I really like that you cross-compare across camera brands and that you don’t declare definitive winners. You state the strengths and weaknesses in both and use the equipment in real-world situations rather than in a lab or controlled environment. So great videos as of late.
Thank you Clinton. That's exactly what I try to do. Use them how I would to get great images and then see what I like and don't like. Most of the time I don't find a clear winner, especially when the gear doesn't really match in terms of specs. So I just hope that it makes it easier for people to make the right decision when they're looking for new gear :)
Yes, I agree! It is so refreshing when there is all this brand warfare absolutism fanboy BS. I'm really impressed with the Canon as I like the compact design, lighter weight and better IS combo for video, and standard front thread size. The quirks with the TC don't bother me either. The minimum focus distance is a nice-to-have as well but not ranked very high for me. All-in-all a very impressive lens from Canon or my needs.
@@jan_wegener I was shooting both systems and watched this video before a trip to Costa Rica. I was going to buy one of these lenses and the size and weight was important to me so I went with the Canon 100-500. Was extremely happy with that lens. My trip companions had the Sony 200-600 and they also had great shots. Each have their pluses and minuses and this video really helped to determine what is right for me. Thank you Jan!
Jan, Thank you for this video. Your objective review, without all the dramatic hype in so many of the RU-vid posting, is appreciated. You demonstrate your keen knowledge of camera lenses. Further, you are a master of photography and all your wildlife and nature viewers should appreciate the fact that you compared the lenses in real time on outdoor-not studio images and videos. Best of continue good health and magic light.
Great video. Thanks. I have an R5 and 100-500. I shoot a lot of butterflies and insects, as well as birds, and the lightness of this combo excels. Plus, its close focusing distance and the 100mm, well you know I am happy with this combo.
Neither lens, by itself, is compelling enough to cause anyone to switch systems. If you like the Sony system, get the 200-600. If you like the Canon system, get the 100-500. Can't really go wrong with either lens. So far, there is no single perfect lens. I agree that the difference at the low end (100 vs 200) is more pronounced than the long end. I complement my 100-500 with the excellent rf800mm.
I am afraid I totally disagree. To compare any gear, you almost have to factor in price point into the evaluation. I mean if the difference is only slight, then fair enough. But, do you have any idea what is the price difference we are talking about here? I can only speak about my own geographic location which is Hong Kong. Perhaps because of the extreme lack of availability of the RF 100-500mm (may be due to the global chip shortage and/or COVID supply chain issues), the price has shot up to way beyond Canon HK's recommended retail. MSRP = HK$22,080 (US$2,841). Actual retail = HK$27,500 (US$3,539), essentially the price of another R5 in Hong Kong. As for the Sony FE 200-600mm. Actual retail = HK$12,380 (US$1,593). The price difference is US$3,539 - US$1,593 = US$1,946. In other words, the RF 100-500mm costs well more than double of the FE 200-600mm. Personally, I am of the belief reach is king. And if you are a Canon shooter which I have been all my life, you should appreciate the joy of using an internal zoom much like the old EF 70-200mm, buttery smooth zoom ring with an ultra short throw. So, when you combine that to a 2.2x premium, oh yes you can bet it matters and is more than compelling to make anyone switch systems. And to add, if you are saying you have on top bought the RF 800mm f/11 to complement the RF 100-500mm to make up for its short reach too? My goodness. LOL.
Actually the price of the 100-500L in Australia would make me switch to Sony if I hadn't already. Nearly $5K or 2x the price of the 100-400L and up to 2.5x the price of the 200-600 all for less reach and less speed. RF glass costs in Australia are ludicrous and I would have to use all my EF glass even if I did get say the R3. Such a shame as optically the 100-500L is good and it's light, but also silly restriction on the use of the 1.4x TC make it hard pass.
@@minusinfinity6974 Absolutely. Initially, I tried to do the responsible thing when the price of the R5 dropped to US$3.5K over here in HK, so I pulled the pin on one as I thought the A1 was overpriced. That was after I asked another RU-vidr who did a review on his own setup with a R6 and adapted with the Sigma 150-600mm. He told me it was fine, so I thought let's just adapt my own Sigma for now and worry about an upgrade later on. But, as it turns out, there are certain communication issues. As such, I have now ended up where I have ended up, namely a R5 without an ideal superzoom. I was watching a local video on RU-vid a couple of days back of a guy who rented a boat to go out to shoot some terns. They would throw bait into the water as the terns sweep down in close distance. So, he was saying how great the RF 70-200mm was. So, out of curiosity, I decided to check out and compare the price of the RF 70-200mm f/4 with Sony's own exact same lens. Boy oh boy, Canon = HK$12,800 (US$1,647), it is even more than Sony's FE 200-600mm! How is that even possible?! Then, I compared it to Sony's own FE 70-200mm f/4 = HK$7,480 (US$962), in other words the Canon is 71% more expensive. Is just ridiculous. To make the situation worse, there are no third party RF mount lens support. Sigma's RF mount lenses won't be out for a good while yet. In the meantime, the A1 has also come down in price a bit while the R5 has in fact gone up slightly since I bought mine. Bottom line is this, even when you compare the combo lump sum, it has now become a very reasonably small amount. For that slight premium, you will get 30 fps, bigger buffer, no blackout, no rolling shutter, etc. More than reasonable right? So, yes I can definitely see myself selling out all my Canon gear to move across to Sony.
I agree with you Kevin. If you are not already committed to a system, then price plays a bigger factor. If you already have a lot of Canon gear or a lot of Sony gear. The respective lens from each system makes the most sense. I also agree that Sony & Canon are so close atm that less and less people would see the need to switch brands based on one being far superior.
if you only want one lens and one camera then the price plays a huge role. Once you add multiple bodies & other lenses the whole calculation will look different again. The 200-600 is the best value lens around, no doubt. Yet for me as a Canon shooter the cheap price has not affected any purchase decisions. Also because the only body you can really use it with is an A1 to me. So if Sony brings out a camera that can compete with the price and specs of an R5/6, than the 200-600 will really start to shine, because then you can get a great combo for much cheaper. For now it's really a wash imo
Good stuff Jan. My first reaction is that I wish Canon went with a 200-600 over a 100-500, but I absolutely would not have traded that for the more compact form of the 100-500. I LOVE the portability of that Canon.
that's actually pretty close I'd say. Although I would give a slight edge to the 800. Personally I have gone with an extender for now, but I also have to lug a big 600mm prime with me around already.
Just recieved the 100-500 at the weekend and my 1st shoot got really close to a kingfisher down the local canal so got some great pics on the R7 until I lost the light as was late afternoon so lowlight f7.1 not good .can’t wait for a nice day and try again with some good light 👍👍
My choice is the Canon Eos 90D with the Sigma 150-600 Contemporary. That’s the most I can afford. And with an effective focal length of up to 960mm, due to the crop factor, I’m not complaining that extenders don’t work very well with my combo. Sharpness is more than acceptable.
that is an awesome combo and very do'able for more people; 90D is awesome. I got the 80D before the 90D came out...then went straight to R. 90D would of been awesome to have.
Great comparison Jan. I went for the Canon combo as a one camera, one lens walkabout nature combo, primarily for the lighter weight and flexibility of the 100-500. In particular, the shorter close focus of the 100-500 means that I can use it for closeup butterfly, dragonfly and insect photography as well as birds and larger wildlife without having to carry a second lens (another weight saving) or change lenses in the field. I’d still go for a dedicated macro lens for pure macro but for a majority of the time the flexibility the Canon wins out for me .
I don't disagree that these lenses are the best side by side comparison. Yet for bird photography the 200-600 is the much more interesting lens. I would prefer the 100-500 over any 100-400, simply because it offers more reach without extenders & has the same size and flexibility.
@@jan_wegener as you also stated in your video the 100-400 and 200-600 follow different philosophies (small vs reach). That's why I have both in use ;) For birds the reach is often key, you're right. For longer walks I take the 100-400 with me. Canon's 100-500 is the comprise in between I think.
Interesting and fair comparison, thanks, Jan! I received a RF 100-500 a few days ago and I'm quite impressed so far! I wanted to thank you for making these videos available. I recently updated my old trusty 1D Mark IV and have a R5 now. Watching the video with your BIF settings saved me a lot of time, it's much appreciated! The way the eye-tracking works is quite remarkable, I'm sure I will have a lot of fun with the R5. Viele Grüße!
Pity the sony A7 iv wasn't out then , ive just ordered that with the 200- 600 combo , £3,000 less than canon with extra reach and internal focusing it's a no brainer
I use the 200-600 with the A7RIV. Alas, no Bird Eye AF. Went shooting with my brother and his R5 and 100-500. What a difference that feature makes! I found your review to be spot on!
Excellent. review. You handled some tricky topics really well in the this and as a result, the world has a top-notch discussion of the pros/cons of each system. I am loving my r5/1-500 setup.
2 years later, but lovely and complete video, exactly what i needed to decide if i'd upgrade for sony or canon for my bird photos. (okay the lens isn't everything, but still O:) ) Anyway thanks for that!
Another super helpful video - I really appreciate all of the great comparisons you’ve made here between the zooms and in comparison with the 600m and 800m primes. The video capability alone has me sold on the Canon, along with the ability to easily pull back to shoot and film the surrounding habitat. I’m leaning toward the Canon 100-500 for run-and-gun shooting and the 600mm Canon prime for the days when I know I’ll really need the reach.
The Sony lens is a beautiful piece of glass but I think I would prefer the 100-500mm Canon for its lighter weight and closeup capability. Really nice comparison review 👍👍
I own a A7RIV with the Sony 100-400GM which is also a nice combo for birders. The 100-400 with the 1.4 extender is basically the same price as the Canon lens but I would say the A7RIV autofocus takes a small hit with the extender attached. If I wasn't already invested in Sony I would definitely buy the Canon combo now. Sony could fix a lot of shortcomings with firmware updates but as for the A7RIV there have been basically none since the launch, and the A1 is just a little too expensive offering not much over the R5. Props to Canon for catching up to Sony in such a short time
Thanks for sharing your experience. I agree that once you are committed to a system you not just gonna quickly change over again. Canon was way behind Sony, but has done pretty well in closing the gap. In the end it's good for all of us.
I am now an olympus user. However, I had a7riv, a9 and r5 with 200-600 and 100-400 lenses. The R5 and 100-500 is by far the best ff camera and lens combination on the market. I shoot motorsports and wildlife in central/eastern Europe and Scandinavia.
I have the Sony a9 with the 200to600 the lens is outstanding for it’s price I film wildlife ! one thing to bring to peoples attention is when you do video work a internal zoom is much easier to balance on a tripod I’m going to get the a1 soon it looks amazing But well done to canon for catching up with the fast moving market
Very eye opening. Thanks. As I just switched from the 5d iv to the R5, I obviously do not consider „defecting“ to Sony. Neither am I too excited about the rf 100-500, specifically for its slow aperture. I think canon should consider making an RF 150 to 500 f/4-5.6 with a built-in 1.4 extender. However, I guess Sigma’s 150-600 with rf mount is more likely to become available in a suitable time frame. Bottom line, for the time being, I stick with my ef 100-400 ii, which so far only rarely let me down, except for the lack of reach, that is.
Very interesting Jan, and very helpful to those of us who are in the market for one of these. For me the video capability of the Canon is far superior especially with the ability to stabilise the long lens. That’s why the R5 has to be the one for me
Thank You for a fantastic review. I happen to have both of these lenses. Nowadays I use RF 100-500mm with the new R10 and max reach is actually 800mm.R10 has superb birds eye AF ,maybe even slightly better than my earlier R6. Only downside this noise ,so I have to use Topaz denoise for low light photos. I use FE 200-600mm with A7lll which is also a good combo ,but nothing beats Canons AF and Sony A1 is too expensive for me. Thanks to your review I will buy 1,4 tc for Sony and get the same reach as my Rf 100-500 with cropped body. Anyway the Sony combo is better with really low light.
Really useful and well presented Jan. You made some extremely valid points about the flexibility of the two lens for both photography and video.it’s that sort of comprehensiveness, delivered from a pragmatic perspective that differentiates your videos from some others. Thank you .
The Sony 200-600 G is corrected for breathing which requires it to decrease in focal length with closer focus. It is not a consequence of internal focus or being a zoom. Breathing correction is a great feature for video and AF performance. Primes can also be designed to reduce breathing.
Excellent video and comparison between the two lens. Your findings are very interesting. I won’t have issues with either combos. They both are great. I own an R5, the RF100-500 is an outstanding lens. I brought it to my recent vacation where I hiked a lot. The 100-500 has great flexibility. I was able to take wild flower shots (top view) by standing on the trail. With Sony 200-600 minimum focusing distance being 7 ft or so, I would not be able to do the same.
Jan you’ve got the lens cap on the 200-600; and none on the 100-500. What’s going on ? I do see your point Jan. The close up advantages of the 100-500 kind of eliminates the need for a 70-200 separate lens. It does offer better flexibility for shooters in varying situations. Bravo ! ✌️👏🏻😅
Great Thought provoking Video! I have both the both the Sony 200-600 and 100-400. I would almost like to compare the Sony 100-400 to Canons 100-500. I think both of Sony's lenses with my A1 are fantastic. Since you talk about Vidoe, I would love more posts about taking movies with Mirrorless cameras, getting started, settings, basic editing etc. I look forward to all your information, so helpful!
My next video is about taking video. Yes, it would be a closer comparison, but for what I do, the 200-600 is the much more interesting lens and the only Canon counter part is the 100-500
Great review, but I do think the Sony looses some details in very bright areas while it keeps more details in dark. While the Canon lens is the opposite. It just comes down to what one prefer, but they both have a range of dark and white that is just different, not better or worse the way I see it. At 13:37 it can easily be seen at the white area on top of the head. Canon I can see more details while the Sony it blends into "all white" at some places. However the price difference between the lenses are huge, while the quality except video seems comparable. I wonder if Canon lenses are just more expensive, or if it's because of the different design/build they have.
Regarding the dark eye on black feathers: for such semi static scenes you should employ a smaller focus area (6 sizes available) with tracking enabled (both normal and bird eye). Then whenever the BEAF fails to detect the eye, it will simply track the dominant feature within the area, e.g. the birds head. The tracking initiated by such a smaller area does not limit where the target is tracked, it will still follow it all the way out to the image edge. Also the BEAF will continue to try to find the eye within the tracked target (i.e. the bird head) and often pick it up later. In summation, it's so reliable and easy to use that I would blame myself for missing focus on that cutie.
I consider the 2 combos winners probably the best options you can buy these days. If I have to pick only one of them it would be the R5 + RF 100-500 for versatility, price and weight. But can't go wrong with any of these two. Good job Jan!
Jan just came across this Video, one of the best in depth videos on these two lenses. Having just come back from a two week birding trip and carrying around the 200-600mm with teleconverter Its very interesting how much smaller and lighter the Canon system is. Cheers again..
Very helpful comparison. I'm already quite invested in other Canon lenses. I really want something longer for birding and was considering adding a Sony body just to avail of the 200-600. But your illustrating the flexibility of the 100-500 really swayed me. Thanks for the well detailed review.
Instead of getting an extender, get a crop camera and you get 1.5 times crop by the ways of physics and you get the full functionality of the lens, also, 24mpx. If you have an A7 III, it will only get 10mpx when in crop mode. So you'd only be able to replicate that with an A7R III/IV, due to higher mpx count. A6400 though, has the A9 processor, which means fast and precise AF just like the big boys.
@@pdog109 it can only register the centre of the lens, because a full frame lens is made to cover a full frame sensor, which a crop sensor is not. It only takes less than half of what the lens is projecting to the sensor, therefore the end result is cropped, or more zoomed in by 1.5 times.
I've learned so much from your vids Jan! So helpful to have bird photographers giving advice in an Australian context. Thank you. I used a 7Dmk1 and the 400mm f/ 5.6 for years. The lens was great, but the 7D was just so outdated, so I was well overdue for an upgrade. I ended up buying an R6 and the 100-500 late in 2021 over the Sony 200-600 and the a7iii. The thing that really made me stay with Canon was that the eye af wasn't available for video in the a7iii and I figured the switch to mirrorless was a good chance to get into video. Now, the A7iv it has eye af in video mode, has a 33mp sensor, plus you can pair it with this great 600mm lens at f/ 6.3. AND it ends up being nearly $2000 AUD cheaper. My new camera constantly blows my mind, but if I had to make the decision now, I reckon I might be drawn to Sony.
Thanks for the comparison video. I choose sony a1 with 200-600mm for wildlife, no doubt 100-500 is a great lens but I didn't found any difference between these two lenses in terms of sharpness. And for wildlife reach matters for me, accordingly Indian wildlife nothing you get closer like your place , and mostly I do photography North East India.
Really appreciate your series of videos covering the performance and pros and cons of the RF100-500mm lens, Jan. 🙏 They are excellent quality, really detailed and answer all the questions that a prospective purchaser like myself would want to know. I've done a lot of research and think I've read and watched every review possible! But your practical insights and real world experiences are so valuable and I've taken the plunge and picked up this lens at a good sale price. I think paired with the R5, this is a tough hybrid combo to beat in terms of flex and the new R5 Mk II should elevate to another level. Looking forward to really putting it through its paces! Thanks again 🙂📸
I don't do video...but...many of us dislike telescoping zooms (though I have owned several)...When bumped or dropped often telescoping zooms can become damaged...also moisture and dirt seem to collect faster internally...Anyway the Sony 200-600/5.6-6.3 lens works for me as I have Sony cameras...Cheers Note: extension tubes mitigate close up problems...
I have the Canon RF 100-500mm. Lighter, wider, and more compact than Sony. Can take macro shots and the animal eye AF on the Canon is absolute phenomenal!
great video Jan, I actually went from Sony A7RIV with 200-600 to Canon R5 with 100-500 last year for a better bird and animal AF (A1 was not around then) and have been pretty happy with my decision. I was curious about A1+200-600 vs R5+100-500, even thinking about renting A1+200-600 combo to check out...... I wanted to add to your comment re: 1.4 and 2.0 extenders on 100-500, as I also discovered, there is a similar situation if you add tubes to 100-500. Using Fotodiox Pro 35mm extension macro tube to 100-500, the lens with autofocus only works in the long range, around 300-500mm, which is not a problem, because the idea of the tube is that you want to be able to get even closer to birds/insects than lens' 1.2 M MFD. The extension tube is very cheap on ebay, and it works like a charm on 100-500, as long as you know the detriments of using extension tubes....
Great information! 200-600+2×teleconverter great for moon pictures. I upgraded from a7r4 to a1 after several pictures with rolling shutter disappointments from the a7r4. The A1s auto focus performance has significantly increased my keeper rate.
The closer focusing distance and the better stabilization in video makes the RF 100-500 the winner for me! When you add the weight and better performance on focus breathing is just extra
Hi Jan Super Video mit allen Facetten und detailliert, top! Ich hab heut jemand der auch Vögel fotografiert zufällig getroffen und über dich gesprochen und er sagte du seist eigentlich aus Berlin!? 😳 Das ist ja witzig das hört man gar nicht so richtig. Macht total Spaß deine Videos zu schauen kann man verstehen, dass du da lieber in Australien lebst 😂👍 Ich hab auch die R5 allerdings mit dem EF 100-400 mm II L wäre bereit das ging das Sony vom Preis her einzutauschen aber das RF 100-500 aktuell einfach noch zu teuer. Vielleicht eines Tages 😃
This was fantastically useful video. I love the lack of drama and hype in your videos. They are fast becoming my favourite source of birding information on youtube. Thank you for your content. This lens was the only part of the Sony range I felt bit like I might be missing out on when I chose the R5. These are two great systems and each will suit someone but after watching your video I'm happy that it confirmed my choice of Canon for my circumstances.
The defining issue will be what camera you have. Also, the Sony lens that should be compared to the Canon is the 100-400 GM, which is at about the same price point as the Canon zoom.
Very nice comparison video showing strengths and weaknesses of both systems. I currently am a Sony user using the Sony 200-600 with the A7riv and I use the 1.4x TC a lot. Am very happy with this setup for bird photography even though it doesn't have bird eye autofocus and only shoots at 10fps. Would be very interesting if you did a comparison of the R5 and the A1 with the 600mm F4 primes and the 1.4x and 2x TCs so we could see what you think their relative weaknesses and strengths are and which systems have the best reach.
This is an outstanding review. The new Canon IBIS and IS are sensational, Sony is pretty average IMHO and I have both systems. If I had my time over I would go with the Canon 100-500, however I'm not changing now.
I have the Sony A9 and with the recent firmware upgrade it does have bird eye tracking capability, but I haven't really used it yet. And yes I love the Sony 200-600 lens with the 1.4 extender. Unfortunately because of the size of the lens getting a bag for it isn't the easiest.
I'm using the R5 system and sibling using the Sony and yes, I noticed the focus breathing it was driving nuts, I thought the 600 was going to give me a lot more than it did. They are both great but getting older I like the weight of the Canon better LOL
Not a Sony user, but I have the same combo in Canon. 600mm and 100-500mm which I find is a killer combo. Great flexibility in 100-500 and wow the 600 really is great and the backgrounds are like melted butter most of the time. The eye-detection on the R5 is great, only if the bird has the right (wrong) colors will it get confused. It's easy enough to fix most of the time. Nice review and comparison of the gear!
Just as other's finally begin to close the gap, the Canon R5II will be out in a few month's! I bought the R5 for a great deal at three grand, brand new and can't imagine needing to upgrade bodies for a LONG time! I'm also a Sony shooter and bought the a7II right at its release and because all my camera's are gripped, I have an a6300 as a lightweight backup with a cropped sensor. I have a Metabones adaptor for all the L series glass along with some great Sony lenses. My long winded point? I love em all...lol
Thanks Jan a great video. At this point in my life I enjoy the less weight of the canon combo and the macro ability. I am sure if I was using Sony I would also be very happy and also a little poorer. Is there any difference between the two in focusing with the extender? You are right about the eye focus it is revolutionary. Also with the canon the video stability is a big deal. Would you consider doing a video with your video settings on the R5?
With my video settings? Yes, the size & flexibility is what makes the Canon great. But as you say the Sony combo would be equally satisfying. I did find the Sony was a bit better with the extender when it came to consistently focusing
Not sure if it’s mentioned below but I own the Sony 200-600mm (love it) and had the same problem with the lens hood. It kept falling off. I later realized that you had to apply a bit more force when twisting it on -it then snaps into place.
Yes, that could've been the problem at times. I thought I always made it "click" into place, but maybe it didn't always go in fully? BBut even when locked it, it didn;t feel like a super tight hold
@Jan Wegener Mine feels fine, once clicked in it takes quite a bit of force to get it off again. Maybe you did not have it properly locked or the tolerances on your copy are not great.
This comparison doesn't make sense? The Canon 100-500 is more in line with the Sony 100-400. I have the Sony 100-400, 600mm, and 200-600. The 100-400 focuses just under 3' at 5.6 vs 200-600 at 6.3 just under 8'. I use the 200-600 when I want more flex than the 600 and when I don''t want to carry the 600mm. I pull out the 100-400 for completely different reasons. They each have a purpose which you have missed in this comparison. Plus, Canon is great and Sony is great as well as Fuji, Nikon, etc.. Time is better spent learning the best way to use the gear you have vs wondering what another brand offers. I know brand comparisons get more views, but very few photographers are going to switch brands. Take a look at Mark Galer that spends 100% of his time teaching Sony users to get the most from their Sony kit. You are a Canon shooter so maybe you could spend your time really helping Canon shooters how to get the best from their Canon kit. Keep us the great work. Thanks
I agree with you. This guy & his friend are misleading people, these are not fair comparisons. The price of A1 can't be justify with R5's price, it's a stack sensor camera , meant to be used in electronic shutter mode in every scenario
Is it doesnt make sense to compare? I think not. Both have total 400mm in zoom range. But its overlap each other in focal length. Both have its pros & cons. I get it if you think it doesn't make sense. 100-500 is not usual focal range. We just not used to it. Cause 500mm at long end makes the lens sits in between 100-400 200-600. If you think it is fair to compare nikon 200-500 or sigma 150-600 against sony 200-600, then it should be fine comparing it with canon 100-500.
G'day Ron, what Canon lens would be a good comparison with the 200-600? The 100-500 is the closest thing we have so it makes sense to compare the two. The 100-400 vs 100-500 would also make for an interesting review however I'm sure if Jan did that people would say that isn't fair either. I think this review is very valuable and so informative for many people who are considering purchasing either lens. Cheers, Duade 👍
@@adhi_atma The Sony 200-600mm was released as a budget option at the same time as the 600mm f4. The 200-600 isn't premium glass, it is G not GM. I am not sure if Canon makes an entry level comparable lens as I don't follow Canon. I do know that the Canon 100-500 and the Sony 100-400 are both premium glass and built using the same external zoom design. They have close zoom ranges, max aperture, focus distance, etc.. The 200-600 just isn't in the same class as the Canon 100-500 or Sony 100-400 GM. Again it is designed from ground up to be a budget long range lens for enthusiasts not willing to spend $11,000 on the 600mm F4. It isn't pro glass. VW is a nice car, but isn't a Porsche. To compare them is of no real value. I have no dog in this fight as nothing Canon does could encourage me to switch. My opinion is that a good photographer with Sony, Nikon, Canon, Fuji, or any other can take great photographs and if we looked at identical images taken with any of them no one would be able to identify the brand of camera used. All I want to do is use what ever gear I have to its max potential. Someone skilled with years of shooting one brand is not the right source to learn the potential of another brand. I follow Jan for his great skill as a bird photographer and apply what I lean to my birding skills. He doesn't know Sony well enough to talk about them in an informed way, but if you want to know specific ways to use Canon then this is the place. 😎
@@Duade The Sony 200-600mm is not premium glass it is a G not GM. The closest comparison is the Sony 100-400 GM and the Canon 100-500. They are both similar designs with very close specs in size, weight, minimum focus distance, max aperture range, etc.. The Sony 200-600 is a budget lens and not in the same class as the Canon 100-500 or the Sony 100-400. I like my Sony 200-600, but it can't do what my Sony 100-400GM does.
As ever love these vidoes, can't wait to get my hands on Canon 100-500mm! Out of interest where abouts in Victoria di you take those shots as I am a visitor to Victoria from the UK, my daughter and her ever growing family live south of Echuca?
As I have the R5 I was interested in the RF100-500. But, your video is excellent for both examples. I really enjoyed your take on both systems. Cheers from Vegas.
Excellent video, unbiased real world revue, very useful accurate information. I haven’t made the move to mirrorless yet, still waiting for Canon to make a 200-600mm Lens option, I think I could have a long time wait.
Have both, love both ;-) The only "problem" with R5 is it has no a stacked sensor. Is ok readout is quite fast, but in some cases in electronic you may have some sort of rolling shutter.
For me the 100-500 is the perfect lens, pretty much the lens I've wanted since I started my photographic journey, it's the optical quality combined with the small size and versatility. With that said I'm more of an allround photoghrapher than a nature / wildlife shooter. Also I haven't been blown away by Sony ergonomics when trying them out so it's Canon for me.
Bought a 1,4 extender about 2 month ago and yes it was really annoying at start not to zoom back all the way, but as time went on it has become normal! So since day one it's been mounted to my rf 100-500, love that combo! Allso bought a lenscoat even cooler now! :)
I currently use an R6 with the Sigma 150-600 and will eventually pick up the Canon 100-500. I try to support my really excellent local camera store and they have had some difficulty getting their hands on the RF 100-500. I have tried the RF 600mm f11 for a while but sold it. I think the R5 is a ideal companion for the 100-500 because it should be more droppable than the R6. Even after saying that I have really had no resolution issues where I felt I needed more than the R6. With a sharp lens I think the R6 is quite competitive with a fair amount of cash left over. I have some issues with Sony files from another Sony camera that I bought last year. While that was resolved by a software update in my work flow it still left me with a bad taste for Sony files. That, combined with the higher price of the A1 will keep me using Canon for full frame. I also have a Panasonic M43 setup that I use when size is an issue. If someone would build a M43 system with eye AF equal to the Canon I’d probably buy two bodies. I can live with the small sensor issues but I think once you’ve had the Canon Eye AF it’s difficult to go back to anything else.
Very comprehensive Jan and this just shows the differences in the different systems they both have their good and their bad. Which one for me you ask. Let us not forget the budget option Canon offer which l am more than happy with is the R6 with a Tamron 150/600 and 1.4 extender.
When I want a packable lens, I prefer 1.4 kg and 21 cm over 2.1 kg and 32 cm. The physical realities of size and weight matter when you're in the backcountry. In this scenario, I'm doing more than just photographing birds, so losing
Thanks for your great comment. A fantastic summary! Having a big prime myself, the flexibility of the 100-500 is ideal, especially having the 100mm available. The Sony is essentially a small prime lens with a zoom function, rather than a zoom that over a lot of flexibility. If I could only own one lens, the decision might be a bit trickier. But as you say there's definitely a market out there for that lens.
I own 200-600 for 2 years now and can say with no doubt that this lens does very well for what it is. You can use it with any sony camera that has inbody stabilisation, I use it with an a7c for its price pointб its video capabilities and its crop mode. Used a7Riii before it but its too bulky and as I have a7siii for video as a main camera I bought a7c as a second one for the compact size camera and wildlife photography. And on a7c I have great results even at 600mm handheld. The only thing i miss on it is the 6.3 aperture on 600mm, its too dark for shooting at pre-sunrise and after the sunset when lots of animals are in active mode. For sure the lens you are shooting with, often depends on the animals and birds you are shooting. Nowdays every hiking trip a take my sigma 100-400 with me because its much lighter and smaller - only 1100 grams and has 400mm reach on the long end when sony 200-600 os 2.3 kilos and twice bigger. So all in all I think Canon 100-500 is more likely to stand opposite the sony 100-400 or the sigma 100-400 but not the sony 200-600 because all these lenses are designed for different stuff.
Hi Jan, Thanks for your informative camera equipment videos. I have a Sony Alpha 7 Mark 3 and it also offers me Animal Eye tracking. The camera came with the latest firmware installed. I am getting my 200-600 lens tomorrow. My kit so far is the camera with 28-70 F4 and 70-200GM F4 lenses. I will definitely add the 1.4 teleconverter to my bag in a few months time. I have several bird and animal photos from my time as a tour guide in South Africa. I also photographed some World Superbike racing at Kyalami in 2010.
One year later, I bought the Sony a7R5 to pair with the 200-600 lens, the AF performance is much better. Now the Sony combo is much better than the Canon one.
