need for the 100-400mm anyway) it can be a really good option and really does not add much weight. Of course, you can also attach it to an APS-C camera... but personally, I find that the smaller grip on those Sonys doesn't really work that well ergonomically. Here is the question for you though Josh... Let's say you and Katie are going out and you don't want to carry the 600mm F4.... would you be buying a second 100-400mmm or that 200-600mm. It's a hard choice and I would just be intrigued to see which way you would go.
@@BayouJosh Good answer! Not that there is a right answer! I guess the real answer is that if Sony had the equivalent of the Nikon PF lenses... it would be that :)
Nice video Josh! I'm curious if you ever tested out the 200-600G on a tripod with gimbal head while you had it? I've heard the internal zooming nature of the 200-600G lens means the balance of the camera setup doesn't change much when you change focal length (unlike similar external zooming lenses such as a 100-400). Of course I understand your video focused more on handheld use and that you probably would always want to use your 600 prime when going to the trouble of setting up a tripod.
Great video with some useful tips. As you know, I am sticking with Nikon with my Z9 and Z7ii. I have the new Z100-400 on order and am looking forward to using that. At present I am using the Z70-200 with a 2xTC to give me 400mm and have been very pleased with the sharpness and reach this gives me and is, of course, a very manageable lens hand-held. I also have the Nikon 200-500 f5.6 and for a low-cost lens, it does give very good results. However, it weighs a bit and at my age (73) carrying these heavy lenses is rather tiring. I have the new Z 800PF on order but as that weighs about the same as the 200-500 I am beginning to think of cancelling and, instead, buying the F-mount 500 PF. I know you had one of these when you were a Nikon shooter and spoke very highly of it. I already have the F-mount 1.4xTC so that with the 500PF would give 700mm at half the weight of the 200-500 or the 800PF. Decisions, decisions, decisions!!!! Thanks for another informative video.
@@BayouJosh Absolutely, but I do find lugging the 200-500 around gets a bit tiring and I see that the 800PF is almost exactly the same weight. When it was launched I watched so many videos saying how light it is. As and when my dealer gets one in I will make a decision but, of course, I could get the 500 right now as several dealers now have stock!!
The 800mm is optimised with weight distribution at the back. Every review says it’s beautiful to handle. I think with the z9 it’s a game changer of a lens.
Good video josh, thanks. With the improvements on sensors on the new aps-c cameras, did you ever consider one? The cost in both dollars and weight can be huge. If you and katie are shooting down to dx mode, isn’t that about the same. Keep up the nice videos. I do want to mention that i hope you don’t move completely to video, i am a stills shooter and love your pictures.
Thank you Scott. We will always take pictures. That’s where my heart is as well. I’m waiting to see if Sony releases another APS-c camera. Definitely for Katie more than me.
Oh, OK. The title says Canon, Nikon, and Sony. But the video is about Sony. You mentioned pricing questions. But not the one I have. Which is, why is the Sony 100-400mm more expensive than the Sony 200-600mm? I always thought "bigger lens, bigger price".
Josh, Every time I think about the 600mm F4 I want one. We will purchase the Canon R1 (2 of them) when it comes out but may not be able to couple it up financially with (2) 600mm lenses. Guess we'll have to wait and see. Great video and thoughts.
Its kind of funny but in the beginning when I started I needed more reach and that can be the most expensive glass, as I got better I could get closer. I just picked up the 600 F4 and cant decide if I should keep both the 200-600 and 100-400
First, thank you for the video. I’m primarily a Sony shooter and for longer lenses have the 100-400 and 200-600. No long primes yet. Recently though have also shot a Z9 and have the opportunity to use their F mount Af-S 500mm f/5.6E PF ED VR and now there new Z mount Z 400mm f/4.5 VR S and these two primes are really nice at about $3300 and even more interesting with the 1.4x TC. The also have the new Z 800mm f/6.3 which I think is less than $7000. Wish Sony would consider making some primes like these that cost a fourth to half of the super fast telephoto lenses. They are also very light for the focal range they cover. Much more affordable for sure. Do you think the can consider these type of lenses?
Great video Josh, very helpful. I would like to know if you tried the 200-600 on Katie's a74. I am considering giving up on Nikon and buying the a74 and the 200-600. The a1 and the 600f4 are way out of my price range being as I am 74 and retired. I have heard there is some focusing issues with the a74 and the 200-600, I was wondering if you had any of these issues. Thanks for your help.
I did and it was just fine. my only problem with that 200-600 is that it felt almost as heavy as the 600f/4 which weighs 1.5lbs more. no issues with AF or image quality though.
First as always thank you for the video. I will be curious to see what the Nikon 200-600 looks like but have direct experience with the Sony 100-400 GM and 200-600 G. Also trying out the Nikon and finally scored the 100-400. Would be interested on your thoughts on 100-400 with 1.4x TC instead of any of the 200-600. Take care.
Glad to hear you finally got the 100-400. I don’t have any experience with these new teleconverters but I do know that I have not been a fan of the old Nikon DSLR teleconverters.
